mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 16:27:18 +02:00
815e49bb7c005ebfe4b4c356b64de53cb074c3ad
71
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 scotttong
|
815e49bb7c | feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101) | ||
|
scotttongandPaperclip
|
cc35c3c395 |
feat: structure and humanize recovery notices (#11075)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip posts system comments when automatic run recovery cannot continue > - These comments currently mix the main event with recovery identifiers and routing details > - The task chat shell also renders these comments as large raw text blocks > - Operators need a short explanation first and inspectable evidence on demand > - This pull request emits structured recovery notices and renders them as compact humanized rows > - The benefit is a quieter task thread that keeps the full recovery evidence available ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prior extraction source: #11070. This pull request replaces only its structured recovery notice slice with a focused branch based on current master. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Paperclip recovery escalations and the experimental task chat system-comment renderer. **Current behavior** Recovery escalation comments put action identifiers, owner details, run details, and failure codes into the visible markdown body. The task chat shell renders the complete system comment as a large text block. **Proposed behavior** The server emits a short system notice with typed metadata sections. The task chat shell classifies known recovery families and renders one compact row. An operator can expand the row to inspect the full body and metadata. **Reason and benefit** The main thread stays readable during repeated recovery activity. Typed links and evidence remain available without exposing raw failure text in the default view. **Breaking changes** The visible recovery comment body is shorter. Recovery action deduplication now reads the structured metadata and still recognizes legacy body markers. No API schema or database migration changes. ## What Changed - Emit stranded recovery escalations with `system_notice` presentation and typed recovery, owner, run, and failure-code metadata. - Share bounded metadata row builders across recovery notice producers and preserve legacy deduplication compatibility. - Humanize known recovery notice families and render compact expandable task-chat rows. - Route system-authored comments ahead of derived agent authorship so recovery notices do not appear as agent bubbles. - Add focused server and UI regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 32 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` — 57 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts` — 39 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'escalates an exhausted failed successful-run handoff without using generic continuation recovery first|escalates an exhausted successful handoff run that still leaves no disposition'` — 2 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'blocks assigned todo work after the one automatic dispatch recovery was already used'` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/system-notice-humanizer.test.ts src/components/task-chat/TaskChatSystemNotice.test.tsx src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts` — 15 tests passed. - Storybook visual baselines were not updated because this chat-shell path has no affected snapshot baseline. Focused rendering tests and token gates cover this change. ## Risks - Consumers that parse recovery action identifiers from comment markdown must move to structured metadata. Server deduplication remains backward compatible with legacy comments. - The humanizer uses stable recovery-family phrases. Unknown notices use a generic truncated first-sentence fallback. - The UI changes only the experimental task chat presentation. The stored comment body and expanded metadata remain available. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, reasoning mode, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
814cb33676 |
feat(server): allow agents to resolve review confirmations (#10939)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue reviews use thread confirmations to record explicit verdicts > - The server allowed users to resolve review confirmations but rejected all agent actors > - This one-way rule prevented an eligible agent reviewer from completing a review > - The existing review policy already defines which actor can submit a verdict > - This pull request applies that policy to agent confirmation verdicts on writable issues > - The benefit is a consistent review gate for users and agents with preserved audit attribution ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Builds on: #10931 (merged into master before this PR) - Refs #8617 ## What Changed - Allow eligible agents to accept or reject pending review confirmations on issues they can write. - Allow a creator agent to withdraw its own pending review confirmation when the review policy permits it. - Reuse the review verdict policy check for users and agents. - Require an explicit, same-run review-confirmation binding so unrelated board-only confirmations stay protected. - Preserve board-only tool action confirmations and existing user attribution. - Add route and service tests for agent accept, reject, withdrawal, human-only denial, and user attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts` (256 passed after rebasing onto master and the atomic binding fix) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The change expands who can resolve pending review confirmations. The existing issue write checks and review policy limit this access. - Tool action confirmations remain board-only. - The pull request depends on the review policy helper from #10931, which is now merged into master. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. The roadmap marks Agent Reviews and Approvals as shipped. This pull request fixes a narrow server behavior gap in that shipped capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f554d67377 |
fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
678728f650 |
feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. **Subsystem affected** The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. **Problem or motivation** Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. **Proposed solution** Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. **Alternatives considered** A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f91a6e27c0 |
feat(issues): contain cross-issue agent side effects (#10837)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates autonomous agent work. > - Agents need to collaborate on issues beyond their current assignment. > - Cross-issue comments and updates are useful, but an unbounded run can create cascading side effects. > - The control plane must preserve company-wide collaboration while containing each run's influence. > - Comment attribution must also show the responsible user and the acting agent in audits. > - This pull request adds run-bound cross-issue containment, attribution, and agent-class wake rules. > - The benefit is safer collaboration without restoring issue-assignee ownership restrictions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Agent-authenticated issue comments, updates, reopen behavior, and assignee wake routing. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server routes and services, shared contracts, database schema and migration, and implementation documentation. **Current behavior** An authenticated agent can collaborate across company issues, but one heartbeat run has no per-run side-effect boundary. Comment records also do not persist the responsible user separately from the acting agent. **Proposed behavior** Require a valid heartbeat run for agent cross-issue comments and updates. Audit each attempt and cap a run at 20 cross-issue effects. Keep the cap in log-only mode until it automatically changes to enforcement at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Preserve same-issue writes. Use agent-class wakes for agent comments. Keep same-run completion comments from reopening completed work. Record the responsible user on agent-authored comments and activity. **Reason and benefit** Agents can collaborate on other issues without an assignment gate, while each run has an atomic and inspectable side-effect limit. Operators can identify both the acting agent and the responsible user. **Breaking changes** After 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC, the twenty-first cross-issue comment or update from one heartbeat run returns a containment error. Agent cross-issue writes without valid run context are rejected. The migration is additive and backfills existing agent-authored comment