2140 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	433d94ee0b	refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 15:27:23 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	5a6d0d08a7	fix: record verified workspace file recovery from tasks (#16104) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Recovery must preserve files and show the next operator action. > - A stopped run can leave a file repair hold after its recovery action is resolved. > - The task notice shows that hold but has no form to record verified file recovery. > - A chat connection can also replace the file repair instruction with a chat retry instruction. > - This pull request adds a file recovery form and preserves the file repair instruction. > - The form records evidence for the original run and keeps the current task status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A retained workspace file hold can block a task after its recovery action is resolved. The task page offers no file recovery form. A chat binding can hide the required file repair instruction. **Expected behavior** An authorized board member can record verified recovery of the original files. The server checks the original stop proof. The task keeps its current status and does not start another run. Chat instructions must not replace file repair instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a stopped legacy run with a retained workspace recovery marker and a resolved recovery action. 2. Open its task page, including a task with a chat connection. 3. Observe that the file hold has no supported form to record verified recovery. Refs: #15857, #15824, #16095. Those PRs address shutdown export, native finalization and workspace source isolation. This PR uses the existing file repair API. ## What Changed - Add a board-only file recovery form with evidence and an explicit file verification confirmation. - Preserve the current task status when recording file recovery. - Project whether the original recovery marker supports file recording. - Keep file repair instructions when a task has a chat binding. - Add UI, route and Storybook examples for success, denial and chat-connected file holds. - Document the recovery flow and update the affected Storybook catalog entries. ## Verification - Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index conflicts. Upstream review notes and classifications are preserved, together with all four retained-file recovery examples and their stable story IDs. Both fix branches also combine without merge conflicts or catalog fingerprint drift. - Passed locally after conflict resolution: 47 tests covering the file recovery UI, execution blocker notice and retained workspace repair route. The earlier ownership-route pass also covered 196 tests. - Passed: UI token gates, the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script tests. Verification inventory counts match all 262 authored suites and 2,485 story IDs. The upstream production verification obligations remain intact. - Passed: full workspace typecheck, build and Storybook build on latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48`. The built index retains all four file-recovery story IDs. - Latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48` has 54 successful checks and two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Apex is 5/5 on that exact commit, with no unresolved findings. The full general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards passed in CI. Local tests use the focused suites above. Storybook browser interactions have not been executed locally. - Manual check: open a task with a retained file hold. Verify that evidence and confirmation are required. Record verified file recovery. Confirm that its status stays unchanged and no run starts. Repeat without board runtime access and with an unverified stop receipt. ## Risks - The form records an operator attestation. It does not recover files itself or prove external action outcomes. - A stale source or missing stop proof must remain rejected by the existing server route. - No database migration or automatic task retry is added. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`), used through Codex with reasoning, repository tools, code editing and test execution. The exact context window size is not exposed by 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] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 13:47:10 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c8efdbfba4	test(storybook): add production examples for feature map UI gaps (#16196) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The feature map records the user-facing capabilities. > - Storybook uses the same feature index. > - Step 2 found 49 UI capabilities with no authored examples. > - This pull request adds shipped-component examples with isolated fixtures. > - The catalog records each example's states and remaining production checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16167. The verification inventory is merged; this follow-up now targets master. ## What Changed - Add 37 suites and 257 scenarios for all 49 UI capabilities from the step-2 inventory. Keep existing stories and IDs. - Use shipped pages and components. Simulate API replies, sockets, props, and callbacks at their boundaries. - Activate story API fixtures before the application providers read data. Block unregistered API mutations and restore owned storage/fetch state. - Add browser checks for rendering, declared play assertions, fixture reset, and selected mobile/theme states. Update the catalog and verification inventory. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - UI Vitest suite: 730 files and 8,208 tests passed. Fixture boundary tests: 4 passed. - Map/catalog checks, 27 generator/map tests, and token gates: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. All 2,248 previous built entry IDs remain present. - Pre-reconciliation static browser suite: 260 checks passed (257 scenarios, token fixture reset, and two mobile/theme cases). All non-play stories assert an explicit subject state; 129 play functions passed. - `pnpm test:run` could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL exhausted host shared-memory allocation. The run also reported native-runner test timeouts. Only this task's verified runner was stopped; other jobs and host settings were preserved. - Reconciled onto merged master `252d9b5077`. The six draft stories and new same-browser reset regression passed (7 checks); 16 draft-persistence tests and UI typecheck passed. Static merge verification: 32 affected-subject/draft checks passed, including same-browser reset. Rebuilt Storybook retains all 2,248 original IDs in its 2,517-entry index. Four additional play-result checks passed: visible onboarding reset, pending probe, filtered-empty runs, and optimistic queued-response removal. UI typecheck and 27 catalog/map tests also passed. Final static browser suite on `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 261 checks passed (257 scenarios plus fixture-reset and mobile checks). Latest head `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 55 CI/status checks passed; the two optional Storybook workflow jobs were skipped. Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - No pinned Linux visual-baseline comparison or real provider journey is claimed. ## Risks Fixtures can drift from production contracts. The catalog records inspected sources and their fingerprints. Capability links provide initial isolated UI coverage; they do not certify every recipe variant, real permissions, persistence, or provider behavior. The new examples expose existing UI limits. Plugin discovery failure stays on Loading. Document and environment-list reads lack dedicated failure feedback; Cases and Inbox fall back to empty views after errors. Goal alignment has display views but no assignment control. These findings remain visible in the inventory. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. The exact runtime deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used code generation, shell execution, and browser verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 13:24:09 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	252d9b5077	docs(storybook): record verification routes for missing examples (#16167) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product capabilities and verification journeys. > - The Storybook catalog links existing examples to those capabilities. > - A capability without a story can need UI examples, CLI checks, or browser checks. > - This pull request records the required verification surface for all 60 current gaps. > - The next Storybook pass can add useful examples without claiming backend proof from mocks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16154. Reconciles the new task-notification capability from #16153. The related PR search found no duplicate of this classification pass. This change follows the merged association corrections. It does not add product behavior or duplicate a roadmap feature. ## What Changed - Add `maps/storybook-map/VERIFICATION.md` with all 60 unassociated capabilities: 49 UI example gaps, eight CLI/operator operations, and three browser verification boundaries. - Record required UI states, separate production checks, source links, and existing test starting points. Keep execution marked not run. - Link the record from the catalog contract. Tell the maintenance skill to keep its rows, counts, and source revision current. - Regenerate the feature index for personal task notifications. Refresh only the inspected recipe/index-dependent review fingerprints. Retain all 223 suites, 2,212 authored IDs, associations, and classifications. - Record the targeted association revisit. It found no additional justified links. ## Verification - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - All 27 catalog, feature-index, and map structural tests passed. - The maintenance skill validator passed. - A source check confirmed that the 60 unique rows match all non-guide association gaps. All report, contract, and skill file links exist. - `git diff --check` passed. - Inspect the eight CLI/operator rows and three browser rows. UI/API capabilities retain both obligations. - Full repository typecheck, tests, build, Storybook build, and live product journeys were not run locally for this documentation and generated-data change. No live proof is claimed. - Final head `a9ef9e8ebc1f41bb7047142704655d08b3e47be7`: all 57 checks/statuses are green (55 successful, two Storybook jobs skipped). Greptile approved this head at 5/5. The review finding is resolved and the PR is mergeable. ## Risks - This source inventory can become stale as capabilities or associations change. The maintenance skill requires refreshing its rows and source revision. - Existing test links identify starting points. They do not certify complete or passing production coverage. - There is no migration, permission change, product behavior change, story removal, or new visual baseline. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with source review, documentation, and checks. It used shell tools and read-only area agents. The runtime did not expose an exact backend model revision or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 12:39:04 -05:00
3 people	2a56e5c734	fix(ui): show soft budget incidents as warnings, not hard stops (#16201) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Budget policies limit what an agent, a project, or the organization can spend. > - At the warning threshold (80% by default), the server opens a soft incident. It does not pause the scope. At 100%, it opens a hard incident and pauses the scope. > - The budget incident card always shows the hard-stop design. A soft incident shows "agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", and a "Keep paused" button. > - Operators read this as a paused agent. The policy card and the "Paused agents" counter for the same agent say something different. > - This pull request shows soft incidents as warnings. Hard stops do not change. > - The benefit is that the Costs and Budgets pages give one consistent and correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description I searched open and closed issues and pull requests for "budget incident", "hard stop", "soft incident", and "BudgetIncidentCard". I found no issue for this bug. Refs #14306: that open PR also changes `BudgetIncidentCard`, for failed-action feedback. It does not change the soft and hard labels. The two PRs can conflict in this file. **What happened?** An agent budget policy reached its warning threshold. The Audit → Budgets page and the Audit → Costs overview showed the soft incident as "AGENT HARD STOP" with the banner "This scope is paused. New heartbeats will not start until you resolve the budget incident." The card showed "Raise budget & resume" and "Keep paused". The agent was not paused. Its policy card showed "Warning", and the "Paused agents" counter did not count it. **Expected behavior** A soft incident looks like a warning. It says that work continues. Its actions are "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". A hard incident keeps the current design and actions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an agent budget policy with a $1,000 monthly limit and the default 80% warning threshold. 2. Record $800 of cost for that agent. 3. Open Audit → Budgets. 4. Look at the active incident for that agent. It says "agent hard stop" and "This scope is paused". **Paperclip version or commit** Seen on v2026.1012.0 (`bba6a45`). The same code is on `master` at `721e87ac0`. **Deployment mode** local_trusted (not deployment-specific). ## What Changed - `BudgetIncidentCard` reads `incident.thresholdType`. A `soft` incident shows: - The heading "<scope> budget warning", with amber styling and a warning icon. - The banner "Spending crossed the warning threshold. This warning does not pause work." - The actions "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". They call the same handlers as before (`raise_budget_and_resume` and `keep_paused`). For a soft incident, the server dismisses the incident for `keep_paused`, and the resume step has no effect because the scope is not paused. - A new-budget prefill of the current limit plus $10. Before, the prefill was equal to the current limit, so "Raise budget" did not change the limit. - A `hard` incident does not change: the same heading, banner, styling, prefill, and actions. - The "Active incidents" description on the Costs page now covers warnings and hard stops. - New tests in `BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx` cover a hard stop, a soft warning, and a project hard stop. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx`: 3 tests pass. Before the fix, the soft-warning test failed with `expected 'agent hard stopOpen…' to contain 'agent budget warning'`. - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Costs src/components/Budget`: 31 tests pass. - Manual check in a running instance (v2026.1012.0 with this patch, seeded with an agent at 100% and an agent at 80% of a $1,000 budget), in light and dark themes: - The 100% agent shows the red "Agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", "Raise budget & resume", and "Keep paused". - The 80% agent shows the amber "Agent budget warning", the warning banner, a $1,010.00 prefill, "Raise budget", and "Dismiss warning". - "Paused agents: 1" agrees with the cards. - `ui` typecheck: no errors in the changed files. The local run had unrelated errors in `PluginOrganizationSwitcher` because the plugin SDK was not built. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is UI-only. Hard-stop rendering and behavior do not change. No API, server, or data changes. - The soft card now prefills a value above the current limit. Before, it prefilled the current limit. - PR #14306 changes the same component. One of the two PRs can need a small rebase. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs, Playwright screenshot capture). A human requested and reviewed 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 (no `doc/` page describes this card, so no change was needed) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Aron Prins <aronprins@icloud.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-13 10:12:49 -07:00
4 people	0b0e53029f	fix: recover saved workspace results automatically (#15824) ... ## Thinking Path - Paperclip preserves accepted agent results before workspace copyback and result commitment. - A replaced controller can leave a physical copyback owner receipt behind. A lost database lock or expired lease cannot prove that its tar/Git children stopped. - Infrastructure recovery should belong to the runtime and deployment harness; task users should not investigate processes or attest shutdown. - New receipts record the exact deployment. The harness independently verifies that deployment fully stopped and signs a short-lived proof bound to the stack, run, owner and deployment. - The existing guarded reconciler then finishes the same accepted result without a new agent turn. Legacy receipts retain the documented administrator API after independent platform verification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An accepted native result can remain at `workspace_finalizing` with an abandoned physical copyback owner. Repeated recovery sweeps could replace specific instructions with advice to start new agent work. The first version of this PR exposed a shutdown-evidence form in the task; that asks end users to resolve infrastructure details. **Expected behavior** Automatically verify and recover the exact stopped deployment, preserve the original accepted result and existing approval/monitor waits, and show only a quiet task status. Unknown or live workers must remain fenced. Older receipts without platform identity need independently verified operator assistance through the administrator API. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist an accepted native result and a copyback receipt from a prior controller. 2. Replace that deployment before workspace finalization commits. 3. Let the normal finalization reconciler revisit the saved result. 4. With a platform-bound receipt and a fully stopped deployment, recovery should finish automatically. With missing, live, unverifiable or changed ownership, it must not write files or create another provider turn. Related public work: #14402 introduced copyback ownership; #9687 handles dead-run finalize barriers; #15795 handles terminal stale-run cleanup. This change addresses an accepted result whose physical copyback owner prevents commitment. ## What Changed - Record Railway project, environment, service and deployment identity on new physical copyback owners. - Request read-only platform verification from the managed cloud harness. Require an Ed25519 stop receipt with a disjoint purpose, configured signing key, exact stack/run/owner/deployment binding and valid expiry. - Keep live, unknown, malformed, unavailable and legacy owners fenced. Compare the whole prior receipt during ownership takeover, under the existing dedicated advisory lock. - Persist platform proof and audit automatic takeover. Resume normal finalization of the same saved result, preserving task ownership, approved boundaries, monitors and pending confirmations. - Remove process metadata, shutdown evidence, confirmation checkboxes and infrastructure-repair forms from task views. Suppress the duplicate technical owner-recovery card. Show “Restoring saved work…” only from server-confirmed recovery or queued operator recovery; platform identity alone shows the operator-assistance fallback. Remove the status when recovery resolves. - Share current-task, current-running-execution, accepted-result, authoritative-reviewer and newer-execution checks between automatic and operator recovery. Validate after the provider lookup, atomically with the owner claim, and again before file publication; closed or superseded tasks cannot start copyback. - Keep the separately authorized exact-owner API for operator recovery of legacy receipts, with active-lock, live-controller, stale-result and newer-execution rejection. Generic dismissal cannot bypass the copyback fence. - Replace obsolete form stories with production-backed automatic, queued, legacy, completed and mobile examples; retain stable suite IDs. Update the operator runbook and scoped Storybook catalog. ## Verification - Red/green: new platform-proof tests failed before implementation; the database takeover regression failed against the original ownership guard; reduced-UI assertions failed against the original form. All pass after the changes. - Passed: 59 physical-owner/finalization database tests using isolated PostgreSQL, including real reconciler commitment from all three saved-result phases through both automatic and operator recovery. They preserve result identity, exact saved file bytes, pending approval and overdue monitor waits, and create no new run or wake request. Unknown evidence and changed ownership remain fenced. - Passed: 162 focused proof, cloud identity, recovery route, recovery-card and reduced-UI tests. - Passed: full workspace typecheck and build, final server/UI typechecks, token gates, and Storybook build. - Browser inspection: desktop task composition shows only the quiet status; completed example removes it and retains the approval-wait message. Mobile shows the existing bottom navigation with no horizontal overflow. These are fixture UI observations, not live provider acceptance. - A companion harness change implements the actual provider check, signed receipts, server-token authentication and bounded/coalesced provider reads. Its full typecheck and test suite passed: 3,240 passed, 92 skipped, zero failures. This application alone cannot enable platform verification. - The updated full application `pnpm test:run` was stopped after repeated local embedded-Postgres startup failures; it is not claimed green. The same affected recovery suites pass against isolated PostgreSQL. CI passed on final head `9ad5c3529e`: 54 successful checks, two intentional skips, and successful legacy Snyk status. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Global Storybook catalog validation is green: 225 files, 2,224 stories. Its 17 catalog/index tests pass. Master was merged and the inherited index metadata was reconciled after source review. - Review correction red/green: two UI and two database assertions reproduced misleading progress / missing server recovery state; all pass after server-confirmed state was added. All 153 focused server tests and 68 UI tests pass on the final recovery code, including repeated-sweep idempotence. Full workspace typecheck/build, token gates and Storybook build also pass. - Safety regression red/green: stale-task copyback and publication tests failed against the previous guard. The final suite covers changes during proof lookup, closed/cancelled tasks, replaced execution/checkout, newer and queued legacy runs, reassignment and rejected/unbound results, plus the real reconciler selecting closed or superseded tasks. Files remain untouched and no workspace operation starts. - No staging mutations, deployment, live provider probes or live production recovery were performed. The three historical receipts lack deployment identity and still require independent operator proof. ## Risks Automatic takeover requires the companion harness release and configured runtime-identity keys. Deploying only this application leaves unavailable evidence fenced. Legacy receipts are not retrospectively assigned a deployment identity. An authorized operator can still make an incorrect attestation through the fallback API; its administrator gate and exact-owner safeguards remain. Provider history that is missing or deeper than the bounded lookup defers automatic recovery. Copyback can still fail under its existing retained-workspace policy. No migration, telemetry change or cloud provider credential delivery is required. The companion harness PR also has passing CI and a 5/5 review; neither branch is deployed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, browser verification, tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the relevant 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 <paperclip@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 10:14:45 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	be380ba155	fix(ui): hide agent-created tasks by default (#16157) ... Hide agent-created, system-created, and chat-channel tasks from independent collections by default. Preserve task hierarchy context and existing inbox participation. Add a saved opt-in checkbox without helper text. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 09:26:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5e8e992df2	fix(storybook): reconcile capability associations and map omissions (#16154) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The feature map describes user capabilities and verification recipes. > - Storybook holds isolated examples of those capabilities. > - Missing catalog links can hide existing examples. > - Some stories also expose shipped capabilities absent from the map. > - This pull request adds verified source associations and three paired map entries. > - Readers can find existing examples without changing their homes or URLs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16052, #16049 and #16046. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook capability lookup and the feature/agent access maps. **Current behavior** Seventy capabilities have no example link. Some matching stories already exist. Primary-agent preferences and company decision/fast-response services appear only under broad neighboring capabilities. **Proposed behavior** Add source-supported links across 34 suites. Keep shared foundations in place while cross-listing them. Add primary-agent, decision-model and fast-response capabilities to both upstream maps. Retain explicit simulation and partial-example limits. **Reason and benefit** The catalog distinguishes missing associations from missing examples. The upstream map describes three existing product capabilities more precisely. **Breaking changes** None to product behavior, story exports, folders, sidebar titles or URLs. A shared foundation can declare a reasoned `home: "foundations"` override while referencing related capabilities. ## What Changed - Add 55 references across 34 suites. Replace primary-agent suites' reporting-line association with their own capability. - Add three source-reviewed capabilities and their API/actor boundaries to paired maps. - Preserve the shared Foundations home when cross-listing developer design examples. Add a validation regression test. - Record which exports demonstrate each association and what remains simulated or unverified. - Regenerate the catalog and capability data. Preserve all original 223 authored suites and 2,210 story IDs. Retain the two skill-removal stories added by current master, for 2,212 authored stories in total. - Reduce empty example lookups from 70 of 171 capabilities to 59 of 174. Links do not establish complete capability coverage. ## Verification - Passed: 27 catalog/generator/map tests, catalog validation, map structural checks, token gates and skill validation. - Passed: source inventory comparison preserves all authored files, titles, meta IDs and story IDs. - Passed: repository typecheck/build and Storybook build. Final built index has 2,248 entries and preserves all previous entries, including the two skills stories added by current master. - The broad local repository test run was interrupted before completion to resolve a new master conflict. A complete local suite pass is not claimed; fresh CI passed on the reconciled branch. - Browser: Design links to preserved Foundations stories; company-service sections link settings/history/journey suites; decision SetupToHistory passed 12 interaction steps; primary-agent ReplacePrimary passed four steps. No console errors in selected checks. - Greptile: 5/5 on final commit `805a8af62abe589907e7cc6ca1b415ce1e0cc3c0`, with no findings or unresolved threads. - Final-revision CI passed all 57 checks/statuses, including all eight browser shards, server and Runner tests, typecheck and build. The unchanged Cloud-auth mocked-response race seen on a superseded revision did not recur on the final commit. No test expectations were changed. - New agent-access evidence is source-only. Live provider and agent-credential verification is not established. ## Risks - Suite-level associations can represent only selected states. Notes retain those limits and existing review classifications. - In-memory connection drafts do not prove reload persistence. Resume-failure UI does not prove successful continuation. No-op budget controls do not prove relief or resumption. - Three map capabilities document existing behavior. No permission, API, provider or production component changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution and source inspection. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 08:11:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	aded4197e5	fix: make multiplayer task toasts personal (#16153) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A company can have several human users and shared agents. > - Live task events currently produce toasts for any user who can read the task. > - This makes unrelated work interrupt other users. > - This pull request checks each user's task participation before it permits a toast. > - Users receive relevant task notifications while company views continue to refresh. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Company task activity and agent failures produce noisy toasts for users who have no involvement in the task. **Expected behavior** A task qualifies when the viewer created it, commented on it, is its assigned user, deliberately acted on it under the Mine rules, or has an explicit user mention in its description or a non-deleted comment. Viewing, agent ownership, responsible-user attribution, and parent participation alone do not qualify. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in as two users in the same company. 2. Have the second user create and update a task that does not involve the first user. 3. Observe a task toast in the first user's company view before this fix. The duplicate PR search found no existing change for personal task-toast eligibility. ## What Changed - Extract the existing Mine participation predicate without changing Mine behavior. - Compute task eligibility from stored tasks, comments, and run associations after WebSocket access checks. Use an exact indexed comment-mention lookup with `LIMIT 1`. - Add optional `toastEligible` metadata to each viewer's event copy. Keep it off the shared event bus. - Require eligibility for live task activity and task-linked run errors. Suppress generic agent errors. - Continue cache updates for quiet events. Refetch visible comments when authenticated events omit hydration details. Ignore stale socket callbacks after account or company changes. - Document toast semantics and add feature-map and agent-access-map coverage. - Add persisted-data, socket, UI, and authenticated browser regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit: `1dc4f9402c5883744738cfe236ad00fa0bb5ca4c`. - All 55 current-head checks passed. Two Storybook checks were skipped because this change does not affect that coverage. - Greptile approved this exact commit with 5/5. The security scan passed. Both review threads are resolved. - Local `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - The focused socket/UI suite passed 123 tests. The persisted eligibility suite passed 9 tests, including long history, exact viewer matching, and regex escaping. The existing Mine service suite previously passed 140 tests. - The named browser case `task toasts follow personal involvement in multiplayer` passed against the final commit in an isolated authenticated instance. It used two real sessions, real WebSocket delivery, and persisted tasks, edits, comments, and mentions. It verified quiet unrelated activity, viewing alone, first and historical mentions, own-action suppression, visible-task suppression, and live cache refresh. - A prior-head server shard passed its single rerun after a fixture-cleanup deadlock. The final-head CI run passed without a rerun. - The broad local run remained in progress when CI completed the full test suite. Local focused checks and CI provide the completed test evidence. ## Risks - This intentionally reduces live notifications. A new client stays quiet against an older server that omits eligibility. - Eligibility queries add work to live event delivery. A lookup failure suppresses the toast and still delivers the authorized event. - Deleted mentions cease to qualify unless another participation rule applies. Historical comment authorship retains the existing Mine behavior. - No database migration or notification-settings change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with implementation, tests, documentation, and PR preparation. It used repository tools, shell commands, and browser automation. The runtime did not expose an exact backend revision or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 08:09:19 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2ad36f4ff2	Fix skill source removal with a keep-or-delete choice (#16150) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub sources import skills and keep their updates together. > - Disconnect only disabled a source and kept its read-only imports. > - A disabled source could not be removed or imported again. > - Removing a source needs an explicit decision about its imported skills. > - This pull request removes the source after the user keeps editable copies or deletes the imports. > - Existing disabled sources use the same removal flow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15731, #14713. **What happened?** Disconnect left the repository on Sources. Its Disconnect action was then disabled. The saved repository still blocked a new import. **Expected behavior** Remove the repository from Sources. Require a choice to keep editable copies or delete its imports. Allow removal of sources that are already disconnected. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Import a repository in Skills → Sources. 2. Choose Disconnect source. 3. Observe the disconnected row and disabled removal action. 4. Try to import the repository again. **Paperclip version or commit** d67e3507b2. ## What Changed - Add one confirmation with a required keep-or-delete choice. - Remove the source and entries, including legacy disabled sources. - Keep complete editable copies in My Skills, including shared repository files and executable modes. Preserve skill IDs, keys, versions, and agent assignments. - Delete imported skills and source in one transaction with its activity record. Check policy for every linked skill, including deselected entries. Reject deletion of skills still used by agents. - Fence removal with the source revision. Reload stale confirmations and require a new choice. Prevent an in-flight refresh from restoring removed imports. - Reject incomplete legacy copies with a recovery message. Lock copied skill rows against concurrent deletion and check publication succeeded. - Add regression tests and production-page Storybook examples. Make an initially unselected radio-card group keyboard accessible. ## Verification - Workspace typecheck and build passed. Final affected server/UI typechecks passed. - Focused server, UI, and API suites passed: 114 tests initially. After review fixes, all 21 source persistence and 58 route authorization tests passed, including the complete repository copy regression; affected server/UI typechecks and token gates passed again. - Design token gates passed. - Real isolated app: imported a public repository, assigned bro to the CEO, verified that deletion reports the assignment, kept an editable copy, observed the source disappear, opened the copy in My Skills, saved an edit, and refreshed. The assignment remained. Re-imported the same repository, deleted its new unused import, and verified the original editable copy and assignment remained. No model tasks ran. - Full local Vitest was attempted but terminated with exit 137 before completion; it is not counted as a pass. Current-head sharded CI is pending. Greptile reviewed the current head at 5/5 with no new actionable comments. The final workspace build passed again. - Storybook catalog aligned. The legacy removal example was inspected in the browser; the Delete choice enables removal. - Storybook: Skills / GitHub-synced skills / Sources · Disconnect source and Sources · Remove disconnected source. ## Risks - DELETE of a skill source now requires the saved revision and an explicit copy/delete choice. Old callers must update their request body. - Deletion removes imported skills and their records. Assigned skills must be detached first. - Incomplete legacy versions must be refreshed before keeping copies; removal does not silently discard supporting files. - Copies intentionally stop receiving upstream updates. Their IDs and keys remain stable for assigned agents. - No database migration. Copy writes use new managed directories and clean up on failure. Delete restores quarantined files before releasing publication locks on failure. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, configured model `gpt-6-astra`. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. Used shell tools, code editing, tests, and browser interaction. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 07:53:13 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	df06df2306	fix(slack): allow direct messages without at-mentions (#16151) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connections let people start and continue agent tasks. > - The Require at-mention setting currently applies to channels and direct messages. > - A person who sends a direct message has already selected the agent. > - This pull request exempts direct messages from mention checks, including queued work. > - People can talk normally in DMs while channel messages keep the configured mention rule. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15612, which introduced the Require at-mention setting. Searches found no duplicate PR for the DM exemption. **What happened?** With Require at-mention enabled, a plain Slack DM does not start or continue agent work. New Slack connections enable the setting by default. **Expected behavior** Direct messages do not need an at-mention. Top-level DM replies remain top-level. Channel messages and channel thread replies still follow the saved mention setting. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Allow direct messages and Require at-mention on a Slack connection. 2. Send a plain DM from an authorized sender. 3. Confirm the agent responds without an at-mention. Send a plain follow-up and confirm it also works. 4. Confirm unmentioned channel messages remain filtered when Require at-mention is enabled. 5. Disable Allow direct messages and confirm new DMs remain blocked. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline: `eb06c9fedd`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. Automated tests use disposable local Postgres and provider fixtures. This change has not been deployed or retested in live Slack. ## What Changed - Exempt DMs at inbound admission, task mutation, work authorization, and heartbeat queue claim. - Keep channel mention checks and all existing sender, endpoint, and destination checks. - Update regressions for new connections, follow-ups, deferred delivery, and coalesced queued messages. - Clarify the Slack settings copy, connection documentation, and verification maps. - Refresh the affected Storybook review references after source inspection. ## Verification - Passed 55 Slack and durable scheduler tests with Vitest on the current rebased commit, including admission through the extracted inbound module. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` on the rebased PR commit. - Passed token gates and map checks. - Passed Storybook catalog validation after rebase: 223 files and 2,210 stories. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after three failures in the unchanged tool-access suite. All 418 tests in that suite passed in a standalone rerun. The focused regressions passed; full GitHub CI remains the merge gate. - Greptile reviewed commit `b0293fa6571403c5e01c30bb7b5fcc5e91b88c97`: 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. All 55 GitHub checks passed on this commit; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - No live Slack messages were sent during implementation verification. ## Risks Existing Slack connections now accept authorized plain DMs even when Require at-mention is enabled. Allow direct messages and sender authorization still apply. Queued DM work follows the same exemption. Channel behavior and DM reply routing are unchanged. No schema or migration change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 07:40:46 -05:00
3 people	9bd820e687	feat(storybook): mirror the complete feature-map index (#16052) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes its user-facing capabilities and verification recipes. > - Storybook provides isolated UI examples for those capabilities. > - The previous organization showed only features with primary story suites. > - This pull request derives the complete Storybook index from the upstream map. > - Readers can find the same features in both places and see related examples or explicit gaps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16046 and #16049. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook navigation and the downstream feature catalog. **Current behavior** The sidebar has 28 primary feature homes. The feature map lists 35. The main guide groups suites alphabetically by area slug. Related examples can live under a different feature. **Proposed behavior** Use the feature map's eight sections and 35 features in the same order. Give each feature an Overview page with all its capabilities, related example links, and missing-example messages. Keep shared foundations outside the product index. Preserve all existing stories and URLs. **Reason and benefit** Readers can move between the feature map and Storybook without learning a second index. A feature without cataloged examples remains visible. **Breaking changes** None to existing story IDs or product behavior. Storybook start and build now reject stale generated feature pages and ordering. Run the catalog generator after upstream changes, inspect the output, and review affected source fingerprints. ## What Changed - Generate 35 feature Overview stories and capability data from the upstream map. Generate the inline sidebar order required by Storybook. - Replace the main guide with the full ordered feature index and search. Link all related suites from feature pages, even across primary homes. - Preserve all 223 authored files, 2,210 story IDs, and the existing docs ID. Keep status, implementation, and fixture classifications visible. - Put the generated Markdown catalog in feature-map order. Keep generated guides outside example counts. - Update maintenance and review skills, documentation, and generator tests. Keep the feature map independent of Storybook. ## Verification - Passed: 16 catalog and generator tests; map checks; token gates; both skill validators. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and the Storybook build. - Built-index comparison preserved all 2,211 previous entries and added only 35 feature overviews. Feature order matches the map. - Browser: inspected the complete index and sidebar, searched for Goals, opened its overview, and followed a related suite under Projects. The original suite renders. - Passed: all 8,170 UI tests in 728 files. Browser checks also covered empty search, capability-ID search, missing-example pages, the original editable-text bookmark, the CLI sidebar label, and searching/opening shared foundations. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after a failure in the unchanged GitHub chat test `authorizes description edits as the editor, never inheriting the original author's access`. That exact test passed alone without code or expectation changes. A complete local repository suite pass is not established. - Original revision CI passed after one runner retry. The merged revision `5ca01c70716f23974680a8019ddc613035d11bc4` passed fresh CI. Local UI typecheck, catalog checks, 16 generator tests, map checks and token gates pass. - Greptile: 5/5 on final commit `5ca01c70716f23974680a8019ddc613035d11bc4`, with all findings resolved. - Master merge: inspected source drift in 61 catalog entries and regenerated INDEX, preserving upstream notes. Marked the sidebar suite that mounts IssueDetail unreviewed for the new activity query; recorded limits for composer and channel-default changes. No stories removed. - Final Storybook build passed. Browser filename searches for `new-task-composer` and `forms-editors` return the expected feature and shared example. - No visual-baseline or full production acceptance claim. The deeper authored scenario groups remain intact. ## Risks - The parser depends on the feature-map Markdown contract. It rejects unknown index rows, omitted feature recipes, and unexpected generated files. - A suite can reference several capabilities. A link proves catalog association, not complete behavior coverage or production parity. - Storybook treats `/` as a folder separator. Sidebar labels use a comma for that character; the guide and page headings retain the upstream name. - No database, API, authorization, or production component changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: copilot-swe-agent[bot] <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-10-13 07:01:29 -05:00
Dotta	4a641d0980	fix(ui): default human task replies to the latest assigning agent (#15594) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks let agents ask a person for input. > - The reply composer needs a useful default recipient. > - A recent comment does not identify the agent that assigned the task. > - The old fallback can select the person who is writing the reply. > - This change uses the latest agent assignment and keeps manual choices. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** When an agent assigns a task to a person, the reply composer can select that person or a different commenter. A data refresh can also replace a manual selection. **Expected behavior** For a task assigned to the current person, select the latest agent that assigned it to them. If no such assignment exists, use the latest other commenter. If neither exists, leave the recipient empty. Keep explicit choices during refreshes. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Have agent Alpha assign a task to a person. 2. Assign it to agent Beta, then have Beta assign it to the same person. 3. Open the task as that person. 4. Check that the reply composer selects Beta. 5. Select another recipient. Refresh task data. Check that the selection stays. Related work: #15091 shares task composer controls. This change fixes recipient defaults. ## What Changed - Read real assignment changes from REST and native runner task activity, in time order. - Record human assignee fields in native create and reassign activity. - Ignore unchanged assignment fields and assignments to other people. - Use the assigning agent before comment hints for human-owned tasks. - Connect the suggestion to current and classic task composers and pipeline replies. - Keep manual selections when suggestions change. - Add regression tests and document the fallback. - Use tasks with no assignee in the attachment receipt tests. This keeps the tests on the comment route. Dismiss announcements through the real UI. - Record human and agent assignees in REST creation receipts. Include child creation in the assignment history resolver. ## Verification - Focused tests cover assignment order, creation, other recipients, unchanged fields, fallback, and manual selections. - Browser fixture uses the real composer and assignment resolver. It selects Beta and keeps a manual human selection after history refresh. - Passed: 223 focused tests across four suites. - Passed: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - Passed: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`. - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates`. - The initial CI run passed full build, typecheck, Rust, unit tests and seven E2E shards. The attachment shard exposed tests that relied on the old self-selection default. The tests now select the recipient explicitly. - Native assignment regression tests and resolver tests pass: 40 tests. - Attachment E2E suite: 10 passed; one page-load timing failure passed on an isolated rerun. All 11 cases passed across the suite and rerun. - Previous full CI passed at cc7ed05. New CI must pass on the current head. - Latest local checks: 16 resolver tests and 7 workspace policy tests pass. REST creation audit tests cover both creation routes. - The latest browser check could not start. The UI build exceeded the local memory limit (exit 137). Full typecheck, tests, build, and browser checks will run in CI. ## Risks - Old activity rows without previous assignment values cannot prove a reassignment. They use the comment fallback. - An empty fallback requires the person to choose a recipient or use the existing no-assignee flow. - No database or API schema changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The session does not expose an exact model build or context window. Used code editing, shell tools, tests, and browser verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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 Final validation at f83f2f6: 55 checks passed. Two optional Storybook checks were skipped. All browser shards passed. Both review threads are resolved. Classic attachment tests use the real no-assignee confirmation.	2026-10-13 00:56:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7d7f55e4be	fix(apps): show user avatars and center access rows (#15577) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their access to apps. > - The app access page shows people with linked chat accounts. > - The identity response omitted the user's saved image. > - The row placed the avatar beside only the first name line. > - This change returns the image and centers the avatar beside both name lines. > - People can recognize linked accounts and still see initials when no image is available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The app access page showed initials even when the linked Paperclip user had a profile image. The avatar was above the vertical center of the Disconnect button. **Expected behavior** Show the linked user's saved image. Center it beside the Paperclip and chat names. Keep initials when no image is available. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Link a Slack account to a Paperclip user with a profile image. 2. Open the app's Access tab. 3. Inspect the person's avatar and the two name lines. Searched public issues and pull requests. No duplicate fix was found. Related avatar work in #15095 concerns agent uploads, not linked user profiles. ## What Changed - Return `paperclipUserImage` from the chat principal service and declare it in the API and client types. - Use the shared avatar primitives and center the avatar beside the full name block. Keep full names available in hover text. - Add image and initials examples to the existing Storybook access story, with image and alignment checks. - Extend the service test to check saved images and missing images. ## Verification - Token gates and `git diff --check` pass. - The 33 existing chat setup and identity-link UI tests pass. - The OAuth installer service regression test passes. - Chromium rendered the Storybook Access story at desktop and mobile sizes. The avatar, name block, and Disconnect button centers all measured 307 CSS pixels on desktop. - UI typecheck passes. Full repository typecheck and build stop at the Rust runner because this workspace has no `cargo`. The initial parallel typecheck also exceeded the 4 GiB workspace limit. The full local test attempt was stopped as memory approached the 4 GiB limit; it has no complete verdict. CI passed the full build, typecheck, test, and E2E lanes on the initial commit. The previously reviewed commit passed 54 checks with two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Master was merged on October 10 to resolve an import conflict; fresh CI is running for `24badb742d331c1b6ee3e90cbd06defefe5cd634`. Token gates and whitespace checks pass after conflict resolution. The single retry after CI runner shutdowns passed. Greptile gives this commit 5/5, with both review threads resolved. ### Screenshots The Storybook fixture shows an image, fallback initials, and a pending account.   ## Risks Low risk. The API field is additive and needs no migration. The image uses the same avatar primitive as other user identities. Missing or failed images retain the initials fallback. Other chat providers share this access row. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. Tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>	2026-10-12 23:54:01 -05:00
3 people	56a0bf0d49	Support test Cloud connector identities (#16033) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its Cloud connector uses an environment-bound identity to call a hosted broker. > - The identity parser and enrollment flow accept development, staging, and production. > - A separate test broker needs its own environment identity. > - This pull request accepts test identities and maps the test broker to that environment. > - Known hosted brokers still reject identities from other environments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Cloud connector configuration and self-host enrollment. **Current behavior** The app rejects an identity with environment `test`. Self-host enrollment infers development for the test broker. **Proposed behavior** Accept `test` identities at `https://test.paperclip.app`. Infer test during self-host enrollment. Reject development, staging, and production identities at that broker. Continue to reject test identities at the production and staging brokers. **Reason and benefit** Branch testing needs a separate broker so test identities and requests stay in their selected environment. The existing identity, enrollment, and signature flow can provide that isolation with a new allowed environment value. **Breaking changes** Existing environment values and broker checks keep their current behavior. Older app versions cannot use test connector identities. ## What Changed - Add `test` to managed and self-hosted connector environment types and validation, and to the board API enrollment status type. - Infer test from its hosted broker and enforce the matching environment. - Test enrollment persistence, signed request environment/audience claims, and broker mismatch rejection. - Document test broker configuration in the development guide. ## Verification - Connector, enrollment, and board API-client suites passed: 63 tests across three files. Board UI typecheck and token gates passed after synchronizing its enrollment response type. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed, including after rebasing onto current master. - `pnpm test:run` completed its general server stage: 17,867 passed, 105 skipped, and 9 failed across 5 files. The runner stops at that failing stage, so it did not run subsequent workspace/serialized stages locally. All nine failures also reproduce on the unchanged base commit in a separate checkout. Five skill-related cases resolve an unrelated ancestor skills directory; two workspace cases accept a remote main branch that their fixture expects to be absent; two permission-cleanup cases return macOS `ENOTEMPTY` instead of the expected permission error. - Current-head GitHub CI passed, including full general and serialized test suites, typecheck, build, runner checks, and browser e2e. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - `git diff --check` and Gitleaks passed. ## Risks The new environment value is additive. The test broker must support test identities before use. This change preserves existing signature handling, managed identity overrides, and rejection of mismatched identities at known hosted brokers. A local full-suite pass is not claimed; the nine failures above also occur without this change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning and tool execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Dotta <34892728+cryppadotta@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-10-12 19:32:33 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	f329b24ee1	feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749) ... Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries. Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head 753680b61c. All review findings are resolved; the PR records focused verification and historical acceptance limits. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 20:45:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	88bf4c6c1d	refactor(storybook): organize folders and navigation by feature map (#16049) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product areas and verification entry points. > - Storybook has 223 story suites that show production components, proposals, and retained history. > - The parent PR maps those suites to features, but their folders and sidebar still use unrelated groups. > - This pull request puts the existing suites under feature folders and uses the feature map's names and order in the sidebar. > - Explicit meta IDs preserve existing story links while the titles change. > - Contributors can find stories through the same product structure without losing examples. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16046. This is the requested follow-up. Parent #16046 is merged. This PR now targets master, with its single follow-up commit rebased onto the parent squash merge. The Storybook implementation is unchanged by that rebase. Related open Storybook PRs were checked; this change organizes existing suites and adds no product capability. ## What Changed - Move all 223 story files into folders named for their primary feature area. Keep useful scenario groups below the feature's sidebar label. - Order the sidebar by the eight feature-map sections. Put Overview first and shared Foundations last. Leave areas with no stories out of the sidebar. - Move 19 support files into `ui/storybook/support/` and update relative imports and active documentation. - Preserve all 2,210 story IDs and the single docs ID through explicit CSF meta IDs. Keep all entry names and story exports. - Record stable IDs and sidebar titles in the downstream catalog. Validate feature folders, title prefixes, and IDs. Update the maintenance skill and review evidence. ## Verification - Storybook build passed. Built index comparison against parent `75bd3c977cd828d5222823850339e8204f40eb47` found the same 2,211 entries, IDs, and names. - UI typecheck passed (`ui/node_modules/.bin/tsc -b` from `ui`, invoked as `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`). - UI Vitest project: 728 files and 8,176 tests passed. - Catalog checker and its nine tests passed. Feature-map checks, token gates, and the maintenance-skill validator passed. - Chromium: nine existing play cases and one render case reached `storyFinished: success` with no page exceptions. The guide rendered, sidebar sections followed map order, and a search for `steering/queue` opened its preserved story link. - Source comparison found only meta title/ID changes, rebased relative references, and updated fixture path text in story files. - To inspect: build Storybook, start `node scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs --port 6136`, and open the Overview guide. Expand feature folders and use existing story links. - The complete repository suite was not repeated for this organization change. The parent records a backend timeout that passed in isolation, without a complete broad-suite pass. Visual comparisons remain blocked by the unpublished empty baseline. The separate fixture-server story was not run. ## Risks - Open branches that add stories under old paths will need to choose a feature folder and update the catalog. Cross-feature suites have one primary home and retain related capability references. - Sidebar paths change; story and docs IDs remain stable. Automated references to source paths may need the new location. - This is one requested follow-up with 258 changed files, mostly moves. It exceeds the usual review-size guideline because splitting it would leave the sidebar and folder convention partly migrated. - Browser verification samples ten stories, not all 2,210. Existing production/prototype classifications and review gaps remain unchanged. - Required CI gates and a 5/5 review passed on the original head. Fresh checks and review are running for the rebased head. Catalog validation and all nine checker tests passed after rebase; UI, map, skill, and checker contents are identical to the original reviewed head. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and local browser automation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 22:29:22 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	dabb8c5daf	test: remove repeated setup and strengthen regression proof (#16022) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its tests protect company boundaries, approvals, durable tasks, credentials and the board UI. > - Several owner suites repeat large database fixtures and render frames. > - Some tests repeat stronger proof or pass when the behavior they describe is broken. > - This pull request shares exact setup, removes proven duplicate cases and repairs weak observations. > - It preserves distinct security, lifecycle, concurrency and user-facing contracts. > - The benefit is 5,027 fewer test lines and stronger regression checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15978. This continues the merged test-audit cleanup in [PR #15978](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15978), which removed 11,976 test/support lines. The savings in this pull request are additional. Related open work: [PR #13460](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13460) changes legacy OAuth parent/version lock ordering. This pull request retains those production paths and the existing lock-order test. Its secrets changes compact fixtures and repair the two AWS wrapper exclusion observations. Scoped title searches found no open duplicate audit or fixture-consolidation PR and no matching audit issue. The problem is described here using the enhancement template. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The maintenance and regression value of the existing server, UI, CLI, shared and wiki-plugin test suites. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting test code. Two UI modules also lose unused test inspection exports. **Current behavior** Owner tests repeat database rows, service inputs, HTTP setup and render frames. Some cases repeat stronger assertions. Two AWS lock tests record only cleanup events, so an AWS provider write can happen inside the held lock without failing those observations. Several other negative tests accept or do not observe the wrong result. Worktree fixtures also use a temporary path alias that conflicts with the existing canonical-path checks on macOS. **Proposed behavior** Use small local helpers that preserve exact inputs, fresh allocations, callbacks, query order and await positions. Remove only cases with named stronger keepers. Tighten negative assertions and observe actual AWS provider entry while a confirmed lock holder remains parked. Resolve temporary fixture roots to their canonical paths. **Reason and benefit** Remove 5,027 net test lines and 15 redundant registered executions. Remove 11 lines of unused UI inspection exports. Keep every distinct company, actor, approval, credential, persistence, stale-write and concurrency contract. No wall-time speedup is claimed for setup compaction. **Breaking changes** None for application behavior, APIs or stored data. The removed exports expose private UI test state and have no remaining callers. ## What Changed - Consolidate repeated runtime, workspace, portability, route, tool-access, policy, gateway and state-service fixtures. - Share repeated UI render frames and CLI/wiki-plugin setup while retaining the original actions and expected results. - Remove 15 repeated case executions only where the audit records an exact stronger keeper. - Repair weak HTTP/UI negative assertions and two AWS account-home lock observations. Keep the existing durable results and cleanup behavior. - Remove the unused `__inflightGetCount` and `__secondTickInternals` inspection exports. Keep observable request coalescing and ticker lifecycle checks. - Canonicalize temporary worktree fixture paths without weakening production path checks. - Record the owner decisions, savings, independent preservation reviews and validation in [the dated audit report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-rounds.md) and [the compact control evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-controls.json). ## Verification - Complete owner and retained-sibling baselines passed before each audit cutover. Independent reviewers checked the full original tests, actual helper bodies, exact inputs, receipt provenance, async order, fresh allocations and case registrations. - All 14 UI/route/wiki mutations failed at their intended assertions: ten UI/API/ticker controls, one route control and three wiki persistence/receipt controls. Each mutated production source was restored to its exact original bytes. - Both old AWS lock tests passed with their respective AWS-only lock bypass. Both repaired tests failed at the intended assertions with the same bypasses. These give 16 intended failures and two passing weak controls across 18 executions. Each source was restored exactly. - Final complete state-owner/sibling run: 329/329 passed at code revision `64370831ebe191e5ce092f85f79b6fb661df7e16`. - Final `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates` and `pnpm build`: passed at the same code revision. - Delivery head `58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa` includes the evidence commit and master `4b766b872993045a2e787404f0475503683e5ded`. All 27 audited test files and both application files match the locally verified code revision byte-for-byte. Current-head CI validates the integrated branch, including the incoming master changes. - All eight production-owner SHA guards for the 16 deliberate failing mutation controls still match the integrated delivery checkout. The mutation receipts therefore apply to those current owners. - Full default `pnpm test:run`: **failed** with exit 1 at frozen code revision `64370831ebe191e5ce092f85f79b6fb661df7e16`; HEAD and tracked source bytes remained unchanged. The first general-server group reported 878 passing files, four failing files and six skipped files; 17,846 passing cases, 24 failing cases and 105 skipped cases. Later groups did not run. Failures were `http-log-redaction` (socket hangup), `public-mcp` (initial 15-second timeout followed by hosted token “Refresh before subscribing” failures), `remove-test-home` (macOS `ENOTEMPTY` where permission errors were expected, plus cleanup failure), and `workspace-git-snapshot-streaming` (300-second timeout). All four failing test files and the relevant cleanup/MCP production owners are unchanged by this audit. Full local success is not claimed. - Focused complete-owner diagnosis at the same frozen revision: 149/152 passed, three failed, zero skipped. `public-mcp` passed 82/82 and `http-log-redaction` passed 66/66 unchanged. The two `remove-test-home` cases reproduced macOS `ENOTEMPTY` against an expected `EACCES`/`EPERM` contract; the 32 MiB workspace snapshot case reproduced its existing 300,000 ms timeout. HEAD and tracked files stayed clean. Exact blob comparison confirmed all four test files and the relevant cleanup/MCP owners match both inspected master `4b766b872993045a2e787404f0475503683e5ded` and the frozen local revision. The three remaining local failures are unresolved; no timeout, retry or assertion was weakened. - Current-head CI: [workflow 38299262149](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38299262149) has passed runner selection and created all downstream test/typecheck/build gates; those gates are queued, with no failures reported. Greptile completed successfully at `58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa` with [5/5 and zero comments](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16022#issuecomment-6131457592). All review threads are resolved or absent. This pull request will remain open after verification. Reviewers can reproduce the required workspace checks: ```sh pnpm -r typecheck pnpm check:token-gates pnpm test:run pnpm build ``` Browser suites were not run. Their sources and user journeys are unchanged by this audit. ## Risks - A fixture helper can hide a specialized input or change object freshness. Full-program expansion checks and independent reviews preserve the exact old inputs and execution order. - Removing duplicate proof can remove a distinct contract by mistake. The audit records the keeper for each deletion; all distinct security and lifecycle cases remain. - Concurrency checks can miss progress during a fixed delay. The AWS repairs record actual provider entry, confirm holder entry, use measured entry windows, require exact final event order and drain both operations in `finally`. - The full local default run failed. Focused diagnosis reproduced two macOS cleanup failures and one existing snapshot timeout in unchanged owners; these remain unresolved. Current-head CI is pending. No test deadline, retry policy, skip or CI shard was weakened to obtain a pass. > 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-6, reasoning, repository inspection, code execution and delegated audit/review. The runtime does not expose the exact served model identifier or context-window size; those values are unavailable and are not inferred from the model catalog. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>	2026-10-12 22:23:11 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	9e721264e9	feat: maintain Storybook through a downstream feature catalog (#16046) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Storybook supports review of its production UI and proposed designs. > - Its 223 story files have no consistent link to product capabilities or record of component and mock provenance. > - Old compositions can drift while they still look like current product examples. > - This pull request adds two maintenance skills and a catalog that consumes the existing feature map. > - The first audit preserves all stories and fixes proven fixture drift. > - Contributors can now find examples by feature and see what still needs review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook maintenance, feature discovery, and the accuracy of isolated UI examples. **Current behavior** Stories are already centralized under `ui/storybook/`, but their sidebar has 51 top-level groups. Production components, local prototypes, and historical designs are not consistently distinguished. The old guide uses manual coverage claims. GitHub searches found no duplicate feature-map catalog change. **Proposed behavior** Keep existing story locations and IDs. Add a downstream catalog keyed to stable feature capabilities. Record product status, rendered subject, data boundary, and declared review dependencies separately. Use dedicated maintenance and review skills to reconcile drift and report evidence. **Reason and benefit** The catalog makes existing examples reusable without treating mock behavior or old designs as production acceptance. The feature map remains independent of Storybook. ## What Changed - Add `maintain-storybook` and `review-storybook` skills with contributor guidance. - Inventory all 223 story files. Generate a feature index and provide searchable navigation in the existing Overview story. Track direct subjects through relative imports and local wrappers, including the primitives demonstrated by foundation suites. - Add a checker for inventory, capability references, duplicate IDs, and declared-source drift, with eight regression tests. The parser test covers real nested CSF files, export filters, explicit IDs, and play counts. - Preserve historical designs and classify mixed wrappers. Record the initial audit and remaining parity work. - Align the question-dismiss/send fixture with production behavior. Add dismissal and confirmation-reopen regressions and repair the editor selector. - Exclude three exported fast-response fixtures from story discovery and add the missing render-time callback spy. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`, `node --test scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs` (8 tests), and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`. - Passed: validators for both new skills, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`. - Passed: final Storybook build; nine selected browser `play` cases; three fast-response render cases; feature-guide search/link navigation; question-fixture reset on reload. - Built-index comparison preserved all 2,208 original story IDs and added only two new regression cases. - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui` (728 files, 8,176 tests). - The full `pnpm test:run` has reported a 15-second timeout in the untouched backend case `connects advertised Workspace gmail.read without mutating definitions in authenticated`. The exact test passed standalone without changing code, expectations, or timeouts. The remaining broad run was stopped after this failure. The full suite is not verified. - Visual comparison is blocked by the existing empty baseline manifest. The managed-accounts API/DB fixture was not started. See `maps/storybook-map/REVIEW.md` for exact scope. ## Risks - This is an initial inventory and targeted audit. 188 suites still require deeper state and fixture parity review. - Review hashes cover declared dependencies. They do not follow all transitive production imports or prove semantic correctness. - The catalog requires upkeep when stories, mapped recipes, or declared subjects change. Shared mocks still need feature-by-feature contract review. - No production application source, database schema, or upstream feature-map contract changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. Used reasoning, shell tools, file editing, and Chromium browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 17:20:00 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f0e12c8519	Add managed Slack setup with an independent own-app path (#15679) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connects a person to an agent through an installed app and a verified identity. > - Independent installations must remain usable without Paperclip Cloud or manager credentials. > - Approved Cloud deployments can use Slack manager grants to create and install each agent's app. > - Both paths should share credential storage, identity checks, recovery, and the existing runtime. > - This pull request adds gated managed setup and keeps independent app setup under Advanced. > - It also makes ongoing connection settings and personal test messages easier to use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Slack setup, connection settings, tenant credential storage, and the Cloud connector handoff. **Problem or motivation** Approved deployments need an installation flow without pasted configuration tokens. Open-source users must retain their independent Slack app flow. A connection manager also needs a simple way to check a bot from Settings. **Proposed solution** Use the managed path when the instance is configured to support it. Choose agent and Connect are the two visible stops. Continue starts authorization or installation. Use your own app remains under Advanced before creation. Save personal manager grants by company, Paperclip user, Slack user, workspace, and manager app. Reuse only verified identities for test messages. Unknown identities must complete a private Slack connection challenge before linking and receiving the test DM. **Alternatives considered** A shared bot would change each agent's Slack identity. Requiring Slack CLI or a hosted service for self-hosted users would remove independent installation. **Roadmap alignment** This maintainer-requested change improves Connected Apps and experimental Agent Chat. It adds provisioning and management controls to the existing Slack runtime. **Additional context** The companion Cloud broker profile is a separate deployment prerequisite. Managed setup remains gated. Existing-app adoption is deferred. ## What Changed - Extract Slack registration, provider requests, completion, customer-owned setup, managed setup, and personal manager grants into focused services. Preserve the compatibility facade and independent removal cleanup. - Add company-scoped manager grants and a registration reference through an additive, idempotent migration after current master. Keep runtime credentials separate from app-registration secrets. - Add authenticated manager authorization, sealed handoff, serialized refresh and revocation, app creation, managed installation, and installer-bound OAuth fallback. - Preserve creation intent, block automatic uncertain recreation, save credentials before downstream checks, and validate app, workspace, bot, scopes, and installer identity. - Add the two-stop production wizard and ordered stories. Keep the own-app, manual, existing-app, and legacy-draft paths. - Simplify Settings. Open Slack configuration targets the saved app. The test-message action has its own row. Remove the old manual-avatar section, channel-message section, and broken permissions link. - Add paginated account discovery and a private connection challenge for unknown accounts. Expired invitations stop waiting and offer a new private invitation. Save send receipts before provider dispatch and preserve confirmed delivery when activity logging fails. - Reinstall the saved managed app on explicit reconnect, replace revoked credentials, and resume completion. Persist reconnect intent and duplicate-request receipts without creating another app. - Update provider browser tests, recovery tests, secret redaction, setup documentation, and the agent prompt. Preserve current master's durable verification scheduling. ## Verification - Full workspace typecheck and repository build passed on `56d389d47a`. The subsequent reconnect retry fix in `288364eada` also passed UI typecheck and UI build. - 114 focused Slack registration cases and 13 production managed-wizard cases passed, including fresh-token reconnect, retry after installation failure, and duplicate reconnect requests. - All nine affected Slack browser cases passed against the production UI and a disposable fixture server. They cover managed setup, automatic setup, own-app selection, refresh, recovery, mobile behavior, and connection settings. - Eight focused real-database test-message cases passed. They cover a private ownership challenge, saved grant reuse, account pagination, revoked and conflicting links, workspace mismatch, disabled DMs, revoked membership, audit failure, ambiguous dispatch, and secret canaries. - UI token gates and the production Storybook build passed. - Greptile reviewed exact head `288364eada5d9c114fad991ff634612639d06672` at 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. - The full repository test suite and current-head CI are running. Their final results will replace this line before merge. - Earlier live feature previews created two bots in the authorized Paperclip Slack workspace and reused one personal manager grant. Local managed Continue created and installed a bot without a configuration token or a separate Add to Slack action. Avatars, welcome DMs, signed callbacks, and direct replies were observed. A Settings test DM also arrived in the signed-in user's Slack account. - Earlier staging thread qualification required manual publication recovery for one bot. Current-head live qualification remains required before enabling the production default. Fixture results do not establish Slack approval behavior in other workspaces. ## Risks - Personal manager tokens can create apps. They stay in scoped vault entries. The manager client secret stays at the broker. Company, actor/session, origin, and app identity checks apply throughout setup. - The additive migration must also work on qualification instances that applied earlier branch migrations. Table, column, index, and constraint creation is idempotent. - Creation and message timeouts can leave uncertain outcomes. Saved request IDs prevent automatic duplicate dispatch. - Unknown Slack identities must receive and complete their private challenge while signed in. Account selection alone does not grant Paperclip permissions. Existing revoked or conflicting links are not overwritten. - A development-only manager transport uses an explicitly configured private credential file for local qualification. Production ignores this transport; no manager credentials are bundled with open source. - Managed rollout requires Slack approval, the companion broker deployment, configured secrets, and final live qualification. Removing a connection does not delete its Slack app. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 15:34:02 -05:00
Dotta	a9830414c7	Preserve repository dependencies when importing GitHub skills (#15731) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its Skills library imports reusable instructions from GitHub. > - Some skills depend on shared files and sibling skills outside their folders. > - Directory-only imports lose those dependencies. > - This pull request keeps repository files together and lets users select which skills appear in the library. > - Agents receive the original files and paths through the existing skill delivery system. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14713. Related: #13656. **Current behavior** GitHub imports copy independent skill directories. Shared scripts, policies, helper skills, and credit files can be omitted. One shared-file error can block every skill. **Proposed behavior** New imports keep repository files together at the scanned commit. Show all skills with their folders and select every skill by default. Collapse individual package files. Omit unsupported or oversized files with a warning. Import available content without repair choices or an extra confirmation. Keep warnings on the saved source. **Reason and benefit** Skills can read their shared repository files after Paperclip delivers them to an agent. Original instructions stay unchanged. Users can inspect included files and understand omissions before and after import. ## What Changed - Store immutable company-scoped repository snapshots and associate them with skill versions. Regenerate the migration after merging master. - Preserve original bytes, binary encoding, and executable modes. Shared-file changes version each usable selected skill. Pinned versions retain their original files. - Deliver a discovery wrapper with the original tree under `.paperclip-repository/`. Preserve invocation policy when present. Fork and create-from-existing retain repository files. - Keep repository files together for new UI imports. Show every skill, select all by default, and collapse package files. Remove the packaging-mode menu. Keep the mobile import footer visible. - Warn about symlinks, submodules, oversized files, missing references, and invalid optional manifests. A malformed skill remains selected with a Needs setup warning. Usable skills still publish, and its original file remains repository support content. Source warnings persist through refresh. Unsafe execution and secret-disclosure findings omit the affected files before snapshot publication. - Expose saved repository files in the installed skill viewer, including binary encoding and executable flags. Reads use the immutable company-scoped snapshot; relative instruction links resolve from their original repository directory. - Audit delivered inventories and derive trust from all repository files. Accept evaluation prose while retaining dynamic-execution findings. Read blobs in one bounded Git batch and check budgets before reading support files. Imports never execute setup commands. - Add scanner, database, delivery, UI, and browser regressions. Update Storybooks, screenshots, and documentation. ## Verification - 69 focused scanner, Git snapshot, delivery, and PostgreSQL lifecycle tests passed. They cover partial imports, warning persistence, missing references, binary files, executable modes, copies, pinned versions, cancellation, company isolation, and batched Git reads. - 110 import, skill-detail, selection-tree, saved-file link, and Markdown renderer tests passed. A file-switch regression failed before the resolver fix and passed afterward. Browser walkthroughs cover the all-selected open tree, repository preview, non-blocking warnings, missing references, setup problems, warning persistence, and mobile layout. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed. Runner E2E TypeScript checks and design-token gates passed. The full serial local suite was attempted and stopped after over an hour. The existing 40,000-file Git streaming stress test failed after 303 seconds on macOS; the broad local suite is not counted as passed. All 55 applicable PR checks passed on the final commit, including the full sharded CI suite. Two optional Storybook workflows were skipped; the five local Storybook walkthroughs passed. - On October 12, live campaigns imported the private Poteto repository through the production GitHub Sources UI, selected architect and bro, and invoked them with native Codex on local and Daytona. The source connection was disabled before invocation. Independent filesystem inspections matched every supported Git blob, size, and executable mode. Both tasks completed and cleanup passed. Campaigns: `local-2026-10-12T15-07-39-504Z` (both environments), `local-2026-10-12T16-08-39-682Z` (local), and `local-2026-10-12T16-03-33-938Z` (Daytona). Each of the two selected skills received all 234 supported repository files. Later changes only affect the installed-file viewer and documentation. This qualifies skill delivery and instruction reads, not every Poteto workflow or adapter. - A manual source-checkout test drive imported a synthetic private GitHub repository with a symlink, an oversized file, a missing reference, and malformed skill metadata. Available skills published with their shared checklist. The walkthrough found duplicate warning text after import; the final UI fix removes that duplicate. The file viewer exposes saved repository dependencies and resolves authored relative links without changing the instructions. A follow-up live refresh omitted unsafe helper files with warnings, preserved every safe file byte, and survived a server restart. Screenshots below use the production UI with Storybook fixtures. They do not replace the live GitHub and runtime checks. <details> <summary>All skills visible and selected by default</summary>  </details> <details> <summary>Import stays available with warnings</summary>  </details> <details> <summary>Repository file inspector</summary>  </details> <details> <summary>Mobile import</summary>  </details> ## Risks - Each selected skill carries a repository copy in the runtime. The database stores each snapshot once. Runtime transfer and storage increase with the number of assigned skills. - Runtime budgets remain: 9,990 repository entries, 1 MiB per file, and 61 MiB total. File omissions are recorded as warnings. Source-access or download failures retain installed versions. - Import success does not prove that every skill can run. Environment dependencies, credentials, delegation tools, and schedules still need configuration. Imported setup scripts are not executed. - Live runtime coverage is native Codex on local and Daytona. Other adapters use the shared delivery path but were not exercised in these campaigns. The roadmap marks Skills Manager as shipped. This extends the existing importer. Related pull requests were checked. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, automated tests, and browser tools. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size 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 - [ ] 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	2026-10-12 11:30:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1e0cfcb4fc	test: retire redundant suites and consolidate owner coverage (#15978) ... Retire duplicate ACPX and Codex proof after migrating unique assertions to their behavioral owners. Consolidate repeated fixtures and exact case matrices while preserving lifecycle, protocol, company, credential, approval, and ordering contracts. Remove the unused runtime-controls compatibility path and document test ownership and preservation evidence. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 10:44:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	762d680daf	feat(ui): upload files directly in task artifacts (#15964) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage agent work and retain its context. > - Task documents and attachments keep that context with the task. > - The Artifacts panel showed output but could not accept a new file. > - Uploading through a message can require resuming a paused task. > - Existing document and attachment APIs can save files directly. > - This PR adds direct uploads and a drop target to the task panel. > - People can add context while keeping work paused and unassigned. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The task Artifacts panel and its existing document and attachment APIs. **Subsystem affected** ui/ — React board UI. No server, schema, or API changes. **Current behavior** The Artifacts panel cannot upload a file. It also excludes files uploaded by people. The message composer can require a task to resume before it submits attachments. **Proposed behavior** Use the upload icon or drop files anywhere in the open Artifacts panel. The target includes the header, padding, and existing cards. Files save directly to the task without a message or a pause change. **Reason and benefit** People can prepare a handoff on a paused, unassigned task without starting agent work. Markdown becomes a task document. Other supported files use attachment storage. **Breaking changes** Files from people now appear in Artifacts alongside agent output. Promoted attachments still appear once. A repeated Markdown filename creates a separate document instead of replacing an existing revision. Existing APIs and limits stay the same. **Additional context** Related upload API work: Refs #7472 and Refs #7248. This PR adds the missing task-panel entry point. ROADMAP.md lists Artifacts and Work Products as available; this is a scoped UI improvement. ## What Changed - Add an upload icon with no visible label or background. - Accept file drops across the full task panel, including the desktop portal header and mobile tabs. - Show per-file progress and inline Retry and Dismiss actions. - Import Markdown under a new document key and retain existing revisions. - Include files from people in Artifacts and dedupe promoted attachments. - Add component and task-journey stories for empty, populated, loading, error, mobile, and drag-over states. - Add real browser tests for persistence, pause preservation, duplicate document names, full-panel drops, and partial failure recovery. ## Verification - Five Playwright tests passed against an isolated instance started by the source `test-drive` command. The document API, attachment storage, pause holds, downloads, and task UI were real. Only the explicit upload failure was injected. - The browser tests verified desktop and mobile uploads, document reading, persistence after reload, no task comments or runs, header drops, preservation of original and hidden internal documents, reserved filename handling, and upload retry. - 163 focused UI tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - The full Vitest suite is running after repair of an exhausted local PostgreSQL shared-memory pool. The initial run failed to initialize PostgreSQL. Six unattached segments had no living creator or last-user process; removing them restored free slots. - CI and the current-head Greptile review are pending. ## Risks - Artifacts now includes user files, so existing tasks can show more cards. - Uploads retain the server's authorization, file-type, size, and revision checks. No migration is needed. - Binary attachment uploads use the existing API. A transport failure with an unknown save outcome can retain the existing API's retry ambiguity. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact runtime snapshot ID and context-window size were not exposed to this session. The model used repository inspection, code editing, shell tools, and browser automation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 08:11:31 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	db2f00947b	fix(runner): include Claude ACP in the server package (#15912) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server ships a copy of Paperclip Runner for native agent execution. > - The Claude ACP bridge is a runner dependency, but it was absent from the server package. > - The runner resolves this bridge dynamically, so the import-based packaging check missed it. > - A Claude session then failed before startup and showed a generic connection error. > - This pull request ships the qualified bridge and reports a missing runtime with repair steps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server install with the vendored runner could not load `@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp/package.json`. The runtime test suggested checking the model or provider connection. The task reported an interrupted runner session. **Expected behavior** The server package includes its qualified Claude ACP runtime. A missing bundled runtime reports an installation error and explains how to repair it. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a server install with the vendored runner and no Claude ACP bridge. 2. Select the Paperclip Runner ACP harness and the Claude provider. 3. Run the runtime test or open a session. 4. Observe a missing-module failure before Claude starts. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `e733bddc45`. This branch is based on current master. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server built from source. Related: #15224 upgrades the Claude bridge. This PR fixes its omission from the server package and keeps the current qualified version. A future bridge upgrade must update the server pin too. ## What Changed - Add Claude ACP `0.73.0` to the server dependencies and bundled dependencies. - Pin the qualified Claude SDK and bridge dependencies in the npm bundle producer graph. Publish its native packages as consumer optional dependencies instead of shipping the producer executable. - Bind source-built vendored runners to the shared pnpm dependency store while retaining the server manifest as the provider authority. Keep published npm and self-rooted deployment roots unchanged. - Include dynamically resolved Claude and Codex bridges in the vendor dependency check. - Preserve the missing-package category through the sidecar, Rust transport, and native session executor. Stop automatic retries for this installation failure. - Show **Runtime missing** in the runtime test and task thread. Explain the reinstall or rebuild, server restart, and runtime test steps. - Add regression tests and document the repair procedure. ## Verification - Red/green comparison with the production sidecar: the same missing-package setup returns a raw require-stack error on the original code and an actionable, non-retryable missing-runtime error on this branch. - The rebuilt server's vendored Claude installation probe passes using the source-server authority selected by the launcher, without starting a provider or making a model request. - Focused server verification: 830 tests passed. Runner installation and sidecar error tests: 83 passed, with 6 platform-specific skips. Packaging tests: 28 passed. Rust transport tests: 7 passed. - Source/deployment authority tests: 3 passed. Red/green packaging tests include a Linux-produced Claude SDK bundle, actual npm pack, and closed executable admission on Linux x64 and macOS ARM64/x64. - Full UI suite: 8,113 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the rebased branch. - Full current-head CI passed, including all general and serialized test lanes, Runner Rust/Vitest verification, typecheck, build, and all eight e2e shards. Greptile reviewed `d6a2741834ff922956560f2f689382827bbaf9e0` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - Local full-suite limitation: an earlier parallel attempt hit Postgres startup failures and timeouts; the affected server tests and a database fixture passed in isolation. The subsequent serial `pnpm test:run` was stopped while still running after complete CI passed. Focused local tests, full UI tests, typecheck, and build completed as listed above. - Token gates and `git diff --check` passed. ## Risks - Bundling the Claude bridge increases the server package size. The producer graph retains the qualified SDK version and existing isolation patch. Native platform declarations move to the published server manifest, while the runtime keeps its exact version, declared-slot, no-follow, and executable digest checks. - The new failure category is permanent. Operators must repair the server installation before they retry the task. - Existing failed runs retain their recorded error. The clearer message applies to new runtime tests and runs. - No database schema or migration changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The system reports the model family; the exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, browser inspection, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 06:51:22 -05:00
3 people	1b4c803816	fix(costs): preserve usage attribution and explain unavailable run costs (#15948) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The cost ledger records usage and controls agent budgets. > - Some runs lose the selected model or API billing category before their usage reaches the ledger. > - The dashboard reports missing costs but does not identify the affected runs or the available actions. > - This pull request preserves usage attribution and adds a compact view of cost gaps grouped by agent. > - Operators can inspect runs, open agent settings, and record saved costs without starting new agent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15634, #11938, #15879. This follows the merged subscription reporting in #15634. The older proposal in #11938 addresses part of ACP model attribution. This change also rejects conflicting models across a turn, fixes credential-backed billing capture, and explains cost gaps in the existing dashboard. The Pi receipt recovery work in #15879 covers a separate adapter recovery path. This PR preserves unresolved receipts and does not recover provider usage or reprice past entries. **What happened?** ACP results use the requested model even when the runtime selects a model. Native and OpenCode API runs can report unknown billing despite a matching API credential. The dashboard shows notices without links to the affected runs. These gaps make API and subscription totals harder to interpret. **Expected behavior** Record the model selected by the runtime. Identify API billing only from a matching credential. Keep costs unresolved when reliable usage or pricing is absent. Show the affected agents and runs. Offer an accounting retry only when saved evidence is ready. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run an ACP agent with its model left unset, or use a matching API credential with a native or OpenCode agent. 2. Inspect the recorded model and billing category for the run. 3. Open Costs Overview for a period with unpriced usage or terminal runs awaiting receipts. 4. Inspect the notice and try to find the affected run or the relevant agent settings. **Paperclip version or commit** Current master at `657e71584a0`. The patch is rebased on that commit. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server and local development. The cost detail tests use a disposable PostgreSQL database. ## What Changed - Preserve the runtime-selected ACP model in checkpoints and final results. Conflicting models across one turn remain unpriced. - Share credential-backed API billing checks across native and OpenCode results. Keep unknown billing when the provider and credential do not match. - Add company-scoped cost detail and accounting retry endpoints. Board viewers can read details but cannot retry. Agents and foreign companies are denied. - Limit each detail category to 25 entries. Use one consistent database snapshot and sparse indexes matching the filters and sort order. Add the unknown-billing count to the existing summary query. - Replace the notice with an expandable count line. Group entries alphabetically by agent. Show the saved blob icon, link each name to configuration, and put run and retry links beside the date. - Preserve estimate and unavailable-price labels on Providers and Billers; keep retry confirmation after the resolved notice disappears. - Fetch details only while expanded. Retain the last loaded details after a refresh error. Retry saved accounting only; do not rerun the agent. - Add capture, database, authorization, UI, and Storybook coverage. Update the implementation contract and cost reporting guide. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after rebase. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm build-storybook` passed after rebase. - `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check` passed. - 1,086 focused tests passed across 17 files. These cover ACP, native and OpenCode capture, PostgreSQL reports, route authorization, OpenAPI, Costs UI, and existing accounting regressions. - Desktop and mobile browser checks passed during UI review. They cover lazy expansion, alphabetical groups, loaded blob icons, configuration and run links, keyboard retry, and layout overflow. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted with command-scoped `init.defaultBranch=master` for Git fixtures. It was stopped after a native session recovery failure reproduced on unchanged base `657e71584a0` (`archives a damaged prior epoch before completing guarded same-task replacement with real runnerd`). An MCP upload case failed in the broad run but passed in isolation on both the base and PR branch. These local limitations do not affect the 1,086 passing focused tests. - Current-head CI is green, including all unit test lanes, serialized server suites, runner checks, typecheck, build, policy, and eight browser shards. Apex re-review is 5/5 on `56de60effdb`; all four original findings are addressed and every review thread is resolved. - PostgreSQL applies migration `0333` in the integration fixtures. EXPLAIN ANALYZE on the production detail statements uses the new sparse indexes behind 5,000 healthy records in each table. - Ten provider/biller card cases cover missing and estimated prices; the retry test covers row removal and notice unmount. A live Storybook browser check verifies the confirmation and updated count. - Run `pnpm storybook`. Open **Costs / Subscriptions / Cost Data Quality Details** to inspect the production page with representative fixtures. ## Risks - Model and billing metadata change for future runs. Estimates still require complete usage and a supported price. No past cost amount is rewritten. - A missing final receipt remains unresolved for budget checks. The display changes after fifteen minutes; that time limit never authorizes settlement. - Accounting retry is a write action. It retains the existing company checks, receipt fences, idempotency, and audit logging. - Detail reads are bounded and run only after expansion. They poll every 30 seconds while open. No provider probe or new summary query is added. - Migration `0333` adds two partial indexes; it changes no stored cost amounts or table columns. Index creation scans the existing tables and may briefly block writes during deployment. No lockfile or workflow change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code editing, browser checks, and test execution. The exact serving model ID, reasoning setting, and context window were not exposed to 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: Codex <noreply@openai.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-11 22:48:29 -07:00
3 people	4611d6e95a	fix(restore): retry sandbox copy-back before holding the task for repair (#15920) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Legacy sandbox runs copy the agent's workspace files back to the host when the run settles. > - When this copy-back fails one time, the server keeps the sandbox and puts a board-owned repair hold on the task. > - The hold blocks new messages. Only an operator API runbook can clear it. The board shows that runbook text, so users do not know what to do. > - Many copy-back failures are transient: a dropped transfer, a provider error, or a merge lock that another restore holds. > - This pull request retries those failures automatically while the run still has its merge baseline and before any host file changes. > - The benefit is that most failures repair themselves, and the remaining holds explain the situation in plain language. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14590 (related: no-replay recovery holds) **What happened?** A legacy sandbox run finished its work, but one workspace copy-back attempt failed. The task then showed "Recovery needed" with operator-only steps ("verify its exact stop receipt … record workspaceRepairEvidence"). Messages from the user stayed saved and were not delivered. **What did you expect?** Paperclip retries a transient copy-back failure automatically. If a repair is still necessary, the task says clearly what happened and who must act. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run an agent in a legacy sandbox environment. 2. Make the workspace copy-back fail one time, for example with a dropped transfer or a held merge lock. 3. Open the task. It is blocked behind a repair hold, and new messages wait. **Additional context** Separately, distinct live events can render toasts with the same title and body (for example, two runs of the same agent that both succeed). The toast list showed both, and the desktop app forwards each one as a notification. ## What Changed - `packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.ts`: retry the workspace copy-back up to three times in total, with a 2 s and then a 5 s backoff. A retry occurs only when the failure is `restore_failed` or `restore_lock_timeout` and no host workspace file was written. The merge now marks the first host write in `beforeApply`, which runs under the merge lock before any write. - Unsafe archives, permission failures, and failures after the merge started writing are never retried. Each retry uses a new temp directory and a new imported Git ref. - New optional `workspaceRestoreRetryDelaysMs` input, so tests can shorten the backoff. Nested repository restores receive the same value. - `ui/src/components/ExecutionBlockerNotice.tsx`: for a workspace repair hold, the notice now says what happened in plain language. The stored operator runbook text moves under "Technical details". - `ui/src/context/ToastContext.tsx`: also dedupe toasts on their visible tone, title, and body inside the existing 3.5 s window. - `doc/workspace-restore-locks.md`: document the automatic retry. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts src/workspace-restore` (218 tests pass). New tests cover: - a retry after a dropped transfer, - a retry after a merge-lock timeout, - a stop after three attempts, - no retry for an unsafe archive, a permission failure, or a failure after the merge started writing. - The existing step-diagnostic test now uses failures that persist across retries. It still expects one diagnostic per failed step. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/context/ToastContext.test.tsx src/components/ExecutionBlockerNotice.test.tsx src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider` (120 tests pass). - `tsc --noEmit` for adapter-utils passes. `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` is clean. - Not fully run: the full adapter-utils suite has two failures in `github-launcher*.test.ts`. They read the managed GitHub credentials of the local sandbox environment and do not touch restore code. UI `tsc -b` reports five errors in `PluginOrganizationSwitcher.tsx`, which is not changed here, because the plugin SDK is not built in a fresh install. ## Risks - A copy-back that fails before the merge can take about 7 s longer before it reports a failure. Lock timeouts can take up to about 97 s in total (three 30 s lock waits plus backoff). Settlement already waits for the copy-back. - The retry logic depends on `beforeApply` running before the first host write in `mergeDirectoryWithBaseline`. That is true today, and a comment marks it. - A Git bundle import before the merge can leave unreferenced Git objects after a retry. They are harmless, and the existing ref cleanup still runs on each attempt. - Content-based toast dedupe can hide a second toast with identical text inside 3.5 s. That is the intended behavior. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic) in the Claude Agent SDK, with tool use (shell, file edit, code search) and a subagent for code exploration. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip Agent <agent@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-11 21:44:11 -07:00
3 people	f331d386dc	fix(ui): attribute stackless unhandled rejections with event and lifecycle facts (#15940) ... Diagnostics only for Sentry PAPERCLIP-FRONTEND-G: record trusted/synthetic unhandledrejection origin, promise kind, and coarse page lifecycle facts without reading rejected values. Co-Authored-By: Amy (Opus) <claude@users.noreply.github.com> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-11 19:26:44 -07:00
4 people	bfe7c6357d	fix(ui): stack confirmation prompt and hide raw custom target keys (#15895) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents ask the board for decisions with `request_confirmation` interaction cards > - The compact task-chat card puts the prompt and the target pill in one `justify-between` flex row > - An agent can send a `custom` target with only a machine `key` (for example `github:org/repo:pull:16`) and no `label` > - The card shows that raw key as a mono pill that does not shrink, so the card splits about 50/50 and the prompt is squeezed into the left half > - This pull request stacks the prompt above the pill and hides custom targets that have no human label > - The benefit is a readable, full-width confirmation prompt without meaningless identifier pills ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A pending confirmation card split its body into two columns. The prompt used the left half. A pill with the raw text `github:paperclipai/paperclip-desktop:pull:16` used the right half. The line breaks in the prompt were also lost. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction with a multi-line `prompt` and `target: { "type": "custom", "key": "github:org/repo:pull:16" }` (no `label`). 2. Open the task chat for the issue. 3. See that the prompt and the key pill share one row, split about 50/50. **Expected behavior** The prompt uses the full card width and keeps its line breaks. A custom target key is an identifier for idempotency and stale detection, so it does not show as display text. A target pill shows only when the target has a human label. ## What Changed - `TaskChatCompactInteractionCard`: stack the prompt full width with the target pill below it. This applies to the confirmation and the checkbox-confirmation cards. - `TaskChatCompactInteractionCard`: keep line breaks in the prompt (`whitespace-pre-line`, `break-words`). - `TaskChatCompactInteractionCard` and `IssueThreadInteractionCard`: show no target chip for a `custom` target without a `label`. Labeled custom targets (for example connection authorization) and `issue_document` targets do not change. The stale-target chevron shows only when both chips show. - Add regression tests for the stacked layout, the hidden unlabeled key, and the labeled link pill. The tests cover the compact confirmation and checkbox-confirmation cards, and the thread card pending chip and stale-target expiry (with labeled, unlabeled, and mixed custom targets, and the chevron rule). - `CONTRIBUTING.md`: add a "Keep Screenshots Out of the Repo" section. Contributors attach review screenshots to the PR on GitHub. They do not commit them to the repository. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/task-chat/TaskChatInteractionCard.test.tsx src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx`: 2 files, 100 tests pass. If you revert the `isDisplayableRequestConfirmationTarget` guard, 3 of the new thread-card tests fail. - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: all gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`: no errors in changed files. The only errors come from `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk/ui`, which had no built `dist` in the local workspace. These errors are not related to this change. - Manual: create a confirmation as in the steps above. The prompt is full width and no key pill shows. Add `label: "PR #16"` and an `href`. A `PR #16` link pill shows below the prompt. ### Screenshots These are Storybook renders of the compact task-chat card at 720 px. The three cards are: a confirmation with an unlabeled custom target (the reported case), a confirmation with a labeled custom target, and a checkbox confirmation with an unlabeled custom target. The images load from an earlier commit of this PR. A later commit deletes them, so they are not part of the merged change. | Before (light) | After (light) | After (dark) | | --- | --- | --- | |  |  |  | ## Risks - Low risk. This is a UI-only change. No schema or API change. - Agents that send a custom target without a label lose the visible pill. The key was never readable display text. To show a pill, agents set `label`. ## Merge Note The first commit was authored as Paperclip. When you squash-merge, keep this trailer in the squash body: Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <Paperclip-Paperclip@users.noreply.github.com> ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code agent harness with tool use (shell, file edit). Standard context window. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-10-11 12:29:05 -07:00
3 people	3d3b8d4371	fix(external-objects): distinguish hidden GitHub repos from genuinely-missing objects (#15906) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issues reference external objects such as GitHub pull requests. The instance resolves their status and shows it in the UI. > - GitHub returns 404 both when a pull request or issue does not exist and when the repository exists but the configured credentials cannot see it. GitHub hides private repos behind a 404 on purpose. > - The resolver treated every 404 as a terminal not-found verdict. It froze references to inaccessible repos forever, and marked them "Not found (Stale)". > - This pull request probes the repository metadata to tell the two cases apart and keep frozen objects re-checkable. > - The benefit is accurate statuses instead of permanent "Not found" labels for repos the instance cannot see. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this report. **What happened?** - The issue properties panel and markdown decoration showed many GitHub pull request and issue references as "Not found (Stale)" even though the objects exist. - GitHub returns 404 for objects the configured credentials cannot access, not only for objects that are truly gone. - The resolver treated every 404 as a terminal not-found verdict, so those references were frozen and showed a misleading "stale" liveness. - Detected-but-unresolved GitHub objects were labeled "Not yet resolved" in inline markdown, which did not match the pill label "Not yet refreshed". **Expected behavior** - A reference to a repo the credentials cannot see should surface as authorization-required, not as a permanent "Not found". - A truly missing object should still be "Not found". - A terminal object (merged, closed, or confirmed not-found) should not be labeled "Stale", because it is never refreshed again. - Inline markdown statuses should match the pill statuses. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure GitHub credentials with no access to a private repo. 2. Add a comment or issue description that links to a pull request in that repo. 3. Wait for the external object resolver to run. 4. Observe the reference labeled "Not found (Stale)". **Paperclip version or commit** - `master` at `e733bdd` (before this change). **Deployment mode** - Self-hosted server. ## What Changed - Added a repository visibility probe to the GitHub external object provider. - A 404 for an object now probes the repository metadata with the same credentials: - Repository visible: the object genuinely is gone. Keep the not-found snapshot. - Repository hidden: return an authorization-required result instead of a terminal not-found verdict. - Probe failed (network, rate limit, 5xx): return an unreachable result and retry later. - A rate-limited repository probe (403 with `x-ratelimit-remaining: 0`) is treated as uncertain, not as missing access, so it retries instead of showing a misleading "Requires auth". - Re-check previously frozen GitHub not-found objects on their normal schedule so they self-heal once credentials or repo visibility improve. A frozen object is only re-checked until a probe confirms the repo is visible; once confirmed deleted, it is terminal and no longer polled. - Cleared any terminal verdict when a refresh fails, so a failed refresh does not freeze an object. - Kept terminal objects from displaying the "stale" liveness label. - Matched the inline markdown status label to the pill status label, so detected-but-unresolved GitHub objects say "Not yet refreshed" instead of "Not yet resolved". - Skipped the liveness suffix in markdown links and status icons when it duplicates the status label (e.g. no more "Requires auth (Requires auth)"). - Cached repository visibility probes per company+repo + credential fingerprint, so many objects in the same repo share one probe per refresh cycle instead of each issuing its own — and a verdict obtained under one token is never reused by a later refresh running under a different credential. ## Verification - Added provider tests for visible, hidden, failed, and rate-limited repository probes, per-company/per-repo probe caching, and probe-verified not-found snapshots. - Added service tests for terminal-object liveness, for re-checking frozen GitHub not-found objects, and for ensuring probe-verified not-found objects are never re-queued. - Added UI tests asserting unresolved GitHub objects render as "Not yet refreshed" (not "Not yet resolved") and that failed-first-refresh labels do not repeat the liveness text. - Ran `npx vitest run src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts` in `server/`: 34 passed (incl. provider + service suites). - Ran the external-object markdown/pill/icon suites in `ui/`: 97 passed. - `ci / Typecheck + Release Registry` and all other CI gates pass on this head. Local `tsc` could not run to completion in the execution sandbox (the sandbox memory cap killed it), so CI typecheck is the authoritative gate. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is confined to the GitHub external object provider and the external object service. - A repo that genuinely does not exist and a private repo both return 404 for the probe. Both now surface authorization-required or a retry instead of an immediate not-found freeze, which stays re-checkable and self-heals. - Re-checking frozen not-found objects adds at most one repository probe per affected object until the probe produces a definitive verdict, after which the object is terminal and no longer polled. Probe results are cached per company+repo+credential, so a credential rotation always re-probes instead of inheriting a stale verdict. > 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 - Provider: DeepSeek via OpenRouter, model ID `openrouter/~deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-latest`, running inside the Paperclip opencode adapter (`opencode_local`). - The model produced and assisted with the reasoning and code changes; the execution workspace, test suite, and git/PR steps above were run by the same agent run. ## 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 branch name is assigned by the managed execution workspace and the harness requires keeping it - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the current head (all `ci / *`, Greptile, Socket, and review checks pass) - [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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-11 11:53:21 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	a7dd5284b5	feat: add company fast-response acknowledgements (#15748) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Human messages start agent work through task, chat, and external-channel intake. > - Agent startup can delay the first visible response. > - A small direct model call can acknowledge the request while normal work starts. > - This response must remain separate from evidence that the agent answered or completed work. > - This pull request adds optional company-wide fast responses with durable receipts, access checks, and cost accounting. > - Users receive prompt acknowledgement without changing the agent execution path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: database, shared contracts, server orchestration, connections, and UI. **Problem or motivation** Users can wait for an agent to start before they receive a contextual response. Generic progress messages do not confirm what the user asked. An acknowledgement must not falsely complete work or satisfy an unanswered turn. **Proposed solution** Add a disabled-by-default experimental fast-response model using an existing shared API connection. Generate one short acknowledgement for each accepted human turn. Use the existing agent identity and external publication outboxes. Retain platform provenance and account for the inference independently. **Alternatives considered** Running the acknowledgement through the agent runtime adds startup latency. Restricting implementation to OpenRouter leaves other existing API connections unsupported. This change supports all existing API connections and uses OpenRouter for live verification. **Roadmap alignment** This extends existing agent communication and connection settings. ROADMAP.md and open pull requests were checked. No duplicate fast-response implementation was found. The maintainer supplied the feature plan directly. ## What Changed - Add Experimental fast responses to instance settings. Keep the feature off by default. Enforce the flag at intake, dispatch, and publication. - Move Decision model and Fast response setup to company Settings → Connections when the experiment is enabled. Place Connections below Environments. Separate the model sections with clear headings and a divider. Keep Decision model in General when the experiment is off. Route Costs setup links to the available settings page. - Make the acknowledgement prompt a multiline template string. Ask for a brief, positive response in the user’s language. - Add settings, connection/model selection, sponsorship, fixed-sample testing, and Costs history. - Add a Vercel AI SDK text service for existing native, routed, Bedrock, and local API connections. - Add durable per-turn requests, a bounded worker, a three-second admission deadline, and one inference attempt. - Integrate task creation, task and agent chat, steering, queued follow-ups, experimental board chat, shared chat intake, and email. - Preserve receipt provenance and exclude receipts from completion, recovery, interaction resolution, and agent wakeups. - Recheck authorization, source validity, real replies, budgets, and destination binding before publication. Preserve accounting for suppressed or uncertain outcomes. - Add provider contracts, database race tests, channel outbox tests, UI tests, Stories, and documentation. Keep decision-model execution unchanged. ## Verification - Local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after rebase. The UI typecheck and build also pass after the final navigation fixes. All 37 focused navigation tests pass. The first full local `pnpm test:run` invocation reported seven chat failures. All seven passed in isolated reruns after fixture updates and host cleanup. This invocation was stopped after the full final-head CI suite passed. - Initial local database tests hit macOS shared-memory exhaustion. A diagnostic confirmed `shmget: No space left on device` with the system limit of 32 IDs. Three abandoned, unattached PostgreSQL IPC headers were reclaimed. The isolated rerun passed all 31 fast-response and channel tests. The two additional Slack regression cases also passed in a separate rerun. No active database was stopped. - UI token gates pass. Provider contract tests cover all supported API connection types. Fast-response tests cover uniqueness, authorization, budgets, expiry, cancellation, restart, real-reply races, and the experimental flag. - The test drive verified that disabling the experiment hides Connections and redirects its direct URL. Enabling it restores the saved OpenRouter setup. After restart on the final commit, the OpenRouter settings sample returned “Sure, I’ll take care of fixing the border around the settings panel.” in 428 ms. It used 260 input and 31 output tokens and recorded $0.0000576 in reported cost. - Earlier live OpenRouter verification produced a receipt in 1.013 seconds for a new task. The real agent then supplied its substantive answer. A separate settings test took 1.34 seconds, used 246 input and 23 output tokens, and recorded $0.0000361. - Live Slack verification on final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` passed for a fresh initial task and a follow-up in a disposable bot DM. The initial acknowledgement appeared 2.405 seconds after the Slack message and 1.413 seconds after durable acceptance; the follow-up appeared in 2.322 seconds and 1.160 seconds respectively. The recorded generation/settlement durations were 898 ms and 697 ms. The initial call used 291 input / 39 output tokens and cost $0.00006705; the follow-up used 281 / 47 and cost $0.00007035. - The Slack acknowledgements retained the assigned agent identity and `origin: fast_response`, source-turn references, and no fabricated run ID. A status snapshot after the initial receipt showed the task still `in_progress` with its real execution run. The agent then read the CSV fixture and correctly reported two ready items, two blockers, and their owners. Both replies stayed in the originating DM, and no duplicate generic working message followed the delivered contextual acknowledgements. The `new` command started a fresh conversation session without generating a fast response. - An earlier eligible Slack turn generated a response but suppressed publication. Its reported cost was retained, generic progress remained, and the real agent completed the requested result. This is recorded separately from the two delivered acknowledgements; the history did not expose a precise suppression reason. - Slack verification used real signed provider events, the existing intake/publication paths, and a user-approved temporary webhook-only HTTPS tunnel. Subscriptions were limited to direct-message events. The test bot was paused and the tunnel stopped afterward. Live channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified; their mocked tests cover intake, destination binding, publication, and continued underlying work. - Greptile reviewed final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` at 5/5. Both new review findings are fixed and all threads are resolved. [Final-head CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38060015730) passed. This includes grouped server/chat/workspace tests, serialized suites, runner checks, browser journeys, typecheck, build, release registry, policy, and the canary dry run. - Manual check: enable Experimental fast responses. Open company Settings → Connections. Select a shared API connection and model. Save and use Test response. Submit a task message and confirm that its receipt does not complete the task. ## Risks - The migration adds receipt and configuration tables plus accounting references. It uses idempotent statements and follows the current migration sequence. - A slow provider, authorization change, or real-agent reply can suppress an acknowledgement. Existing progress feedback remains available. - Unknown provider billing retains a reservation until reconciliation. External deliveries with uncertain outcomes must not be blindly repeated. - Live Slack initial-task and follow-up DM journeys pass. Live Slack channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified. The PR remains a draft and records these gaps. Final-head repository CI and automated review pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose an exact model snapshot ID or context-window size; these are not asserted. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-10 13:09:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	40bb466d78	fix(ui): align chat connection and recovery cards (#15771) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task pages show external chat connections and recovery notices. > - These cards use different widths, colors, and spacing. > - The difference makes related task information harder to scan. > - This pull request gives these cards one shared surface. > - The benefit is a consistent task page for chat and email users. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The external chat banner and recovery notice have different backgrounds, padding, and widths. The first banner needs more space above it. **Expected behavior** Connection, recovery, workspace repair, and task email cards use the same surface. The chat cards have the same width. **Steps to reproduce** Open a task with an external Slack conversation and a recovery notice. Compare the two cards. Open the Tasks / Context notices story to compare the updated cards with an AgentMail email card. ## What Changed - Add a shared token-based surface for task context cards. - Put chat recovery notices in the same width container as the connection banner. - Add space above the connection banner. - Apply the surface to task email cards and workspace export repair. - Add a Storybook view with per-card width, color, padding, and corner checks. - Give the workspace recovery card its own React key to prevent duplicate connection banners. ## Verification - Passed `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Passed 57 tests for ExecutionBlockerNotice, WorkspaceExportRecovery, and the external chat banner. - Passed UI typecheck and UI production build. - Captured desktop and mobile browser screenshots from the real components with fixture data. The three cards have equal widths, backgrounds, padding, and corners. - Full local typecheck needs Cargo, which is absent in the task environment. Full tests and build could not complete within the environment memory limit. Remote typecheck, build, all test shards, and security checks pass on commit e225a8e47. The Canary Dry Run also passes. Storybook visual/deploy jobs are skipped by workflow policy. ## Risks - Low risk. Recovery notices move outside the chat panel. Their actions and API calls stay the same. - Verify narrow screens and both task layout modes. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose an exact model variant or context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-10 10:38:26 -05:00
3 people	30c8aa1cc1	fix(ui): remove workspace from task and inbox filters (#15788) ... updated 14 checked lines erclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board shows tasks in a list and in the inbox > - Each of those screens has a filter menu > - The filter menu includes a Workspace section > - The list already shows the workspace name, and the user can group by workspace > - This pull request removes Workspace from those filter menus > - The benefit is a shorter filter menu. The workspace label and the group option stay ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. This description follows the enhancement template. Related pull request: Refs #15403. That pull request also edits the task list. It does not remove the Workspace filter. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The filter menu on the task list and the inbox. **Subsystem affected** ui/ — React + Vite board UI **Current behavior** The filter menu shows a Workspace section when isolated workspaces are on. The user can select one or more workspaces there. The task list also shows the workspace name as a label. The user can group the list by workspace. A workspace value in the page address also limits the list. **Proposed behavior** The filter menu does not show Workspace. The workspace name stays in the list. Group by workspace stays. A workspace value in the page address still limits the task list. A click on a workspace name in the list still limits the list to that workspace. **Reason and benefit** The filter menu repeats a choice that the list and the group control already give. Removal of that section makes the filter menu shorter. Saved links that include a workspace value still open the same limited list. **Breaking changes** The filter menu no longer lets the user pick a workspace. A saved workspace query still works. Decision filters are not part of this change. ## What Changed - Remove the Workspace section from the task list filter menu - Remove the Workspace section from the inbox filter menu - Keep workspace labels, group by workspace, and workspace query scope - Update the filter menu test so it checks that Workspace is absent - Drop a saved workspace selection when preferences load, and keep the other saved filters ## Verification - Run `corepack pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/components/IssueFiltersPopover.test.tsx src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx src/lib/issue-filters.test.ts src/components/IssueColumns.test.tsx` from `ui/` - Result: 5 files passed, 111 tests passed - Open the task list filter menu. Confirm that Workspace is not a section - Open the inbox filter menu. Confirm that Workspace is not a section - Open a task list with a workspace query. Confirm that the list shows only tasks for that workspace - Group the task list by workspace. Confirm that the groups still appear - A browser check of the live screens was not run in this workspace ## Risks - Low risk. The change removes a menu section. It does not change filter matching - A user who used the menu to pick a workspace must use the workspace label or the page address - Pull request #15403 also edits the task list. Merge order can cause a small conflict in `ui/src/components/IssuesList.tsx` ROADMAP.md does not plan this filter removal. This change does not add a core feature. ## Model Used - Provider: xAI - Model: Grok 4.7 - Capabilities: tool use, code edits, and test execution ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-10 01:13:35 -07:00
3 people	de042e79ef	fix(ui): keep code-block pastes in the nested editor (#15773) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People write a routine description in a rich markdown editor > - That editor contains a nested code block for literal text > - A paste that starts with a markdown mark, such as a dash, goes to the outer editor > - The text does not appear in the code block > - This pull request sends that paste to the nested editor as literal text > - This pull request also adds a copy control next to the Overview heading > - The benefit is that a person can keep a routine description in a code block and copy it to another Paperclip instance ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A paste into a code block in a routine description does not appear when the pasted text starts with a markdown mark, such as a dash. A plain single line still appears. **Expected behavior** The nested code editor receives the paste as literal text. The text stays in the code block. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a routine and edit the description. 2. Add a text code block. 3. Click inside that code block. 4. Paste a line that starts with a dash. 5. The line does not appear in the code block. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `3389bea`. **Deployment mode** Local dev (pnpm dev) ## What Changed - The markdown editor does not take a paste that starts inside a nested code block. - The same editor is used for descriptions in the routine page and in the rest of the app. - The Overview heading has a copy button. - The button copies the draft description while you edit. - The button copies the saved description when you do not edit. - Unit tests cover the paste path and the copy button. - Screenshots show the heading while you view a description and while you edit it. ## Screenshots The copy icon sits next to the Overview title. The heading component is the production component. The page frame around it is a preview.     ## Verification - Run `corepack pnpm exec vitest run --config ui/vitest.config.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/RoutineSectionHeading.test.tsx ui/src/lib/routine-description-copy.test.ts` from the repository root. 57 tests passed on the code commit. - Open a routine description. Paste a line that starts with a dash into a text code block. Confirm that the line stays in the code block. - Click the copy button next to Overview. Paste the result into a new routine. Confirm that the description matches the draft while you edit, and the saved description when you do not edit. - Open the screenshots above. Confirm the copy icon is next to Overview in the view state and in the edit state, in light theme and in dark theme. - This workspace did not open a signed-in routine page. The screenshots render the production heading with the app color tokens. ## Risks Low risk. A paste inside a code block now stays in that block. A paste in the rest of the editor still follows the previous markdown path. The copy button only reads the description text. ## Model Used xAI Grok 4.7 with tool use. The model wrote this change in a Paperclip agent run. Context window is large. The model used tools to edit code, run tests, and capture screenshots. ## 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 (no user docs describe this paste path) - [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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-10 00:42:10 -07:00
3 people	32745f4e84	feat(issues): keep follow-up parents and show the creation source (#15762) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents delegate work by creating follow-up tasks through the issue API, the CLI, and the chat `create_task` tool > - An agent can omit `parentId` when it creates a follow-up from an ordinary execution task. The API accepts the task as a top-level task. The task hierarchy does not show where the task came from, even though the run provenance is recorded > - The operator must read run history to learn why the task exists. This is slow and it hides delegated work from the parent task > - This pull request keeps the parent link for delegated follow-ups by default, keeps intentional standalone tasks possible, and shows an access-checked "Created from <task> by <agent>" note on the task page from the recorded run provenance > - The benefit is that each agent-created task shows its source without log inspection, while structural parentage, provenance, and blockers stay separate concepts ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13241 (shows tasks created from a task on the source task page; this PR shows the reverse direction on the created task) Refs #9727 (open proposal for creation provenance tracking) **What existing behavior does this improve?** Issue creation by agent runs, and the task detail page. **Subsystem affected** Server (`POST /api/companies/:companyId/issues`, `GET /api/issues/:id`), shared types, UI task detail page, CLI `issue create`, Paperclip skill docs. **Current behavior** When an agent run bound to an execution task creates a task and omits `parentId`, the task is created with no parent. The task page shows no source. The operator must inspect the run log to find the task that the agent was working on. The source run and the privacy parent are recorded, but the UI does not use them. **Proposed behavior** - When an agent run bound to an ordinary execution task omits `parentId`, the server sets `parentId` to that task. The `issue.created` activity records `parentDefaultedFromRunIssue: true`. - An explicit `parentId: null` keeps the task standalone. Conversation runs (chat handoffs), board or user creates, watchdog follow-ups, a run task the agent may not mutate, a default parent that would cause a delegation cycle, and a default parent the agent may not create a child under (for example a protected assignment policy without a grant) also stay standalone. The server runs the same `tasks:assign` decision with the defaulted parent in scope before it accepts the default. No request that succeeded before now fails. An explicit `parentId` is still checked as before. - `GET /api/issues/:id` returns `createdFrom` with the source task, the run, and the agent. The server resolves it from `origin_run_id`, or from the recorded creation activity for historical rows. It returns `null` when the viewer may not read the source task or the run, when the run is from another company, or when provenance is missing. - The task page shows "Created from <task> by <agent>" in the classic breadcrumb area and in the streamlined Tasks tab. The note is not a blocker and it is shown with or without a parent. - The CLI `issue create` command gets `--standalone`, which sends `parentId: null`. **Reason and benefit** Operators see why a task exists on the task itself. Delegated follow-ups stay inside the parent task tree, so parent completion and child wake-ups keep working. Private and cross-company sources stay hidden. **Breaking changes** None for the API schema. Agents that create tasks from a run and relied on the omitted `parentId` to mean "top-level" must now send `parentId: null` (CLI: `--standalone`). The skill and the spec document this. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issue-creation-source.ts` (new): resolves a task's creation source from the origin run or the creation activity, scoped to the company, and loads the run-bound task by UUID or identifier. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `POST /companies/:companyId/issues` defaults `parentId` to the run's task when the body omits it (with the exclusions above) and records the default in the activity log. `GET /issues/:id` adds the access-checked `createdFrom` field. - `packages/shared/src/types/issue.ts` and index exports: new `IssueCreationSource` type and the optional `createdFrom` field on `Issue`. - `ui/src/components/task-detail/IssueCreatedFromNote.tsx` (new), `TaskDetailTasksPanel.tsx`, and `IssueDetail.tsx`: show the creation source in both task page layouts and count it in the Tasks tab badge. - `cli/src/commands/client/issue.ts`: `issue create --standalone`. - Docs: `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, `doc/CLI.md`, `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`. - Tests: `server/src/__tests__/issue-creation-source-routes.test.ts` (new), `TaskDetailTasksPanel.test.tsx`, `IssueDetail.test.tsx`. ## Verification Run the new server route test (embedded Postgres): ```sh cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-creation-source-routes.test.ts ``` It covers: ordinary delegation gets the parent and `createdFrom`; explicit `parentId: null` stays standalone but still shows the source; conversation handoff and board create stay standalone; a would-be delegation cycle falls back to standalone; a protected source task without a grant falls back to standalone while an explicit parent still returns 403; an explicit cycle still returns 409; historical provenance from the creation activity; missing provenance, a private source for an outsider, and a cross-company run all return `null`. Related existing suites that passed locally (11 files, 313 tests): `issue-created-from-routes`, `issue-create-deduplication-routes`, `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes`, `chat-project-tools`, `issue-assignee-invokability-routes`, `issue-watchdogs-routes`, `issue-dependency-wakeups-routes`, `public-mcp`, `native-runtime/task-creation-backlog`, `issue-access-grants-routes`, `issue-list-assignee-filter-routes`. UI: ```sh cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/task-detail/TaskDetailTasksPanel.