attribution where the source data is available. ## What Changed - Added an atomic per-run counter for cross-issue agent comments and updates. - Added audit events for allowed and rejected cross-issue effects. - Added the automatic log-only to enforcement flip at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. - Added responsible-user attribution to agent-authored comments, activity records, shared types, and validators. - Added an additive migration and migration coverage for existing comments. - Updated reopen, resume, and wake behavior so agent comments create agent-class wakes and same-run completion comments remain inert. - Updated the implementation specification and regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts packages/db/src/issue-comment-on-behalf-migration.test.ts` — 97 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — server batch: 3,364 passed and 2 skipped; UI batch: 3,504 passed. One unrelated CLI doctor test warned because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` — 8 tests passed and confirmed the CLI failure was ambient-environment sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. ## Risks - The fixed enforcement timestamp changes production behavior automatically on 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Audit logs before that time provide rollout visibility. - The per-run counter serializes on the heartbeat-run row. This prevents concurrent attempts from racing past the cap but adds a small lock scope for cross-issue writes. - Existing comments can only be backfilled when their acting run or agent attribution is recoverable. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 in the Codex agent runtime. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, shell tools, code editing, and test execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
ded813ad6f |
feat(interactions): add governed agent addressees (#10252)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of AI agents. > - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions. > - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another agent for a response. > - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI behavior. > - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering. > - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or audit invariants. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API docs, and UI governance surfaces. ### Problem or motivation Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely. ### Proposed solution Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity, enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback. ### Alternatives considered Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work objects. ### Additional context Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only returned this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and persistence. - Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity, withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior. - Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization, persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill guidance. - Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or is deleted. - Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed resolution paths. - Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention, adapter, CLI, and UI coverage. - Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials and warned instead of passing. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161` completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully. ## Risks - Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent, and migration safety checks pass. - Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries, resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal, expiry, and attention fallback. - Attention routing depends on current agent invokability; reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from retaining visibility or resolution authority. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane tools. Context-window metadata was not reported by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8e7f1c03eb |
feat(decisions): improve desk triage and queue parity (#10785)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The decisions desk and queue help operators find work that needs a human decision. > - The current views use different grouping, sorting, and labels. > - Repeated confirmation requests can also leave stale pending actions in the queue. > - Blocked-work attention can point at an intermediate issue instead of the terminal blocker. > - This pull request aligns the server contract and both user interfaces. > - The benefit is a smaller, clearer queue that ranks the decisions with the largest impact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10774 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The decisions desk and queue currently use different triage rules. They can show stale repeated confirmations and can rank blocked work by an intermediate issue. **Subsystem affected** This change affects attention aggregation, issue thread interactions, shared attention contracts, and the decisions user interface. **Current behavior** The desk uses a can-wait group that has no clear arrival meaning. The queue has fewer controls than the desk. Repeated pending confirmations remain actionable. Blocked-work rows do not always identify the terminal actionable blocker. **Proposed behavior** Group desk items by arrival date, and reserve Decide now for explicit due dates. Use one toolbar and shelf model on both pages. Supersede older repeated pending confirmations. Aggregate blocked work under the terminal actionable blocker and rank it by impact. **Reason and benefit** Operators get one consistent triage model. The badge reflects new and overdue work. High-impact blockers move to the top. Duplicate confirmation work no longer consumes attention. **Breaking changes** The attention summary field `decideNowCount` changes to `deskBadgeCount`. Consumers must use the new field. Older repeated confirmation interactions can now finish with the `superseded_by_newer_request` outcome. ## What Changed - Supersede older pending confirmation requests for the same issue and record the mutation in activity history. - Resolve blocked-work attention to actionable terminal blockers, suppress live blocker trees, and rank rows by blocked-work impact. - Group the decisions desk into New today and Earlier, and count new plus overdue work in the desk badge. - Share the decision toolbar and shelf components across the desk and queue. - Add queue grouping, sorting, filtering, aging, visible training controls, and clearer recommendation copy. - Add server, shared-contract, and user-interface tests for the new behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` (all server, UI, CLI, shared, and catalog tests passed; one fixed five-second DB timeout flaked under full-suite load) - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` (passed in isolation) - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The attention summary field rename requires synchronized consumers. - Terminal-blocker traversal uses cycle and depth guards. A malformed dependency graph can stop at the last safe node. - The new arrival grouping changes which items contribute to the decisions badge. - Superseding repeated confirmations changes the terminal state of older pending interactions. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ba396c608c |
feat(server): configure shared workspace concurrency (#10759)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat service starts agent runs in local, SSH, sandbox, plugin, or Kubernetes environments. > - Runs can share one project working tree. > - PR #10699 made every shared working tree single-file, including trusted local and SSH hosts that support coordinated concurrent work. > - Operators need a policy that keeps remote environments safe and restores local multi-agent work. > - This pull request adds an `auto`, `serialize`, or `allow` concurrency policy and applies it to the final execution environment. > - The benefit is safe serialization by default for sandboxed targets and useful concurrency by default for persistent local targets. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #10699 introduced the busy gate that this change makes configurable. #7852 covers a separate environment-lease race and does not provide this dispatch policy. **Subsystem affected** `server/` heartbeat orchestration and `packages/shared/` workspace policy contracts. **Problem or motivation** The shared-workspace busy gate always defers a second run. This behavior prevents local multi-agent projects from running concurrently even when operators expect agents to coordinate through commits. **Proposed solution** Add `sharedWorkspaceConcurrency` with `auto`, `serialize`, and `allow` values. Default `auto` permits local and SSH concurrency. It serializes sandbox, plugin, and forced Kubernetes execution. **Alternatives considered** Keeping unconditional serialization is too restrictive for persistent host working trees. Always allowing overlap removes the protection that sandboxed and remote targets need. **Roadmap alignment** This is a focused correction to the shipped cloud and sandbox execution milestone. It does not add a new roadmap feature. ## What Changed - Added the optional tri-state field to project policy and issue override contracts and validators. - Added a pure resolver with issue override, project policy, and `auto` default precedence. - Moved final environment and Kubernetes resolution before the shared-workspace busy gate. - Kept the existing deferral and retry behavior for every path that resolves to serialization. - Added a task-context warning and a structured log when a run dispatches beside a live holder. - Added policy and heartbeat coverage for all requested policy and environment combinations. - Documented the new policy and its default behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 32 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false PAPERCLIP_DATABASE_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false PAPERCLIP_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false pnpm test:run` — all 3,528 server tests passed. The later UI/workspace phase passed 3,384 tests and hit one unrelated `CompanyEnvironments` navigation timing failure. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx -t "opens the edit form on a standalone page with existing values and closes after save"` — the unrelated UI test passed in isolation. - `pnpm build` — passed. Policy matrix: | Policy | Final target | Expected result | Result | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | `auto` | local | Dispatch with holder note | Passed | | `auto` | sandbox | Defer with `workspace_busy` | Passed | | `auto` | instance-forced Kubernetes | Defer with `workspace_busy` | Passed | | `serialize` | local | Defer with `workspace_busy` | Passed | | `allow` | sandbox | Dispatch with holder note | Passed | Existing serialization, retry, and stale-holder tests also pass. ## Risks - `auto` changes the post-#10699 local and SSH behavior back to concurrent dispatch. Concurrent agents can mutate the same working tree, so each dispatched run receives an explicit coordination warning. - `allow` is an operator override and can permit overlap in sandbox or plugin environments. - Unknown environment drivers serialize in `auto` mode. This keeps the fallback conservative. - There is no database migration. An absent field resolves to `auto`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 (Codex). The exact API snapshot and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. Reasoning, repository editing, terminal tool use, and local code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
dcac49a4fd |
feat(workspaces): defer isolated setup until runtime start (#10653)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout. > - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent needed to run the app. > - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never start a service. > - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. > - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps worktree creation lean. > - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same reliable runtime setup when a service starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end runtime provisioning and safe cleanup. **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and isolated instance cleanup. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared workspace contracts, and development scripts. **Current behavior** Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service starts. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes the isolated instance safely. **Reason and benefit** Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the app. **Breaking changes** None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace behavior is unchanged when it is absent. ## What Changed - Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an idempotent runtime provision script. - Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace, and persisted workspace contracts. - Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. - Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the `workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase. - Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made failed attempts visible and retryable. - Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown. - Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata. - Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior, readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup. - Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent runtime injects static AWS credentials) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when non-secret provider config is present'` - Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging, persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion. - Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization, stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and rewritten sibling pointers. ## Risks - A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start. - Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt, while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes. A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is running before removing it. - Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service validates ownership and path containment before removal. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The service does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
27f8c8dbcf |
feat(server): cap agent review rounds and escalate exhausted reviews to the responsible human (#10650)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Execution policies let one agent implement and another review, cycling through changes-requested → addressed rounds > - Nothing bounds that cycle: no round counter, no escalation, no termination signal — two agents can ping-pong indefinitely, especially when the review's success criteria drift to something the implementer cannot satisfy > - On a real multi-agent instance this produced 6+ unattended rounds (~8 runs) that continued even after the human had merged the PR under review > - This pull request counts consecutive agent-initiated changes-requested rounds and, at a configurable cap, hands the still-pending review to the responsible human instead of bouncing back to the implementer > - The benefit is that unattended review loops terminate in a human decision instead of burning runs forever ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10643 ## What Changed - `IssueExecutionState.changesRequestedCount` (schema + type, default 0): consecutive agent-initiated changes-requested rounds on the current stage. Carries through executor resubmissions, resets to 0 on approval, and resets when a **human** makes the changes-requested decision — the cap targets unattended agent↔agent ping-pong, never human review. - `IssueExecutionPolicy.maxReviewRounds` (optional, 1–50, default null → server default `DEFAULT_MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS = 3`). - At the cap, the transition records the reviewer's changes-requested decision as usual but keeps the stage **pending** with the responsible human (`responsibleUserId`, falling back to `createdByUserId`) as the participant: the issue is assigned to that human and the pending review surfaces through the existing attention/review UI. The human then approves, requests changes (resetting the counter and handing back to the implementer), or re-scopes. - The escalated hold is sticky: transitions from anyone other than the escalated human no longer re-select a configured agent participant for the stage (which would have silently undone the escalation on the next unrelated PATCH). The escalated human's own decisions flow through the normal participant decision branch. - Issues with no responsible human keep today's hand-back behavior; the counter still accumulates so operators can see the churn. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` — 8 new cases: round counting on hand-back, count carried through resubmission, escalation at the default cap, sticky hold across unrelated transitions, human changes-requested resets the counter, human approval completes the stage, no-responsible-human fallback, and a `maxReviewRounds: 1` policy override. - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` and the full `@paperclipai/shared` suite (387 tests) — schema additions are backward compatible (both fields optional with defaults; persisted states without the counter parse as 0). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec tsc --noEmit` and `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`. ## Risks - Behavior change: an agent-only review loop that previously ran forever now escalates to a human after 3 agent rounds by default. Instances that want longer loops can set `maxReviewRounds` per policy. Flows where a human participates are unaffected (human decisions reset the counter). - Escalation requires a `responsibleUserId`/`createdByUserId` on the issue; without one, behavior is unchanged. - Persisted execution states from before this change parse with `changesRequestedCount: 0` — no migration needed. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved. ## 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 |