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx pnpm check:token-gates ``` Manual check: as an agent run bound to a task, `POST /api/companies/:companyId/issues` with only a title. The response has `parentId` set to the run's task. Open the new task; the page shows "Created from <task> by <agent>". The related server suites pass locally (`issue-created-from`, `issue-create-deduplication`, `issue-agent-mutation-ownership`, `chat-project-tools`, `issue-watchdogs`, `public-mcp`, `task-creation-backlog`, `issue-access-grants`, `permissions-upgrade-boundary`). The full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were not run locally because the sandbox has a 4 GB memory limit and the TypeScript compiler is killed on the server project; the CI gates on this PR cover them. ## Risks - Behavior shift for agent clients: a run-created task without `parentId` now becomes a child of the run's task. Clients that want a top-level task must send `parentId: null`. The watchdog, conversation, and board paths are excluded, and the default never adds a blocker. - The default parent inherits the parent's execution workspace, which run-created tasks already inherited from the run's task. - `createdFrom` adds one run lookup, one issue lookup, one access decision, and one agent lookup to the task detail request. It is skipped when the task has no origin run and no creation activity with a run. - Privacy: the field returns `null` unless the viewer can read the source task and the run, so a private source is indistinguishable from missing provenance. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5.1 (`claude-fable-5-1`), Anthropic, run through Claude Code in a Paperclip-managed execution workspace with tool use, shell execution, and a local embedded Postgres for tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-10 00:40:08 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	3ec7309d91	feat(voice): add experimental Speko task connection runtime (#15727) ... First PR: runtime. UI: #15728. Qualification: #15729. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed connections. > - Chat connections already bind external conversations to those tasks. > - Speko handles voice and telephony, while the selected Paperclip agent does the work. > - A call needs durable session authority, ordered follow-ups, and safe result delivery. > - This PR adds an explicit voice transport to the existing connection runtime. > - The UI and qualification suites follow in linked PRs. Speko stays experimental. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Phone and browser voice conversations cannot use the chat connection task lifecycle. A separate voice runtime is needed to preserve task authority, retries, and reply history. **Proposed solution** Add company-scoped voice sessions, signed callbacks, durable replies, inbound intake, and an agent-facing outbound-call tool. Reuse existing tasks, queues, secrets, and publications. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the experimental chat connector entry points under Agent Chat and Connected Apps. The project owner requested this feature. Refs #11418 for the original provider catalog proposal. This implementation uses the newer chat connection infrastructure rather than an MCP catalog-only integration. Refs #15721 for remote OpenCode startup. ## What Changed - Add additive voice schema, shared contracts, session APIs, and provider callbacks. - Bind browser, inbound, and outbound sessions to an endpoint, task, and selected agent. - Add low-trust guest intake in an explicitly selected sandbox and keep ordinary approval rules. - Submit task work through session-scoped tools and push approved replies through Speko POST /v1/calls/{id}/messages. - Distinguish provider acceptance from confirmed spoken playback. Reconcile reports without downloading recordings. - Add protocol, migration, persistence, provider, and delivery-diagnostic tests. ## Verification - Master 3389bea708 is integrated. Database/shared builds, server typecheck, migration upgrade/replay checks, and 46 communication-guidance/provider/protocol tests passed. - The final persistence suite passed 85 real-database tests. Five focused native continuation/authorization regressions passed. Five callback ownership/rotation tests passed after the last runtime repair. - Review repairs cover reconnect ownership, current caller authority, duplicate delivery, multipart answers, task-page answers, guest question handling, and saved sandbox recovery. - A real OpenCode/OpenRouter DeepSeek task ran in Daytona and saved a correct disk-space answer. This did not establish live-call playback. - Full local typecheck/build passed before the final repairs; focused typechecks passed after them. Latest-head CI runs the repository gates. - The separate integrated browser qualification passed two journeys and failed browser answer retrieval. The feature remains experimental. The report in #15729 records this failure and outstanding real-provider acceptance. - No lockfiles are included. Speko migrations follow master as 0324–0330. ## Risks - Voice sessions add migrations and provider-dependent lifecycle behavior. Migrations preserve existing chat and AI transports. - Callback origins must be reachable HTTPS. Provider keys and signing secrets remain vaulted. - Unverified callers receive task-scoped low-trust authority. Caller ID does not grant private task access. - Outbound telephony incurs provider charges. Provider acceptance is not proof that the caller heard an answer. - Keep the feature behind the existing experimental chat setting until the real browser, inbound, outbound, and delayed-result acceptance matrix passes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 21:54:11 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	417db14e7d	fix: show credential access errors in task chat (#15741) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use AI connections to run tasks for a responsible user. > - A connection can deny access when its owner has not shared it with that user. > - The task conversation hides this cause behind a collapsed failure marker. > - People need to see which connection blocked the agent and how to fix it. > - This pull request shows an expanded access error in the task conversation. > - The error names the agent and connection, and links to the agent's AI settings. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task could fail because its responsible user could not use the agent's AI connection. The user saw a temporary error toast and a collapsed task failure. The task did not clearly explain the access problem. **Expected behavior** The task should show a visible error that names the agent, the connection, and the person who lacks access. For example: "Codie is configured to use Dotta's API Key, but you don't have access to that credential." It should offer a link to change the AI connection. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure an agent with a personal AI connection. 2. Start a task for a user who cannot use that connection. 3. Open the task after the run fails. 4. Check that the access error stays visible and links to AI settings. Refs #15714. That change classifies expected connection-sharing denials. This change makes the same failure clear in task chat. ## What Changed - Keep the connection display name in private error metadata when a sharing check denies access. - Store a private grant reference for the name visibility check. Use one rule for task summaries and full run responses. Show the name to the affected user and the connection sharing audience. Other task readers see a generic label. Strip grant IDs from public run responses. - Show an expanded error card for native and legacy task runs. Use "you" only when the viewer is the responsible user. - Link to AI settings and the failed run. Preserve names on resumed native runs. Hide the old error after a newer successful attempt. - Add full task-page Storybook examples, focused tests, and design guidance. ## Verification - Passed 249 focused tests for task chat, error text, private error metadata, and the real database run summary. These include resumed native runs and viewer access rules. - Passed all UI token gates on the rebased branch. - Checked the production task page in Storybook. Verified the viewer's error, another user's error, mobile layout, and a newer successful attempt. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` in a clean checkout with Node 24 and the pinned pnpm version. Passed the final server typecheck after the response filter changes. - Passed the real database route regression for the connection owner, affected user, and another task reader. Passed the registered secret redaction tests. - The local route checks needed `--testTimeout 60000` for cold imports. A broader local route run hit cold-import timeouts and an old fixture assertion that is now fixed. The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` aggregate was stopped to free resources. The full suite passed in CI with the normal timeouts. - Passed the full [final-commit CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37996148342), including all server, UI, runner, browser, typecheck, build, and canary packaging gates. All 54 executed checks passed; two Storybook jobs were skipped. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no remaining findings, and every review thread is resolved. - Review the Storybook group `Task / Credential access` for the notice and full task-page examples. ## Risks - Only the allowed connection display name enters the compact run summary. Credential secrets, grant IDs, and arbitrary error details do not enter it. - Existing runs can lack the connection name. They show a clear fallback message. - The notice uses the existing task-run relevance rules. A newer attempt or a completed task hides the old failure. - No schema migration or API permission change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution and browser verification. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 17:06:54 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	26d71d8def	Fix human author identity and viewer-relative alignment in task chat (#15494) ... Preserve human author identity in task chat and align only the current viewer on the right. Show other humans and agents on the left with their own identity. Include mixed-author Storybook journeys and regression coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 17:04:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ed2c22ea8c	feat(connections): simplify dedicated GitHub App setup (#15416) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and the tools each agent can use. > - GitHub bots need their own App identity and restricted repository access. > - Manual App configuration and repeated setup gates make that connection hard to finish. > - GitHub can create an App from a manifest, but people must approve creation and repository access. > - Each Paperclip stack should own configuration, credentials, signature verification, and task admission. > - This change uses Cloud as an encrypted callback and event gateway, then completes setup in the stack. > - GitHub review bots have their own experimental setting. Chat connector opt-in does not control them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Dedicated GitHub App setup, bot settings, and task-scoped GitHub replies. **Current behavior** Users must configure an App, copy credentials, repeat repository selection, and complete manual verification gates. Review settings are hard to scan. Mentions in descriptions can be missed, and automatic completion text can produce an extra GitHub comment. **Proposed behavior** Choose an agent and connect GitHub under a personal account or organization. GitHub asks for creation and installation consent. Paperclip resumes the same draft, stores secrets locally, imports access, verifies delivery, and opens Settings. Each accepted request has one editable App-owned comment for progress and results. Review assessments produce deterministic checks for the reviewed commit. **Breaking changes** GitHub bots require their own default-off experimental opt-in. The setup-method and delegated-agent screens are removed. Per-person automatic-run flags remain readable but are replaced by author filters. Existing connections, direct webhooks, saved restrictions, and manual existing-App recovery remain supported. Companion gateway: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/pull/688 (merged). The roadmap and related PRs were checked; no duplicate dedicated-App wizard was found. ## What Changed - Add an independent **GitHub review bots** setting across the catalog, routes, identity admission, and task controls. Existing bots continue running when the UI setting is off. - Replace setup with Choose agent and Connect GitHub. Support personal and organization owners, inline low-trust conversion, saved drafts, known organization suggestions, automatic completion, and same-App recovery. - Keep manifests, OAuth PKCE, credential exchange, vault storage, installation verification, and original webhook-signature validation in the stack. Use the Cloud sealed gateway for public callbacks and outbound local delivery. - Add resumable owner metadata in migration 0323. Retry a failed registration renewal through the same durable replacement rather than creating another App route. - Support authorized mentions in issue and PR bodies, comments, inline comments, and review summaries. Preserve attachments, edited-source identity, duplicate protection, and lifecycle invalidation. Filter requests explicitly addressed to another connected bot. - Give agents task-scoped review, comment, and update tools. Update one working comment through progress and final output. Close coalesced requests and recover delayed acknowledgements, including deleted earlier working comments. Preserve automatic replies for legacy connections without saved review configuration. Preserve partial publication evidence and quarantine uncertain automatic fallbacks without blocking Board messages or questions. - Reorganize Settings and Access with rich slash-skill instructions, numeric passing scores, clear automation controls, formal-review tooltips, member and contributor sections, and verified App branding links. Preserve invalid score drafts and automation choices across tabs. - Paginate repositories in 20-row batches with search and a true connection-wide toggle. Batch verification at GitHub's 500-ID token limit. Keep saved repository overrides while hiding their editor. - Give each review a detail URL that remains usable beyond the newest 100 records. Synchronize the manager OpenAPI contracts and add recovery, authorization, UI, and browser regressions. - Reconcile the current master branch and retain its agent avatar, feature catalog, and extracted heartbeat preparation code. Preserve a saved test-drive port and recover from an occupied high port. ## Verification - Focused UI, independent experimental-setting, and CLI tests: 199 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. The broad local Vitest attempt was interrupted after resource timeouts and stale expectations; the affected regressions passed focused reruns. The latest-head full CI matrix passed, including all browser shards, server/chat suites, builds, typechecking, canary packaging, and Docker context integrity. A Docker Hub 429 required a CI retry; it passed without changing the code. - Final review repairs: 127 attachment/event tests and server typecheck passed. All 13 final integration regressions passed under the normal CI timeout, covering legacy reply compatibility, deleted coalesced comments, inline-only review completion, progress edits, and native final recovery. Restart-safe description/review attachments passed the attachment suite. - Final regressions: four reply/lifecycle tests, both native GitHub wait tests, 171 feature-gate/reply-contract tests, the routed review preview, and five scheduler/reply regressions passed. The final fixture repair also passed all six setup-continuation cases and all three complete chat-test shards in CI, covering terminal receipts and retries under the normal CI timeout. One loaded-host receipt run exceeded its local timeout; the exact case passed in an isolated rerun and the complete CI shard. - GitHub integration tests cover personal and organization setup, retry recovery, edited mentions, attachment provenance, coalesced requests, delayed acknowledgements, partial review writes, old review URLs, and company boundaries. - Browser qualification: both GitHub journeys, all five provider setup/management journeys, and the GitHub uncertain-send recovery journey passed. GitHub setup, reconnect, and task replies run with chat disabled; chat enabled alone cannot expose GitHub bots. The disposable qualification database was removed after testing. - Earlier live qualification verified App-owned issue replies, native slash-skill invocation, progress comment edits, and a 5/5 PR review with a passing current-head check in the dedicated permissions-smoke repository. These live checks did not use personal credentials as bot execution authority. ## Risks - Deploy the merged Cloud gateway protocol before the stack update. Each callback and encrypted event must retain the original instance and tenant binding. - Migration 0323 uses idempotent column additions for test installations that already applied the earlier draft migration number. - A verified connection does not prove runtime isolation or a completed review. Runtime checks remain separate. - Required merge checks must be configured in GitHub. A passing numeric score does not formally approve a PR; approval and request-changes tools remain opt-in. - Existing-App credentials cannot silently renew an uncertain manifest exchange. Recovery preserves the existing App, draft, connection, and agent. - Repository changes save immediately. Global toggles affect all currently available repositories, including unloaded rows, without granting new installation access. - A failed or uncertain tool write suppresses automatic fallback text; the governed outbox retains its evidence. Deleted or replaced response comments are not recreated through a personal credential fallback. - GitHub logo upload remains an optional human action in GitHub App settings. Runtime provisioning, delegated setup, screenshot publication, and production push delivery remain deferred. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact runtime model identifier and context size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub references) - [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 (focused suites; complete test matrix is checked in CI) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 17:01:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5cf90417d6	fix(ui): confirm cancellation from monitor cards (#15735) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their tasks. > - A task monitor schedules a later agent check. > - The monitor card shows when that check will run. > - The card has no direct control to cancel the monitor. > - This change adds an X button and a confirmation dialog. > - The operator can stop the scheduled check from the card. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The monitor card on the task page. **Current behavior** The operator must open task properties to clear a monitor. **Proposed behavior** Select the X in the top right of the card. Select Keep monitor to leave the schedule in place. Select Cancel monitor to remove the scheduled check. **Reason and benefit** The operator can cancel the monitor where its schedule is shown. Confirmation helps prevent an accidental cancellation. **Breaking changes** None. The change uses the existing task update API. ## What Changed - Add an accessible X button at the top right of the monitor card. - Confirm cancellation before the task update. - Keep the dialog open with an error if the update fails. - Preserve the other execution policy settings and refresh the task after success. - Reject stale policy writes under the task row lock with an optional expectedExecutionPolicy snapshot. - Document the snapshot field and add a database test for stale cancellation. - Restrict snapshot requests to policy-only edits before execution-control actions. - Add seven route tests for rejected mixed requests and absent policy updates. - Keep automatic retry waits separate from monitor cancellation. - Add component and task page tests. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Monitor banner and task page tests passed: 199 tests. A targeted database test and seven route tests also passed. - UI typecheck and production build passed. - Open a task with a scheduled monitor. Select X, then Keep monitor. The schedule must remain. - Select X, then Cancel monitor. The card must disappear after the update. - Local full build reached the Rust runner build but could not complete because Cargo is absent. CI must verify the full build. - Full repository typecheck, build, test suites, and E2E checks passed in CI for the final commit. Local full checks were limited by missing Cargo and workspace memory. ## Risks - Low risk. Cancellation uses the existing company access checks and activity log. - A cancelled monitor no longer wakes the agent. The dialog explains this effect. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. Used code editing, shell commands, and tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 16:38:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c5f7713dd4	fix: clarify native tool use for external agents (#15734) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External agents keep their own tools and app connections. > - The Paperclip assignment catalog controls the Paperclip bridge. > - Dot treated a qualification test restriction as a rule for later work. > - Existing prompts did not clearly separate these two tool sources. > - This pull request tells agents to use their own capabilities and return results to Paperclip. > - The benefit is that a missing Paperclip app does not block an available native capability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #15722 and #15691. I searched open PRs for Dot tool guidance and found no duplicate. **What happened?** After a qualification test, Dot refused a Slack request because the test Paperclip agent had no assigned Slack app. Dot already had a working Slack connection in ChatGPT. It carried the test's plugin restriction into a later task message. **Expected behavior** An external agent uses its own available tools, apps, plugins, skills, and capabilities to complete the current request. It then returns the result through Paperclip's task reporting and completion tools. The assignment catalog limits Paperclip calls. It does not disable the agent's native tools. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect a Dot that has a native Slack connection. 2. Complete a Paperclip qualification task with a restriction scoped to that test. 3. Send a later task message that requires Slack. 4. Observe that Dot can mistake the Paperclip catalog for its full tool inventory. **Deployment mode** Observed on Cloud staging with the Dot Runner. ## What Changed - Add shared tool-use guidance for external-agent onboarding and Dot setup. - Include it in the server onboarding document, pairing response, event instructions, and capability response. - Clarify the tool descriptions on both Dot bridge paths. - Include the same guidance in each Dot Runner assignment without adding a shared-package dependency to the standalone Runner. - Document native tool use and the scope of test restrictions. ## Verification - The 49 relevant onboarding, Dot invitation, and Runner context tests passed. The final UI run passed 29 tests. The updated plain-text renderer run passed all 4 tests. - Full workspace typecheck, full workspace build, and design token gates passed. All current-head CI gates passed, including full tests, Runner verification, and browser E2E. Greptile is 5/5 on the exact final commit, and the one review finding is resolved. - The real Dot received the standing correction and confirmed that it will use its relevant tools and connections, return results through Paperclip, and stop carrying the test restriction forward. - Extended the existing plain-text renderer test to check native Slack access, qualification-test scope, and the Paperclip denial boundary. This covers agents that receive only the onboarding.txt URL. - The full Vitest suite passed in CI. The earlier local Cloud qualification run encountered failures in unchanged suites; this follow-up uses focused local tests for the instruction changes. ## Risks This changes instructions, not access checks. Native tools retain their own permissions and approval requirements. Paperclip operations remain scoped to the authorized company, agent, and task. Agents must not use another connection or identity to bypass a denial. There is no database migration or new permission grant. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, repository tools, and browser control. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 16:20:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b6b3cb3761	Fix unavailable workspace branches with an inline repair and retry (#15726) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Isolated workspaces must resolve a starting Git ref before an agent starts. > - A task can explicitly select a branch that the repository does not have. > - The current recovery notice calls this a missing secret and offers no branch repair. > - This pull request explains the branch failure and adds a task-scoped repair action. > - Operators can correct the branch and request a guarded retry from the task thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #11892 added unresolved-ref recovery. Refs #15719 added bounded failure diagnostics. This change uses that recovery path and adds its operator repair UI. **What happened?** A task that selects `main` in a repository with only `master` stops before the adapter starts. The task shows a missing-secret message and a generic retry. Repeating the run cannot fix the stored branch setting. **Expected behavior** Explain that the starting ref could not be resolved. Offer a verified repository default, or let the operator enter a branch. Save only the task's starting branch and retry its recorded owner through the existing admission gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an isolated-workspace task in a repository with `master` and no `main`. 2. Set the task's base ref to `main` and assign an agent. 3. Wait for the configuration failure. 4. Use the inline branch repair and confirm the agent completes in a worktree based on `master`. ## What Changed - Replace the missing-secret diagnosis for unresolved workspace refs. Keep uncertain fetch/access failures described as uncertain. - Read the remote's advertised default branch with the existing Git credentials and a bounded timeout. Do not guess or silently change the branch. - Add an atomic branch repair to the existing recovery resolution endpoint. Check company access, board runtime permission, incident identity, current owner, task/project state, dependencies, interactions, approvals, budget, and active execution before requesting a retry. - Preserve the effective inherited workspace setup when saving the task branch override, and attach one repair notice per failed run even when the incident is reused. - Bind the shared repair card to the exact recovery notice and failed run in both task-thread renderers. Validate branch syntax and prevent duplicate submissions. - Add Storybook examples, regression tests, and a documented local acceptance fixture with a real Git repository and process adapter. ## Verification - Red/green regressions cover the repair endpoint and preservation of inherited agent setup. The regression failed before each fix and passed afterward. - Focused integration suite: 162 tests passed; task-thread/card suite: 230 passed. After review refinements, all 13 repair-route tests, 10 card tests, 77 recovery-action tests, and the repeated-failure heartbeat regression passed locally. - Real browser acceptance passed for suggested-branch and custom-entry repairs. Invalid syntax left the task blocked. Both valid repairs ran the authenticated worker in a real isolated worktree and reached Done; reload preserved the result. - Repeated failures reused the recovery incident and retained an actionable notice on the latest run. The inherited-setup journey verified the provisioned file, agent branch template, worktree parent directory, and actual Git commit before completing. [Before/after screenshots](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15726#issuecomment-6088734666). - Full local typecheck and build passed; server typecheck passed again after review fixes. Token gates passed. - The monolithic local Vitest run was stopped after resource-contention timeouts and stale assertions. Targeted regressions were rerun; the full CI matrix passed on final revision `26c543ff490bec29ddc77a49ee532c7f84fb96dc`. One signoff E2E worker-cancellation failure passed on a rerun without code changes. The two opt-in Storybook workflow jobs were skipped; the Storybook journey was checked manually. - Repeat the live journey with `tests/e2e/workspace-base-ref/README.md`. Storybook examples use simulated callbacks and are not the live acceptance proof. ## Risks - Default-branch discovery can add up to 10 seconds to an unresolved-ref failure. Lookup failure leaves manual entry available. - A valid branch name can still be absent or inaccessible. The retried workspace preparation remains authoritative and can block again with new evidence. - Retry remains subject to normal admission gates. The repair changes only the task override; it does not alter project or agent defaults. - No database migration or new dependency. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution, repository analysis, and browser testing. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 15:56:14 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	98e3cec78e	feat(costs): report monthly subscriptions beside API spend (#15634) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its Costs page reports API charges and subscription token usage. > - Subscription runs do not show the recurring fee paid for the account. > - Several agents can share one paid seat, so a fee per agent would overstate cost. > - This pull request identifies connected subscription accounts and reports each monthly fee once. > - Users can compare API spend and subscription costs, see uncertainty, and enter their actual price. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #498 and #3406 for related subscription reporting needs. This change does not add subscription budget enforcement or automatic optimization. Related prior approaches: #10544 and #11104 proposed API-equivalent token costs for subscription work. This PR reports recurring account fees separately from usage charges and budgets. A search found no open PR for monthly account fee reporting. **Subsystem affected** Costs, managed AI connections, shared contracts, database schema, and board UI. **Problem or motivation** An organization can pay for subscriptions even when included runs record no additional dollar charge. The Costs page cannot show that monthly commitment or distinguish a shared paid seat from several separate seats. **Proposed solution** Discover account identity from the managed connection selected for a run. Use exact known plans for labeled monthly list-price estimates. Keep ambiguous plans and unconfirmed identities unpriced until the user supplies a price. Sum current monthly fees separately from date-filtered API charges and token usage. **Alternatives considered** A fee per agent double-counts shared accounts. Token-based API price estimates do not measure the recurring subscription fee. Provider invoices would be more exact but are not available through these account credentials. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the shipped Better Budgeting and Personal & Shared AI Accounts capabilities. The feature and UI were reviewed with the maintainer before this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped subscription accounts, connection bindings, and immutable price revisions in replay-safe migration 0322. - Identify OpenAI workspace/seat and Claude organization/account pairs only after provider authentication. Keep provisional records grant-scoped; unchecked ID-token claims cannot combine accounts or grant billing editors. Keep credentials and raw provider identities out of reports. - Attach the selected subscription to new run receipts. Resolve duplicate aliases without rewriting old monetary receipts. - Add cached background discovery with four provider checks and twenty discovery requests at a time. Accepted requests wait for capacity; excess requests receive HTTP 429 and a UI retry action. Preserve saved prices and observations when a provider check fails. Dashboard polls load current prices only; audit revisions stay in the database. - Support owner-controlled monthly or annual prices, fractional-cent precision, separate currency totals, tracking status, and duplicate linking. Preserve both personal owners and shared-account managers when discovery finds the same paid seat. - Show API spend beside monthly subscription commitment, with separate token totals and clear estimate labels. Account details and fee totals follow billing-owner/shared-audience visibility; company-wide token totals remain available to cost readers. - Use consistent amount and estimate badge formatting for agent, user, project, and model rows. - Add real PostgreSQL tests, route authorization tests, UI tests, interactive Storybook fixtures, and operator documentation. ## Verification - Current head `d7b5c78dadf5033a3c447d83434676ac94687e77` passed all 53 checks, with two checks skipped. This includes the full test matrix, browser tests, build, typecheck, migration policy, canary packaging, and security checks. - Greptile Apex reviewed that exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, migration safety checks, and `git diff --check` passed. - All 238 focused tests passed across accounting, subscription persistence, authorization, UI, migration replay, and snapshot drift. - The expanded local chat suite passed 1,149 tests. Two cases failed because this workspace found an unrelated ancestor skill directory; both passed unchanged in an isolated checkout. The full local Vitest command was not repeated after the rebase because of this environment issue. CI covered the complete test matrix on the final head. - Migration `0322_reflective_kree.sql` follows master's `0321_acoustic_human_fly.sql`. Its snapshot and journal were regenerated. Master's migration and snapshot are unchanged. The subscription SQL retains its original content and hash. - Disposable PostgreSQL upgrade fixtures applied master's added lifecycle and Slack migrations without changing saved subscription prices or cost receipts. The renamed subscription migration was recognized by hash, retained one history row, and a second migration run was a no-op. - Regression tests cover provider capacity, fractional-cent edits, billing visibility after grant revocation, and fixed-price/credit/unknown usage. The new UI billing-label tests fail against the old wording and pass with the fix. - Browser checks passed for desktop and mobile layouts, shared-account totals, annual price edits, unknown prices, and stale provider data. - A live OpenAI account probe returned HTTP 200 and a verified Pro account identity. The generic Pro plan correctly remains unpriced. - Live Claude discovery identified Max 20x and a $200/month estimate. Two real Claude agent runs were attributed to that same account, with two usage receipts, two agents, one monthly fee, and zero additional usage charges. Two OpenAI connections also deduplicated to one account. - Live Codex execution is not verified: both Paperclip's managed hello test and a direct host `codex exec` fail with a workspace-routing authentication error. The current credential passes the usage API probe. This is separate from the successful account-discovery check. - A local performance fixture with 50,000 usage events and 5,001 saved price revisions produced a 1,589-byte report in 11.5 ms median / 12.2 ms maximum over ten warmed runs. PostgreSQL used the subscription/revision index to read one current price row. These are local measurements, not a production latency guarantee. - [Desktop, account details, and mobile screenshots](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-15634-subscription-costs-d5d285e2/) show the production Costs page with synthetic Storybook fixtures. - To inspect the UI, run `pnpm storybook` and open **Costs / Subscriptions**. Edits there change fixture data only. ## Risks - Provider plan identifiers can change. Unknown plans remain unpriced. Automatic prices are estimates before tax; discounts and negotiated prices require a user-supplied amount. - Subscription fees describe the current monthly commitment. They do not follow the selected usage date range and do not consume agent budgets or create finance events. - Monthly fees cover only accounts visible to the viewer; company-wide token totals retain their existing scope. - Legacy or unmanaged usage can remain unattributed. Unconfirmed identities require manual prices and may need explicit duplicate linking after credential changes. - Disconnecting a connection does not prove provider billing stopped. Users must end or exclude tracking explicitly. - Migration 0322 adds tables, a nullable cost-event column, and an index. It is replay-safe, but normal migration locks still apply. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. This session did not expose a more specific backend model ID or context-window size. Capabilities used: code editing, shell execution, database tests, and browser verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 13:38:01 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	cb291bf129	Fix Dot Cloud invitation and anonymous consent setup (#15722) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Dot joins through a public MCP connection and the Runner task system. > - A new hire must connect before its lifecycle can become ready. > - The invite UI treated the hire's temporary paused status as a manual pause. > - Anonymous Cloud consent also reloaded after protected background probes returned 401. > - This pull request fixes both gates without changing server access checks. > - The benefit is that a new Dot can complete Cloud setup and the UI waits for actual readiness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related merged work: #15691 and #15581. I searched open Dot PR and issue titles. I found no duplicate. **What happened?** A new Dot invite displayed “Resume this agent before connecting Dot.” The hire was preparing or verifying. The anonymous Cloud consent page remained on “Loading connection request…” because background tenant-session failures caused repeated document reloads. **Expected behavior** The invite must issue a setup prompt when the server permits connection setup. Public Dot consent must load without a board session. The Done button must wait for both the binding and agent lifecycle to become ready. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Dot, Assistant connections (MCP), and the native Runner on a Cloud test tenant. 2. Choose New Agent, Invite an external agent, then Dot. 3. Observe the false resume gate on the new hire. 4. Open the plugin's public Dot consent page in a browser without a tenant board session. 5. Observe the loading loop after a protected background probe returns `tenant_session_required`. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `556daf9a99e8674f9c4a1c38ac20ae9adafdd417`. **Deployment mode** Cloud staging with a managed Daytona Runner. No production tenant changes. ## What Changed - Return lifecycle state and connection setup authority in the operator Dot binding response. - Use that authority to prepare prompts during hire preparation and verification. - Continue polling after event readiness until the agent lifecycle is ready. - Keep expected tenant-session failures from reloading an exact public Dot consent route. - Classify Dot consent as a global route. Retain board session and archived-stack recovery. - Add regression tests and update the Dot deployment documentation. ## Verification - Before the fix, regression tests reproduced the false pairing gate and anonymous consent reload. - After the fix, 34 Dot invitation tests and 51 public consent/API/route tests passed before rebasing. - Full workspace typecheck, full build, final UI typecheck, and design token gates passed locally. All current-head CI gates are green, including full tests and browser E2E. - The final UI regression run passed 80 tests. The broad local test run has reported failures in unchanged chat, OAuth-tool-access, and native-resume suites while running alongside other development instances; the equivalent isolated CI lanes passed. The broad local run was stopped after these failures to release local resources; it is not claimed as passing. - Live Cloud qualification passed OAuth discovery, the approved agent grant, ChatGPT account handoff, a signed event subscription, and the inbox readiness challenge. The agent became ready and normal scheduling launched the managed Runner. A real Dot accepted the task, read its context, wrote and verified a document, posted a comment, and completed through paperclip_finish and paperclip_dot_finish. The task persisted as Done after reload, and the successful turn's sandbox was destroyed with a successful cleanup receipt. - Restarting the existing Dot refreshed its newly installed plugin actions. The first Daytona allocation remained creating and hit the acquisition deadline; a bounded normal retry acquired a sandbox and launched through authenticated provider ingress. The earlier allocation still rejects deletion while creating (HTTP 409), so its failed-run cleanup remains pending. - After deployment, use a real Dot to open the consent page without board credentials, pair, confirm task events, and finish an assigned task through the managed Runner. ## Risks The operator binding response has two new required fields. Server and UI must deploy together. The recovery exception only applies to a valid Dot consent pathname and tenant-session 401 responses. It does not expose protected APIs or suppress archived-stack recovery. No schema migration or agent permission change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, repository tools, test execution, and browser control. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 15:19:33 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3fc64c5156	feat(slack): add Require at-mention setting (#15612) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack messages can create tasks and continue existing tasks. > - A reply in a subscribed thread can start agent work without a new mention. > - Some users want to control each reply with an explicit bot mention. > - This pull request adds a Require at-mention setting to Slack app settings. > - The setting checks new messages and queued messages before they start work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Slack app settings and the rules that admit inbound messages. **Subsystem affected** Server, UI, database, and shared API contracts. **Current behavior** After the bot joins a thread, an ordinary reply can wake the agent. Direct messages do not need a bot mention. **Proposed behavior** Add Require at-mention below Allow direct messages. When enabled, each channel message, thread reply, and direct message must mention the bot. Direct messages must also be allowed. **Reason and benefit** Users can prevent ordinary conversation from starting agent work. **Breaking changes** New Slack connections require a bot mention by default. Existing connections keep their saved setting. Work that has already started is not cancelled. **Additional context** A search for existing at-mention PR titles found no duplicate. ## What Changed - Add the endpoint field, schema validation, API response, and UI toggle. New Slack connections enable the setting. - Add an idempotent database migration and generated metadata. Renumber it to 0321 after current master. - Check the current setting at inbound admission, task mutation, and the first heartbeat queue claim. - Keep Slack tool access and recovery for already-running work when the setting changes. - Cancel queued batches that contain an unmentioned input, including coalesced messages. - Dispatch promoted follow-ups after the scheduler releases its agent start lock. Preserve these checks in the new queue and run-control modules. - Filter unmentioned messages without retaining their content. - Keep provider-message deduplication and existing access checks. - Add thread, DM, duplicate-delivery, queued-message, and new-connection default regression tests. - Document the setting and its scope. ## Verification - Previous head `16791bb7`: typecheck, build, all server shards, Runner checks, and E2E passed. Two chat shards failed in three fixtures that used unmentioned Slack messages. - Update setup follow-ups to mention the Slack bot. Disable the mention rule explicitly in the callback ordering test, which tests ordinary subscribed replies. - Previous local checks passed: six Slack integration cases, all 46 durable chat scheduler tests, all 24 queue/run-control tests, migration safety, and UI token gates. - Greptile reviewed `16791bb7` with 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - Head `53163c20f`: all five focused integration cases passed. These cover all three prior CI failures and both default-on channel/DM cases. Fresh CI and Greptile are running. - Full local recursive typecheck, build, and repository tests were not repeated for this fixture-only change. CI supplies these checks. - Manual check: create a Slack connection. Require at-mention must be on. An ordinary thread reply or DM must not wake the agent. A bot mention must wake it once. Disable the setting and confirm ordinary replies work again. ## Risks - The migration adds a non-null boolean with a false default. Apply it before the new server runs. - The setting also applies to DMs. The UI help text states this. - Enabling it blocks queued unmentioned work but does not cancel a run that has already started. - Full local verification is limited by the environment constraints above; latest-head CI must pass before merge. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex agent), with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 14:03:02 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	5badea4798	Use the agent lifecycle contract for plugin setup and status (#15391) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Some plugins must prepare resources before an agent can work. > - Those resources must stop or be removed when the agent pauses or terminates. > - The agent lifecycle module now owns these steps and their durable completion. > - Plugins use its required callback contract instead of a separate readiness query. > - This PR documents that contract and shows its progress and retry action on the agent page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15631 **Subsystem affected** Required plugin lifecycle work and the agent detail page. **Problem or motivation** The lifecycle module exposes `onAgentLifecycle` and `agents.lifecycle.manage`, but the plugin authoring guide does not explain their use. The agent page displays legacy status. Setup therefore looks paused and offers Resume. Termination leaves the page before resource cleanup completes. **Proposed solution** Use the callback, admission guards, persisted state, and retry route supplied by the lifecycle module. Show pending phases and fixed host errors. Keep the detail page open during incomplete termination. Use lifecycle state for pause and resume controls. **Alternatives considered** A separate plugin readiness query would duplicate the module's state and admission rules. The final diff contains no readiness API, database commit hooks, or second admission check. ## What Changed - Document the manifest declaration, callback results, phase ordering, capability scope, retry behavior, and provider revision requirements. - Correct SDK comments for lifecycle, routing, and external object callbacks. - Show preparation, verification, pause, resume, termination, and cleanup progress from the existing agent fields. - Refresh pending steps every two seconds and other states every thirty seconds. Keep these reads separate from the agent record used by editable forms. Use the existing authorized retry route for failed steps. - Offer Pause during setup. Disable pause and resume while stop or cleanup is incomplete. Keep cleanup failures reachable on the detail page. Disable new work after termination starts. - Test required resource work across setup, pause, resume, and confirmed deletion. Test every worker callback phase, missing handlers, retry authorization, and UI behavior. ## Verification - Focused UI tests: 139 passed across lifecycle status, action buttons, API tests, and the configuration form. A regression preserves unsaved edits during an in-flight lifecycle refresh and a failed refresh. - Focused host and shared tests: 113 passed across lifecycle integration, retry authorization, plugin RPC, and manifest validation. The database suite used isolated local PostgreSQL 18 through a temporary loader outside the repository. - Module boundary tests: 11 passed. Module import/write checks and UI token gates passed. - Plugin SDK build, server direct TypeScript check, and UI TypeScript check passed. - `git diff --check` and an added-line secrets/private-reference scan passed. Fixtures use synthetic identities. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed using the existing local Rust toolchain. - Visually checked all six progress phases with the application components and styles. Captured preparation and cleanup failure screenshots from the production UI build with synthetic API data; artifacts are kept outside git. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after a native-runner failure reproduced in isolation: `native-session-resume.test.ts` / `archives a damaged prior epoch before completing guarded same-task replacement with real runnerd` returns a failed Codex fixture result instead of success. The native-runtime and runner trees are unchanged from the base. No full local test pass is claimed. - All latest-head CI checks passed, including test shards, verification, E2E, and the canary packaging check. Greptile reviewed commit `96473e03a` at 5/5 with no unresolved comments. ## Risks - Selected required plugins remain a dependency for lifecycle completion. The lifecycle module retains their requirements when a plugin is disabled or removed. - Plugins must make repeated provider operations safe and fence older revisions. Host revision checks do not cancel external requests. - Polling adds one agent-detail read every two seconds during pending work and every thirty seconds otherwise. - No schema change, private VM provider implementation, resource backfill, or deployment is included. No live provider test was run. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and command execution. The exact model revision and context window were 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [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 risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 11:15:24 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	556daf9a99	feat(dot): run cloud assignments in managed sandboxes (#15691) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and governs their work. > - The Runner owns execution and task authority. > - Dot executes at OpenAI and uses Paperclip through MCP. > - Dot previously required a self-hosted controller. > - Cloud must admit Dot work in a managed sandbox and keep protocol traffic in the tenant. > - This pull request adds managed Dot execution and dedicated pairing routes. > - The same Runner path can later host sandboxed workspace tools. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Agent or provider** OpenAI Dot, through the existing dedicated MCP adapter. Related changes: #15402, #15414, and #15581. **Why this adapter is useful** Cloud users need to assign work to Dot and let Dot request work while idle. Neither path should execute agent commands on the control-plane host or require an idle sandbox. **How the agent is invoked** The tenant serves OAuth, signed mailbox events, and scoped tools. Normal admission creates a managed sandbox for each assignment. A verified Rust Runner owns that assignment and relays its tools and results. ## What Changed - Enable the external-agent invitation in Cloud behind the standalone Dot flag. - Launch Dot through the existing managed process launcher and authenticated PRP transport. - Verify the artifact digest and Dot capability before dispatch. Read provider checkpoints from the execution target for recovery. - Reject local execution in Cloud and reject managed workspace access for this release. - Add dedicated public Dot pairing aliases. Preserve the personal assistant consent paths. - Keep Dot events in the tenant when a personal Cloud broker is configured. - Use the app-configured heartbeat for Dot-initiated work. Report terminal admission failures and fence stranded offers before new admission. - Offer normal comments through the active assignment's mailbox. Keep their wakes deferred until a successful history receipt contains the exact IDs; preserve unread comments through finish, batching and recovery without replaying consumed input. - Require a sandbox process fingerprint before dispatch and allow a bounded five-minute controller reconnect gap. Preserve remote process birth without inspecting a colliding controller PID. - Recognize authenticated remote shutdown receipts even without an OS exit code. - Document dedicated pairing aliases and teach route coverage to inspect literal path arrays. - Add opt-in private Daytona qualification and focused contract tests. ## Verification - Workspace typecheck, production build, and UI token gates passed. - Focused onboarding, OAuth, managed environment, artifact metadata, and terminal-fence tests passed. One environment-test timeout passed on an isolated repeat. - A private Daytona fixture passed with the real Rust Runner, signed readiness, assigned app tools, document writes, duplicate receipts, authority fences, completion, and sandbox deletion. - A real OpenAI Dot completed both an operator-assigned task and a Dot-initiated task in managed Daytona sandboxes. Both leases were released. - A real accepted Dot assignment survived a controller gap longer than one minute with the same sandbox process, Runner, session, and assignment. Dot consumed the normal task-comment follow-up and completed exactly once; the lease was released. - A real cancellation fenced an accepted assignment, released its lease, and received Dot's acknowledgement without claiming a global provider stop. - Final local checks: 74 Dot execution, OAuth onboarding and API contract tests after integrating the current agent-lifecycle changes, 9 real Rust driver tests, 21 remote-runtime tests plus the 3 detached-process cleanup tests, and 17 lifecycle tests passed. The final live Daytona fixture passed and deleted its sandbox. - A final real Dot follow-up stayed pending until its exact comment appeared in a successful history receipt. Dot completed the original managed assignment once; its lease was released. - The broad local suite crossed a rebase and was stopped; its failures are not a qualification of this final source. Focused repeats passed. The final head passed all CI gates: workspace types, build, general and serialized test suites, Rust and Runner verification, all browser shards, and the canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with both findings resolved. ## Risks - Deploy the tenant app with its current Linux Runner artifact and the corresponding front-door protocol routes together. - This branch has not been deployed to a Cloud tenant. A deployed tenant still needs an OAuth and assignment smoke test. - Dot provider usage and cost are unmetered. Revocation fences Paperclip tools and does not prove a global OpenAI stop. - Missing or changed recovery identity fails closed. No replacement Dot thread is invented. - No schema migration is added. Managed Dot workspace access remains unavailable. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and browser testing. The exact runtime model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 12:58:35 -05:00