||
|
|
b4a7a12985 |
feat: make recovery updates quieter (#10542)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The recovery subsystem restores work after an agent run stops or loses state > - Recovery notices currently use the same visual weight as normal work comments > - Recovery agents can also post long narratives that obscure the useful hand-off > - The server must identify recovery output because agents cannot set presentation controls > - This pull request adds compact recovery notices, structured action references, and brief recovery prompts > - The benefit is a quieter issue thread that still keeps recovery state inspectable ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `packages/adapter-utils`. **Problem or motivation** Recovery notices and recovery-run comments can dominate an issue thread. Operators must scan routine recovery narration before they find the work hand-off. **Proposed solution** Give routine recovery output a compact system-notice presentation. Derive the presentation on the server so agents cannot hide arbitrary comments. Keep the successful missing-state summary fully visible because that comment is the recovery deliverable. **Alternatives considered** The UI could detect recovery text. That approach is fragile and does not provide structured action references. Agents could also set presentation directly, but that would weaken the current board-only security boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This change refines the completed “Self-healing runs & automatic recovery” and “Enforced Outcomes” roadmap areas. It does not add a competing roadmap capability. **Additional context** The scope covers shared comment validation, server recovery notices, agent-comment derivation, and recovery prompt text. No database migration is needed because presentation data already uses JSON. ## What Changed - Add the `compact` issue-comment presentation density to shared constants, types, and validation. - Give recovery escalation, waiting, and in-place notices compact titles and structured recovery-action metadata. - Use recovery-action metadata for notice deduplication, with the legacy text marker as a compatibility fallback. - Derive compact presentation for comments from recovery-scoped runs while preserving the board-only presentation boundary. - Keep successful missing-state recovery summaries fully visible. - Ask recovery participants to record outcomes in `resolutionNote` and keep source-issue comments brief. - Add shared, route, service, and prompt tests for the new behavior and exceptions. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - Focused Vitest coverage: 320 tests passed across shared validators, adapter prompts, issue comments, recovery actions, and heartbeat recovery. - Full server phase: 292 files passed, 3,094 tests passed, and 2 tests skipped. - Full UI phase: 386 files passed and 3,182 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - Known master baseline: `cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` expects `pass`, but the current implementation returns `warn` when strict secret mode is disabled for Postgres. This branch does not change CLI secrets code. ## Risks - Low migration risk. The presentation column is JSON and needs no database migration. - Recovery-run detection depends on the persisted run context snapshot. - Structured metadata becomes the primary deduplication key. The existing body marker remains as a fallback for older comments. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f6ab82d490 |
feat(interactions): add interaction withdrawal and terminal-issue expiry (#10251)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and boards coordinate through issue-thread interactions (request_confirmation, ask_user_questions, suggest_tasks, …) that wait as `pending` cards until someone resolves them > - Two lifecycle gaps existed: an interaction's creator could not take back a card it no longer stands behind, and interactions left `pending` on issues that reached a terminal status lingered forever as live-looking approval requests > - Stale pending cards mislead humans (they look actionable), distort attention/liveness signals, and in the worst case invite acting on a proposal whose issue is already closed or cancelled > - This pull request adds an explicit withdraw route for pending interactions and automatically expires pending interactions when their issue reaches a terminal status (including a catch-up sweep for issues closed before this change) > - The benefit is that interaction cards now faithfully reflect reality: only genuinely actionable requests stay pending, and creators can retract requests that events have overtaken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #5787 Refs #7403 Related prior PRs found while searching for duplicates (all overlap partially; none combine both lifecycle paths or the route-level authorization used here): #6709 and #7312 (creator-withdraw attempts), #8169 (terminal expiry), #8081 and #5137 (generalized cancel/expire endpoints), #6094 (stale confirmation auto-resolve). Related merged context: #9568 (agent cancel for ask_user_questions), #10119 (tolerating legacy `withdrawn_by_creator` result outcomes — the reader side of the outcome this PR writes). ## What Changed - New route `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` that resolves a `pending` interaction to status `withdrawn` with a structured result (`outcome: "withdrawn"`, optional trimmed `reason`), stamps `resolvedBy*`/`resolvedAt`, touches the issue, logs activity, and emits resolved-interaction telemetry - Withdrawal authorization: board users, the interaction's creator agent, or the issue's current assignee agent (assignees additionally pass the standard issue-mutation gate); task-watchdog runs are explicitly rejected, and authorization-boundary plus low-trust control-plane checks apply - Withdrawing an already-resolved interaction returns `409`; unknown/cross-issue/cross-company interaction ids return `404` - New service method `expirePendingInteractionsForTerminalIssue`: when an issue transitions to a terminal status, all of its `pending` interactions are resolved to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"`, guarded by a `status = 'pending'` predicate so concurrent resolutions are not overwritten - The same expiry runs as a catch-up when interactions are listed on an already-terminal issue, so cards stranded by issues closed before this change also get cleaned up; expired request_confirmations are logged with a distinguishing source - Shared package: new `withdrawIssueThreadInteractionSchema` validator, `WithdrawIssueThreadInteraction` type, and `withdrawn` / `issue_closed` result-outcome support for all interaction kinds (kind-aware result shapes for `ask_user_questions` and `request_item_verdicts`) - UI helper `ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.ts` recognizes the new outcomes for card rendering - Docs: bundled skill API reference updated with the withdraw endpoint - Review follow-up: terminal expiry moved from the HTTP route hooks into `issueService.update`'s status-transition block, so direct service callers (tree control, recovery, pipelines, status cards) expire pending cards too; the list-endpoint catch-up remains for issues closed before this change - Review follow-up: withdrawing or issue-close-expiring a `request_confirmation` also settles its linked `tool_action_requests` row (withdraw -> `cancelled`, issue closed -> `expired`), so a parked tool call cannot stay approvable after its card is gone - Review follow-up: interaction cards render dedicated copy for the new outcomes ("Withdrawn" with the reason, "Expired when issue closed") instead of falling through to superseded-by-comment / stale-target variants; withdrawn plan reviews badge as "Withdrawn" rather than "Changes requested" ## Screenshots Card states rendered from a local ux-lab harness with mocked data ([full gallery](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/)): | Light | Dark | | --- | --- | |  |  | ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — clean tsc - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 22 tests pass, including new coverage for: creator-agent withdraw success, non-creator/non-assignee agent 403, watchdog-run 403, double-withdraw 409, and board-user withdraw - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` — 4 tests pass, including terminal-issue expiry writing `issue_closed` results and leaving already-resolved interactions untouched - `cd ui && pnpm typecheck` — clean - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — includes a new embedded-Postgres test proving a direct `issueService.update` terminal transition expires pending interactions and writes the activity-log entry - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx` — 32 tests, including new coverage for withdrawn / issue-closed confirmation and question cards - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — matches the pre-existing repo error baseline exactly (no new errors) - Manual: `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` with `{"reason":"superseded"}` as the creator agent resolves the card to `withdrawn`; closing an issue with a pending confirmation flips it to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"` ## Risks - Interactions on terminal issues now auto-expire (including retroactively via the list-time catch-up), so consumers that expected to resolve a pending interaction on a closed issue will get `409`; this is the intended semantics and matches how the attention feed already wants to treat dead cards - New result outcomes (`withdrawn`, `issue_closed`) are written to stored results; readers were already made tolerant of these outcome strings in #10119, so mixed-version reads are safe - No schema/migration changes; per-row conditional updates (`status = 'pending'`) avoid clobbering concurrent resolutions - Withdrawal is a new mutation surface, but it is strictly narrower than existing resolve paths (board, creator, or assignee only; watchdog runs blocked) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness); commit authored in a Paperclip-managed engineering session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7f766526a6 |
feat(sandbox): add task-scoped egress grants (#10155)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Confinement providers protect agent runs with default-deny network policies > - Kubernetes environments currently apply only provider-level, namespace-wide egress allowances > - Tasks that legitimately need GitHub or package registries therefore cannot request narrow access, while network failures do not explain the governing policy or how to request a grant > - This pull request adds issue-scoped egress grants that become workload-owned, run-label-selected policies and carries the effective grant through lease audit metadata > - The benefit is that internet-dependent work can run without enabling broad egress for every concurrent task, and denied requests point operators to the exact grant path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Related but distinct: Refs #9944, which adds a provider-wide open-internet posture; this PR keeps provider defaults narrow and adds per-task grants. **Problem / motivation** Kubernetes sandbox egress is configured at the provider/tenant level. A task that needs to clone from GitHub or install from PyPI cannot request those destinations without changing the policy for every run in the tenant namespace. DNS/connectivity failures also surface as generic tool errors with no policy name or remediation path. **Proposed solution** Accept `executionWorkspaceSettings.networkEgress.allowFqdns` and `allowCidrs`, forward the setting through heartbeat environment acquisition, and create a workload-owned NetworkPolicy or CiliumNetworkPolicy selected by `paperclip.io/run-id`. Record the effective grant in lease activity/metadata, expose policy context through `PAPERCLIP_NETWORK_EGRESS_*`, and append the grant path to likely policy-related stderr failures. **Alternatives considered** A provider-wide open-internet switch is broader than required and is already covered by #9944. Mutating the existing namespace policy would leak each task's destinations to other concurrent runs. Standard Kubernetes NetworkPolicy cannot enforce FQDNs exactly, so standard mode uses the existing hardened public-IPv4 TCP 80/443 fallback only for the selected run; Cilium mode remains exact. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing cloud/sandbox agent roadmap capability with task-level control-plane policy and does not duplicate a planned roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added validated `networkEgress` grants to issue execution workspace settings and forwarded them through environment lease acquisition. - Added workload-owned, run-label-scoped NetworkPolicy/CiliumNetworkPolicy resources for task FQDN/CIDR grants. - Added lease audit metadata, sandbox policy environment variables, and actionable network-denial stderr guidance. - Added focused parser, manifest, policy creation, and denial-message tests plus Kubernetes provider documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -C packages/shared exec vitest run src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 27 passed. - `pnpm -C packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes test -- --run test/unit/network-policy.test.ts test/unit/cilium-network-policy.test.ts test/unit/scoped-network-egress.test.ts` — 21 passed. - `pnpm -C server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts` — 15 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts` — 26 passed. - `pnpm --dir packages/db build && pnpm --dir packages/shared build && pnpm --dir packages/plugins/sdk build` — passed, including migration safety checks. - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes typecheck && pnpm --dir server typecheck` — passed after refreshing the worktree's frozen offline dependencies. - End-to-end cluster validation of the `build-cython-ext` benchmark remains for CI/maintainer Kubernetes infrastructure; the focused tests assert `github.com` and `pypi.org` produce a policy selected only by the granted run. ## Risks - Standard NetworkPolicy cannot express FQDNs, so an FQDN grant allows hardened public IPv4 TCP 80/443 for that run; use Cilium mode for exact hostname enforcement. - The new field is additive and absent by default, so existing runs keep the current provider-level policy. - Workload owner references garbage-collect scoped policies with the Job/Sandbox; a cluster/controller that ignores owner references could temporarily strand a policy that still selects no future run ID. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning mode, tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
148a5b11f5 |
Route blocked transitions to explicit unblock owners (#10112)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies. > - Issue status transitions determine whether work keeps moving or silently stalls. > - A blocked issue previously could rely on prose alone, leaving the intended unblock owner unstructured and unnotified. > - Existing blocker-attention classification could identify stalled chains, but the signal was not delivered to the board attention feed. > - Blocked transitions also need rollout-safe deduplication so upgrades do not notify for historical issues and repeated processing does not create notification storms. > - This pull request adds structured unblock descriptors, prospective transition timestamps, owner delivery, and board attention routing with focused authorization controls. > - The benefit is that newly blocked work has an explicit, routable next action without weakening company boundaries or allowing agents to inject arbitrary human attention items. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related documentation PR: #10094. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`. ### Problem or motivation An issue can enter `blocked` without a machine-readable unblock path. Prose-only ownership does not reliably wake the responsible agent or surface human-owned work, while the existing `blockerAttention` classifier is not delivered to an operator-facing attention feed. ### Proposed solution Require new transitions into `blocked` to have unresolved blockers, a pending interaction/approval, or a structured `{ owner, action }` descriptor. Notify an allowed owner once per prospective transition, route human-owned cases to board attention, and leave pre-rollout blocked issues untouched. ### Alternatives considered - Keep prose-only blockers: rejected because ownership remains unroutable. - Backfill all historical blocked issues: rejected because upgrades would create notification storms. - Let agents target arbitrary users or the board: rejected after security review because it creates an attention-injection channel. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` → “Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery actions, review gates)” by making blocked work carry an explicit continuation path. ### Additional context The implementation is prospective-only and deduplicated per blocked transition. Agent-authored descriptors are limited to the acting agent; board actors retain human-owner routing. ## What Changed - Added persisted unblock descriptors and prospective blocked-transition delivery timestamps with an idempotent migration. - Added shared types and validation for board, user, and agent unblock owners. - Enforced valid blocked transitions and same-company owner validation in the issue update route. - Restricted agent-authored descriptors to the acting agent itself, preventing board/user attention injection by compromised agents. - Added one-per-transition agent wake delivery and prospective-only rollout gating. - Routed human-owned blocker attention into the board attention feed. - Added focused tests for validation, prospective delivery, flap deduplication, attention routing, route authorization, and stop-relay compatibility. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routable-blocked.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` ## Risks - Behavioral shift: new `blocked` transitions without a real blocker, pending governed action, or structured descriptor now return `422`. - Notification abuse is constrained by same-company validation, agent self-only routing, prospective rollout gating, and transition-scoped deduplication. - Migration risk is low: columns are additive, nullable, and use `IF NOT EXISTS`; historical blocked issues are not backfilled or notified. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI with GPT-5.4, reasoning-enabled tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
bd7c0d5f83 |
fix(issues): deduplicate repeated creates (#9650)
## Thinking Path > Paperclip already treats issue creation as a company-scoped mutation, but retries and parallel agent heartbeats can submit the same create more than once. Client instructions cannot provide at-most-once behavior under concurrency, so the guard belongs in the server transaction. This change adds an explicit company-scoped idempotency contract, a conservative fallback for recent open same-parent titles, and run attribution for auditability. Advisory transaction locks serialize competing requests before lookup/insert, avoiding the race that affected the prior attempt. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #6529. This is a clean replacement for #6936, which was closed because it mixed unrelated changes and its check-then-insert implementation was not concurrency-safe. Unlike that attempt, this PR is scoped to eight files, uses a dedicated idempotency-key table, and serializes duplicate candidates inside the create transaction. ## What Changed - Accept optional `idempotencyKey` and `allowDuplicate` fields on issue creation. - Replay the existing issue with HTTP 200 and deduplication metadata for a repeated company/key pair. - Deduplicate recent open issues with the same company, parent, and normalized title for 48 hours unless `allowDuplicate: true` is supplied. - Persist idempotency mappings in a company-scoped table and serialize competing creates with transaction advisory locks. - Populate `originRunId` from `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` for agent/manual creates when the body does not provide an origin run. - Add route integration coverage for key replay, title fallback, bypass, closed/old recreation, company scoping, and run attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 7 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 10 tests passed after the service-contract compatibility fix. ## Risks - The title fallback intentionally treats normalized same-parent titles as duplicates for 48 hours; callers creating intentionally repeated titles must send `allowDuplicate: true`. - Advisory locks use hashed duplicate keys, so an extremely unlikely hash collision can serialize unrelated creates but cannot merge their lookup results. - Deleting an issue cascades its idempotency mapping, allowing the same key to create a replacement later. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, Codex CLI with repository, shell, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API tool access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1de0a3bb1e |
feat(mcp) [split 2/8]: add governed access contracts (#9557)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 2/8 and focuses on database schema and shared governance contracts > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The governed access model needs additive persistence and synchronized shared types before server enforcement can compile. - Proposed solution: Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/01-demo-servers`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for migrations/validators; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db test` — passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared test` — passed ## Risks - Migration or contract mistakes could affect every upper layer; all migrations are additive/idempotent and compile consumers are included in this boundary. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
36ec79c196 |
feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cc81eefb60 |
Make plan-approval continuations durable after failed wakes (#9331)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through issue-thread interactions. > - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume the assignee so approved work continues. > - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in review with no durable retry or visible recovery path. > - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable, recoverable, and visible when resume fails. > - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of silent limbo. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved, because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable retry or recovery path for accepted continuations. ### Expected behavior Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes the assignee on accept. 2. Accept the confirmation. 3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss before agent start or workspace validation failure. 4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a provider-specific API. ### Database mode Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well. ### Access context Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the assignee wake path. ### Relevant logs or output No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed wake and recovery states directly. ### Relevant config No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand enabled. ### Additional context This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction continuation wakes. - Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation wakes are requeued. - Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted confirmation cards. - Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine. - Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an accepted continuation that never resumed. - Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery, visible failure state, and interaction card rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction card tests for the visible resume-failure UI. - GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports 5/5 with no blocking issues. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries. - Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context, and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being retried. - Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new resume-failure field is optional. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal workflow. The runtime does not expose an exact context-window value to the agent. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
b13eb5b2b5 |
Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ac9a883f8b |