Dotta	41fec8c892	fix: show notification actors and avatars, and hide self-actions (#15695) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - Task notifications tell people who changed a task. > - The authenticated event stream removed the actor ID and type. > - The UI then showed “Someone” and could not hide the viewer's own actions. > - Toasts also had no field or renderer for an actor avatar. > - This pull request keeps authorized actor identity and shows the existing person or agent avatar. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Authenticated task notifications showed “Someone.” A person's own actions could produce notifications. Toasts showed a colored dot instead of the actor's avatar. **Expected behavior** Show the actor's name and avatar. Hide notifications for the viewer's own task actions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in to an authenticated instance. 2. View a page other than the task being changed. 3. Create or update a task, or add a comment. 4. Observe the generic name and the notification for your own action. ## What Changed - Keep actor IDs and types after the existing task access check. - Read only the actor's name, photo, or agent appearance from company-scoped records. Do not forward task details or comments. - Supply names and avatars even when the browser has no cached directory. - Carry actor data through the toast provider. Use the existing person and agent avatar components. - Identify the local trusted viewer so that self-actions are also hidden there. - Add tests for authenticated event delivery, hidden tasks, private details, self-actions, names, agent appearance, and avatar rendering. ## Verification - Passed: 71 UI tests across LiveUpdatesProvider, ToastContext, and ToastViewport. - Passed: 11 server tests across live-events-toast and live-events-ws. The added tests assert the actual SQL filters and bound company, actor, and active-membership values. - Passed: UI typecheck (`cd ui && ../node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`). - Passed: UI production build (`cd ui && node_modules/.bin/vite build`). - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check`. - The full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` could not complete because this environment has no Rust `cargo` executable. - The full `pnpm test:run` did not complete. Broad validation exceeded the 4 GB sandbox memory limit. The full test run was stopped; the focused tests were then run successfully. - Manual review: use two signed-in people, make task changes from each, and confirm only the other person's toast appears. Repeat with an agent and check its avatar. ### Avatar screenshots Production toast components with sample identities. These isolated browser renders cover the person image and the agent custom avatar in both themes.   ## Risks - Task toast events add a small profile read per authorized viewer. Other task actions retain IDs without a profile read. - Deleted or unavailable identities use an ID-based label. People without a photo use initials. - Access checks and task-detail filtering remain in place. There is no database migration. - All CI checks passed on the first commit, including full typecheck, build, test shards, and browser suites. The updated commit must pass CI again. The PR is ready for review. CI and Greptile must pass on the updated commit. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with code editing and tool execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed to this run. ## 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 (focused suites listed above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (behavior and validation are recorded above; no command or configuration change) - [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	2026-10-09 12:34:10 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0726a00e80	feat(apps): qualify Bitly, Context7, Hugging Face and Resend MCP (#15686) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and govern their tools. > - Apps already supports provider-hosted MCP servers. > - Useful providers still need real setup and read proof before Browse exposure. > - Browser testing found a Bitly token-format failure and an OAuth callback that replaced an explicit empty agent selection. > - This PR qualifies four provider methods and fixes those shared OAuth paths. > - Providers that still need login or approval remain withheld from new Browse listings. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15621, the merged hosted MCP qualification batch. Searches found no duplicate Bitly or Context7 implementation PR. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Apps setup, provider MCP discovery, token exchange, and saved agent access through an OAuth callback. **Subsystem affected** Shared Apps definitions, the server tool-access service, and the UI setup/recovery route. **Current behavior** Bitly's callback can fail with `oauth_access_token_missing` when its token response is not JSON. Curated MCP callbacks can treat an explicitly saved empty install set as access for all agents. Context7 is hidden and Hugging Face lacks a curated anonymous method. Saved drafts for hidden providers cannot finish setup through their catalog wizard. **Proposed behavior** Request JSON token responses. Record explicit remote MCP install choices in the install transaction and preserve them at callback. Keep managed subject/default access when no choice was saved. Expose the qualified Bitly and Context7 methods, add anonymous Hugging Face Hub access, and record Resend qualification. Resume hidden providers only through an exact matching company-visible saved draft. **Reason and benefit** People can connect useful hosted tools through the existing Apps flow. An explicit zero-agent selection survives authorization. Public documentation lookups need no OAuth app, account, or key. **Breaking changes** Explicitly saved empty MCP install choices now remain empty. Existing managed defaults without a saved choice retain their behavior. No schema migration or API shape change. ## What Changed - Qualify Bitly OAuth, Context7 public MCP, Hugging Face public MCP, and Resend OAuth with real browser setup, useful UI reads, and reload checks. - Negotiate JSON OAuth token responses and preserve explicitly saved MCP agent reach with a transactional config marker. - Add durable provider overrides, permission reviews, dated text-only evidence, and official branding provenance. Remove all seven evidence images and their report references. - Restore Finish setup for hidden-provider drafts with company/application/provider checks; keep fresh setup withheld. Preserve success after the exact resumed draft becomes active, and restore valid completed URLs to that exact saved Permissions page; reject initially active, disabled, or archived resume targets. Align the Context7 route assertion with its new qualified availability. - Retain hidden ClickUp, Klaviyo, and monday.com research with exact login/approval gates. monday.com requires provider callback allowlisting. ## Verification - Connector service suite: 420 passed, including default/empty/agent/company reach and managed OAuth lifecycle coverage. - Shared catalog: 36 passed. Override tests: 3 passed. Brand checks: 101 identities passed. - Focused UI setup/recovery, Browse, and OAuth-helper suites: 306 passed. Actual hidden-draft resume/reload passed; a public Context7 draft seeded in the isolated app completed through the active-state refetch and persisted with zero agents after reload. The completed URL refresh and View connection open the exact saved Permissions page. Fresh hidden setup, normal initially active resume, disabled/archived status, and provider mismatch are rejected; a draft at the completion stage stays in setup. - Recursive typecheck and build passed again after rebase. The full local Vitest run began before rebase and was cancelled as superseded while still in the general-server phase; it is not a completed pass. Exact-head CI supplies broad coverage. The focused connector service suite passed against the final code. UI typecheck, build, and token gates passed again after the draft-recovery fix. - Targeted mock MCP Playwright journey: 1 passed (34.9s). It now verifies View connection reaches the exact saved Permissions route, both discovered actions, and reload persistence. This replaces the stale Browse expectation found by CI. - All CI gates passed on final commit `32bb4c6422411eee632486950e45e2735102d1b3`. The inherited-pause test timed out in the cleanup run and passed on one retry without code changes; the entire file also passed locally, 36/36. Its exact timing cause remains unresolved. A signoff timeout on the preceding production-code commit also passed on its single retry. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no open findings. - Actual UI reads: Bitly current-user read; Resend List Domains including a fresh setup after the final callback refinement; Context7 React docs; Hugging Face public docs search. No provider writes or real agent runtimes ran. - [Text-only qualification report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/32bb4c6422411eee632486950e45e2735102d1b3/doc/connections/easy-mcp-batch-2-2026-10-09.md) include evidence limits and exact blockers. Account/profile/domain results are omitted. ## Risks - Bitly `mcp.all` and Resend `full_access` remain broad provider grants. Qualification kept writes Off and selected no agents. Read proof does not establish write behavior or refresh rotation. - The explicit-choice marker applies to new install saves; older unmarked flows keep their existing defaults. Its JSONB merge avoids overwriting concurrent config fields. - Public provider catalogs and rate limits can change. Unqualified providers remain withheld from new Browse entries; retained connections remain available for recovery. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, plus OpenAI `gpt-6-luna` subagents for provider research, browser testing, and review. The exact primary serving variant and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime. Used reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 11:52:33 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	57e977be72	feat: integrate Pi 1.0 into the experimental Runner (#14921) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The experimental Runner owns provider processes and durable sessions. > - Pi needs working task execution and human controls. > - The five-PR stack must preserve changes already on master. > - Each layer now carries the complete integrated source for a safe sequential fallback. > - This PR belongs to native GitHub stack #15602, ending at #14956. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14436, #14631, #14743 and #14956. Ship Pi 1.0 through the experimental Paperclip Runner. The five PRs are #14921, #14922, #14923, #14924 and #14956. The user authorized the complete merge after checks pass. Existing `pi_local` execution is unchanged. Accounting and wider provider/platform qualification remain deferred. ## What Changed - Recover missing final replies after workspace finalization changes owners, using accepted-turn evidence without rerunning work or granting external-chat publication. - Preserve the admitted Pi instruction root across warm runs, while retaining changed-root rejection. - Give Pi a bounded 15-second default shutdown grace so stop, drain acknowledgement and durable suspension can complete. Explicit deadlines and other providers retain their existing behavior. - Integrate the Pi 1.0 runtime and master contracts. - Use Pi profile 22. Preserve explicit caller-selected models and exact native thinking levels. Keep Pi's wrapper, helper, extension and question/control behavior unchanged from the qualified profile-19 runtime. - Preserve master's Dot lifecycle and consent fields, configured task environment, status guards and current Codex/Claude dependency versions. Cursor stays qualified. Copilot stays pending; profile 17 binds the changed shared protocol validation sources. - Exclude general AWS IAM credentials from Pi static/custom provider bindings and selected task projections; preserve the provider-scoped Bedrock bearer key. Profile 21 is retained as historical provenance. Rust and cloud install probes use the current declaration. - Patch bundled brace-expansion 5.0.9 to the exact official 5.0.12 payload. Pin the patch and complete runtime closures. Include the patch in normal installed setup tooling. Keep the upstream Pi shrinkwrap as provenance and permit only this exact security correction. - Include current attestation files in the Docker build context. Keep the repository lockfile unchanged from master. CI and private image builds resolve manifest changes before their frozen installation. ## Verification - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passes, including Runner Rust, server and UI. Focused integration checks pass: 194 Runner admission/environment tests, 63 profile/credential tests with one expected skip, 152 Dot/UI configuration tests, and Pi transcript/notice tests. - Full local `pnpm build` passes on the final source. - Fresh final-source checks pass: all 698 Rust workspace tests (32 binaries), 156 credential/profile/controller tests with one expected skip, Runner TypeScript typecheck, and 20 package/setup/sandbox tests. - The profile-21 Pi materializer passes on the native host with the official pinned Node 24.21.0 and its npm. It verifies all 150 locked packages, the patched dependency and the exact closure. Setup/package bundle tests and UI token gates pass. - The old hashes were reproduced for all three supported targets before calculating the patched graph. New closure hashes are darwin-arm64 `282022db10150c6632b3444df421342e7d534bdf5d5fb1097a2e79d0625a2bcf`, darwin-x64 `64e251e19009f755c0b04f73ce2138246faab71a961b0f13d75ebfcc34bef12e`, and linux-x64 `713b1fdff42fb56a1518bdc084f181d70bee8ebadc3e4b1d76321ed9108c8410`. Independent native platform execution is separate from graph identity reproduction. - Historical cloud qualification remains unchanged: all seven core cases pass on shipping source `10dc43c9ec65d88c2f782d62afb296d09494f215`, harness `1a4408a48cfb5a1f094a311141c257c92cd7a893`, image `sha256:5b3a775b383591bda1b0c1889e509acc70ce7f37c53f09733c81d59037f02280`, and accepted Sonnet 4.6/low fixture. All 215 canonical files and all seven cleanup checks pass independent verification. These are profile-19 results and are not relabeled as fresh profile-22 runs. - Current Pi digest: `sha256:e92078bee3c23bec4100aa589013a44613d054cd686826534025d8019e9f39a9`. [The readiness plan](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/pi-production-readiness/doc/plans/2026-10-02-pi-production-readiness.md) preserves campaign and failed-attempt provenance. - Merge only after every PR's current-head CI and fresh review pass. Linux CI covers the full suites, build and browser tests. The local embedded Postgres API-authority suite cannot start on this macOS/Node 26 host, so Linux CI must confirm that suite. ### Fresh profile-22 core qualification — 2026-10-08 All seven accepted core cases pass canonically on Pi profile 22, with `openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6` and native-confirmed low thinking. This model is a fixture; production accepts the caller's explicit Pi provider/model. Runtime/install source: `3241a992f2a7703e59e97ed0fd3e5d6405de4401`. Frozen accepted harness: `1a4408a48cfb5a1f094a311141c257c92cd7a893`. Immutable cloud image: `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:506f22db7edd78f37c0c40bec1cc084af1850455026dbf467194bfbb8fcef141`. Pi digest: `sha256:e92078bee3c23bec4100aa589013a44613d054cd686826534025d8019e9f39a9`. [Hosted Linux image and clean-install verification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37868328023) passes, including all 20 source-bound archives, normal CLI/Pi setup, companion import and the production pack reader. This exact installation source includes the latest master integration and the corrected Pi warm instruction-root fence. Full local typecheck/build and current-head hosted CI verify the final stack. All 13 focused real-root regressions pass. The full local executor suite passed 662 tests; 15 database tests could not start the Mac embedded PostgreSQL service. Hosted Linux CI passes the full required verification and E2E checks. These fresh results keep their own source identity; profile-19 results remain historical. | Core path | Canonical campaign | Retained archive SHA-256 | | --- | --- | --- | | File edit, validation, download and Done | `pi-core22-replyfix-0-1791511228` | 23 files; `a473e8603a3dd4737863291f8d3d1e392391f0b16d433c3e0e0e9d8baf7a97b0` | | Pending question and controller restart | `pi-core22-replyfix-1-1791511376` | 33 files; `6b829c4eb74e1f32a89c692a4ae7130dbfc1c6d3cf13915effe2103d9e242c8e` | | Three-turn session/process/workspace continuity | `pi-core22-replyfix-2-1791511587` | 23 files; `7a87021f8f9a3fdd3c58bb4467f8d82c635e3ea4795d6e75f144d9aa14818df8` | | Four typed questions and browser reconnects | `pi-core22-replyfix-3-1791511881` | 42 files; `9e31755252be1f4f9cb0626c984c142d4d1ae5f5bee3a7af08444db8d12c280a` | | Plan approval and completion | `pi-core22-replyfix-4-1791512031` | 22 files; `a0383ce1aab38e7b5a25ce0e9dd3bebea5c037ebd96ae6b29dae19015da2ae2c` | | Same-turn steering and permission denial | `pi-core22-replyfix-5-1791512261` | 39 files; `c929b8c7070f0b66aedc17e65ca46e6beab1e363926ac9f7e2a75fb250f05949` | | Stop during pending permission | `pi-core22-replyfix-6-1791512390` | 33 files; `7f0a58ae0f4d5bfc76149435f4e322537089c5bd16e7ffe9b5ad71f10a621a07` | All 215 canonical files (28714587 bytes) are independently hash-verified. All seven cleanup grades pass, with no owned runtime process or temporary root after each case. Automatic retries are zero. The owned cloud host stopped normally after retention. The prior profile-22 warm attempt remains failed and separately retained: archive SHA-256 `1e54eba5ec72b50cee1534b23d1d1d4f21a090006b8a64501ba70db972abfde5`. Its original canonical classification is preserved. Diagnosis reproduced a product bug comparing an agent-files root against an unset checkpoint-only field. The fix stores the admitted physical root separately from the adopted per-run collection capability. The real-root regression fails before the fix and passes afterward, including rejection of a changed physical root. Fixture, grader, model and all seven accepted case IDs are unchanged; this fresh campaign tests final-reply publication after file registration first. The intermediate restart attempt also remains failed and retained: archive SHA-256 `5dcaefdf1d17cf4cd54fd4cf810f45e736667392339b8ce7caf08bb4e225277f`. Its original canonical classification is preserved. Pi resumed, wrote the verified answer and completed its task; exact runner suspension was proven, but idle stop consumed about 5.2s and left under 3s for the drain acknowledgement. The Pi-only default shutdown grace is now 15s, preserving a full 5s drain round trip and a finite suspension reserve. Explicit caller deadlines, other provider defaults, literal drain receipts and exact suspension identity checks remain unchanged. The timing regression fails before this correction and passes afterward; all 18 focused settlement tests and Runner typecheck pass. The final-source file attempt is also preserved as failed (`candidate_failure`), archive SHA-256 `db6767b6773ea618997927ac77bdb005a5ac81492c7b9c0ffbc900449f829bc9`. Native edit, validation, exact downloadable artifact and Done/succeeded all passed, and the exact final reply was durably recorded. A workspace recovery owner completed before the live heartbeat reached presentation, leaving that reply absent from task chat. Recovery now materializes only a completed final reply from the accepted turn of an ordinary internal Done task, preserving issue/run/contract binding, suppression, external-chat authorization and same-run deduplication. The database regression covers the generated file-preparation receipt, suppression, unapproved external continuation and replay. Server typecheck and all 49 response-selection tests pass; hosted Linux verifies the database regression because embedded PostgreSQL cannot start on this Mac. The delayed-final-answer database regression passes on [the final root-source Linux server shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37868262553/job/113628594152), alongside 1,108 passing tests. The first root Runner shard had one unchanged durable-resume test exceed its 5-second timeout; the identical top-source shard and the isolated exact test passed. One rerun of that failed job and its required aggregate passed without source or test changes. The original failed job log and the single-rerun receipt remain retained. ### October 9 merge verification Current merge head: `5a8fe63512a7166aaef5cf50065a25008aa8b44b`. All current-head checks pass, including `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`; exact-head Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Current master conflicts are resolved. The user authorized the maintainer override of the code-owner review gate after these checks. The seven retained live core cases remain bound to source `3241a992f2a7703e59e97ed0fd3e5d6405de4401` and its recorded cloud image. ## Risks - The security correction changes the dependency closure and profile identity. Old sessions must reopen on the new profile. Exact identities and credential bindings fail closed. - The runner remains experimental and requires explicit selection. Legacy Pi Local is unchanged. Caller model IDs pass through; the E2E model is a fixture. - Accounting and the broad platform/provider matrix remain deferred. This merge does not publish a release or deploy a service. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with reasoning, repository inspection, editing and tool use. The exact serving ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Final live qualification uses Pi 1.0.0 with `openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6` and native-confirmed low thinking. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 08:56:41 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2b688a8fe3	feat(connections): add verified MCP providers and setup fixes (#15621) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give agents governed access to external tools. > - Several provider MCP servers lacked a supported catalog entry or failed during setup. > - Real browser tests identified specific registration, session, and form defects. > - This pull request adds seven catalog entries and fixes the shared paths used by eleven verified providers. > - Users can connect these providers through the existing Apps flow and control each action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Apps catalog and remote MCP setup, discovery, and action tester. **Subsystem affected** Shared app definitions, the server tool services, and the Apps UI. **Current behavior** Seven providers lack a catalog entry. Airtable can select an advertised client-metadata flow that fails. Calendly rejects the registration name. Tavily needs an initialized session before a call. Firecrawl exposes invalid defaults for optional nested form objects. HTTPS setup can display a callback that differs from the server callback. **Proposed behavior** Add Calendly, Exa, Firecrawl, GSC Wizard, Parallel Search, Tavily, and Windsor.ai. Preserve Airtable, Linear, Make, and PostHog. Use reviewed provider options through the shared MCP and OAuth paths. Display the callback supplied by the server. Omit untouched optional object inputs. **Reason and benefit** Eleven providers passed bounded reads through the real Paperclip browser action tester. This PR includes that verified set and its required shared fixes. Unfinished providers remain outside this change. AgentMail keeps its existing integration. **Breaking changes** No database migration. Existing OAuth credentials and action policies keep their ownership and access rules. Airtable's reviewed method re-registers a retained client-metadata binding through DCR. Tavily's reviewed method initializes sessions before dispatch. The existing customer, managed, and Vercel OAuth gateway paths now refresh on upstream 401 and return `oauth_refreshed_retry_required` (409), requiring an explicit caller retry. They do not replay the rejected call automatically; the next invocation initializes a fresh credential-scoped session when required. Related catalog work: #15545. This branch preserves current master catalog entries and does not add another Google Workspace integration. Open and closed provider PRs and public MCP issues were searched. No duplicate for this verified set was found. The change extends the shipped Connected Apps roadmap item. ## What Changed - Add seven catalog entries with official provider branding and reviewed permissions. - Update Airtable, Linear, and Make metadata and show Make in Apps. - Add authoritative provider source overrides that use the existing generation and review checks. - Add the reviewed Airtable DCR option and compatible Calendly registration names. - Initialize Tavily sessions before discovery and calls, including retained connections. Keep credential-scoped session caching and single call dispatch. - Use the server's callback URL in the OAuth setup UI. - Omit untouched optional object defaults; keep supplied empty strings, false, zero, and object values intact in the action tester, with strict required-child validation. - Require an explicit retry after OAuth refresh instead of replaying a tools/call with missing session headers. - Record all eleven successful reads, write policies, auth-method limits, and qualification caveats. Omit credentials and private account data. - Find chat connector cards through catalog search in browser tests, so pagination does not hide Slack or other later entries. ## Verification - Real browser qualification: eleven bounded reads passed. Catalog refresh and reload proof are recorded in `doc/connections/verified-mcp-qualification-2026-10-08.md`. - Provider writes and actual agent-adapter sessions were not run. Alternative documented auth methods and expiry refresh remain unqualified. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - Focused shared/catalog tests: 41 passed. Source override tests: 3 passed. Catalog regeneration fixture suite: 9 passed. Latest form regression suites: 31 passed. Gateway suite: 38 passed. Other focused UI suites passed before these last fixes. - UI token gates and both token sync checks: passed. - The catalog regeneration fixture includes the authoritative provider overrides; its full suite passes. The focused OAuth socket case passed on isolated rerun. - Complete local UI suite: 7,866 passed. CLI suite: 511 passed, 6 skipped. Complete shared suite: 892 passed. - The unchanged AgentMail/ClickUp discovery fallback suite passes all 45 cases. An OpenAI login test passed on isolated rerun. - Local broad database coverage is limited by macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory exhaustion (`shmget: No space left on device`, not disk space). The broad run was interrupted after diagnosis; no host settings or other running services were changed. - CI found that the Slack browser test assumed its catalog card was on the first page. The test now uses catalog search; the Slack case passes locally. Adjacent GitHub and iMessage cases could not start locally because embedded PostgreSQL initialization failed before browser assertions. - Final commit [`febe4520e`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/commit/febe4520e13d4b3a4121eafc3d22540c2b11379d): all 54 checks passed, with none pending or failed. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37847182065) passed typecheck, build, all general and serialized test suites, all eight browser shards, runner checks, canary dry run, and the aggregate verification gate. - Greptile reviewed that exact final commit at 2026-10-08 21:33 UTC and returned 5/5 with no outstanding findings or unresolved threads. - PR UI preview against the existing local test server: Calendly catalog/setup observed; Firecrawl read passed after expanding More options with nested optional inputs untouched. This retest proves frontend behavior, not the revised OAuth backend against a live provider. <details> <summary>Browser evidence</summary>    </details> ## Risks - Provider registration and consent behavior can change. Airtable's DCR option is explicit and keeps the existing issuer, resource, redirect, and PKCE checks. - Tavily uses initialized sessions without automatic call retries. After a successful OAuth refresh following 401, callers now receive a retry-required result. A later explicit retry can still require reauthorization if the provider rejects the refreshed token. Provider writes are not live-qualified. - Optional object cleanup affects the shared action tester. Regression tests cover absent objects, required children, defaults, and populated values. - GSC Wizard's underlying Google data scopes and Google flow completion were not independently verified. Its account reported paid/trial metadata of unknown origin. No purchase was performed. - No database migration, new AgentMail integration, or change to existing action grants is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with implementation, research, tool use, and code execution. The root backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The cheaper subagents used OpenAI `gpt-6-luna`. No model context size is inferred. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — targeted checks and complete UI/CLI/shared suites passed; the broad local database run was blocked by the macOS PostgreSQL startup limitation documented above. The full database/workspace suite passed in CI. - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 08:10:46 -05:00