Expire ask-user questions superseded by comments (#8799)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue-thread interactions are how agents ask board users for typed decisions and structured answers inside an issue thread > - Confirmation interactions already become stale when a later board/user comment supersedes the pending decision > - Question interactions had the same workflow risk, because a board/user could answer in a comment while the old question card stayed pending > - This pull request extends the supersede-by-comment lifecycle to ask-user-question interactions and makes that status visible in the UI > - The benefit is agents get a clear continuation signal and users do not see stale question forms after the discussion has moved on ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found. Bug report: **Pre-submission checklist** - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip, or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in an agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. **What happened?** Pending `ask_user_questions` interactions could remain open after a later board/user comment changed or answered the request in-thread. That left a stale form visible and kept the interaction in a pending state even though the discussion had moved on. **Expected behavior** Question interactions should follow the same default supersede-on-comment behavior as confirmation interactions, with an explicit expired result that points to the superseding comment. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction on an issue. 2. Add a board/user comment created at or after that interaction. 3. Observe that before this change, the question interaction stayed pending instead of expiring as superseded by the comment. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this PR. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server or local dev. The bug is in shared issue-thread interaction lifecycle handling. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core issue-thread interaction bug. **Database mode** Applies to the normal Paperclip database-backed interaction lifecycle. **Access context** Board user comments supersede agent-created questions. **Relevant logs or output** No crash output. The stale pending interaction was visible in the issue thread state. **Relevant config (if applicable)** None. **Additional context** Confirmation-style interactions already supported this stale-by-comment behavior. This PR brings question interactions into the same lifecycle model. **Privacy checklist** - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and included no private instance links, local ticket ids, secrets, logs, or screenshots. ## What Changed - Added `supersedeOnUserComment` support to `ask_user_questions` payloads, defaulting it to `true` during interaction creation. - Expire pending question interactions when a later board/user comment supersedes them, including a result with `expirationReason: "superseded_by_comment"` and the superseding `commentId`. - Updated interaction summaries and cards so expired question requests show a clear amber state with a jump link to the comment and correct singular/plural copy. - Updated agent onboarding guidance to describe the new default and how to opt out. - Added shared, server, and UI test coverage for the new lifecycle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 5 files, 73 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --reporter=dot && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final type-safety cleanup. - Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or database migrations. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: `ask_user_questions` now defaults to expiring after later board/user comments. Existing callers that need questions to stay open through discussion can set `supersedeOnUserComment: false`. - Expired question interactions store an empty `answers` array, so downstream consumers should treat the explicit `expirationReason` as the meaningful outcome. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder runtime, with terminal and repository tool use. Exact context window is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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> |
||
|
|
a71c4b6782 |
[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is still productive, stalled, or ready for review. > - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review permissions. > - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable work. > - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration surfaces, and docs. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`. > - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making stalled work easier to route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task: [PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275). ## Problem or motivation Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link approvals, or submit approval comments. ## Proposed solution Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under explicit boundaries. ## Alternatives considered Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable scoped-review issue for stalled task trees. ## Roadmap alignment This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core item. ## What Changed - Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators, CRUD API, and service support. - Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate guidance. - Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks, viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting. - Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and implementation semantics. - Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to `0104_issue_watchdogs`. - Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind constant. - Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes, scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility, settings, and new issue dialog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task configuration. - Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and production agents. - The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local migration number should not get duplicate-object failures. - CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest review-fix push. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool use and local command execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d5322c821 |
[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
dbebf30c89 |
Add low-trust review containment (#7530)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
4afe5ab7cb | Add other answers to issue questions | ||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d9f91576a0 |
Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core control-plane loop. > - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse isolated workspaces. > - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition. > - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first: accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable claim state, and retry-safe child creation. > - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to reconstruct child creation from raw activity. > - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive, hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and easier to inspect. ## What Changed - Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to `doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint, durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior. - Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend, including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue routes for creating and listing decomposition state. - Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee. - Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial child recreation under the same fingerprint. - Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the UI. - Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "accepted plan decomposition" server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links. - Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope. ## Risks - This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update; reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match the intended decomposition table. - The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle retries if the claim state machine is wrong. - The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section automatically. - `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize` accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature itself. > Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent; exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context), with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities. <img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05 48 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28" /> ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d734bd43d1 |
[codex] Roll up May 17 branch changes (#6210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls. > - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions, watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing, plugin launchers, and small UI polish. > - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current `origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow churn. > - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and splitting would create avoidable conflicts. > - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest `origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification. > - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile limit. ## What Changed - Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a dedicated worktree. - Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores. - Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo` when retrying source-scoped recovery. - Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits from the branch. - Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility. - Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `npm run install` in `node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files failed before sqlite3 native binding was built. - After rebuilding sqlite3: `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host guard. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks - Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics, server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces. - Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI should provide the stronger database-backed signal. - UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot was captured in this PR creation pass. - This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than merging duplicate implementations together. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow, medium reasoning effort. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4142559c37 |
[codex] Add blocked inbox attention view (#5603)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped issues, comments, approvals, and execution workspaces. > - Operators need the Inbox to show not only active work, but also blocked work that may need human or agent attention. > - The existing inbox experience did not have a dedicated blocked-work surface, so blocked tasks were harder to triage and resume deliberately. > - Backend consumers also needed a compact attention signal that distinguishes actionable blockers from covered or waiting blocker states. > - This pull request adds a Blocked Inbox tab backed by issue blocker-attention metadata, shared validators, and UI helpers. > - The benefit is a clearer triage path for stalled or blocked Paperclip work without exposing external wait internals in the operator-facing UI. ## What Changed - Added shared issue blocker-attention types, validators, and exports for the API/UI contract. - Added backend blocker-attention computation and issue route support for blocked inbox data. - Added the Blocked Inbox tab, blocked reason chips, filtering/search UI, responsive layouts, and Storybook stories. - Updated inbox helpers and page behavior so toolbar controls only appear where they apply. - Added coverage for shared validators, server blocker-attention behavior, blocked inbox UI helpers/components, and the Inbox page. - Added a screenshot helper script for the blocked inbox Storybook stories. - Addressed Greptile feedback by making urgency sorting deterministic for null stop times, avoiding full blocked-inbox list enrichment for counts, and hardening the screenshot helper. ## Verification - Rebased the branch cleanly onto `public-gh/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the diff does not include database migration files. - Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx ui/src/components/BlockedReasonChip.test.tsx ui/src/lib/blockedInbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`. - Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is scoped inbox/operator triage work and does not duplicate a listed roadmap feature. - Greptile Review is green on the latest head and all four Greptile review threads are resolved. - GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head: policy, security/snyk, e2e, verify, Canary Dry Run, Greptile Review, and serialized server suites 1/4 through 4/4. ## Risks - Medium review surface because this touches the shared issue contract, server issue services, and the Inbox UI together. - Blocker-attention classification may need product tuning after operators use it on real blocked queues. - UI screenshots were not attached in this PR-opening pass; the branch includes `scripts/screenshot-blocked-inbox.mjs` and Storybook stories for visual capture. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with shell, git, GitHub CLI, GitHub connector, and Paperclip API tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Context window: not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0808b388ee |
[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e400315cbf |
Guard assigned backlog liveness (#5428)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned work is executable or parked > - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake path > - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to agree on that execution semantic > - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`, flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board > - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls ## What Changed - Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults. - Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted while preserving explicit `backlog` parking. - Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators. - Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned backlog blockers. - Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for assigned backlog blockers. - Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the assigned-backlog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped. - Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.` - Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary worktree. - Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states: [light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png), [dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png). - Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component tests. - Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all passed. ## Risks - Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and server/shared tests cover both paths. - Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog state. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d0e9cc76f2 |
Show workspace changes and stale notices in issue threads (#5356)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue thread is the operator's durable audit trail for what changed and why > - Workspace changes and stale disposition notices need to be visible in that same timeline without noisy or misleading rendering > - The local branch already contained backend activity details, timeline conversion, and UI rendering work for those events > - This pull request isolates the issue-thread activity work into a standalone branch against `origin/master` > - The benefit is a focused audit-trail PR that can merge independently of the sidebar/operator UI polish branch ## What Changed - Adds readable workspace-change activity details to issue update activity events. - Surfaces workspace-change events in issue chat/timeline rendering. - Makes the existing issue comment migration idempotent. - Folds and renders stale disposition notices inline so they match activity-log styling and spacing. - Adds focused route, timeline, and issue-thread system notice coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` — 3 files passed, 22 tests passed. - Confirmed the PR changes 9 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-closed-workspace-routes.test.ts` — 1 file passed, 4 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 5 files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` after adding the Storybook screenshot fixture. - Captured Storybook screenshots for the new UI rendering paths: - Collapsed stale notice + workspace-change row: `docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-collapsed.png` - Expanded stale notice details: `docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-expanded.png` ### Screenshots Collapsed stale notice with workspace-change row:  Expanded stale notice details:  ## Risks - Moderate risk: this touches issue activity serialization and issue-thread rendering, both of which are central operator surfaces. - Migration risk is low: the only migration change makes an existing migration idempotent. - No new migrations are introduced, so there is no cross-PR migration ordering requirement. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, shell/tool-use enabled, used to split the existing branch, verify the isolated PR branch, and create this PR. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a1b30c9f35 |
Add planning mode for issue work (#5353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail:  Desktop planning row:  Desktop staged standard toggle:  Mobile planning detail:  Mobile planning row:  ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
454edfe81e |
Add recovery handoff system notices (#5289)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Agent runs can end productively while the source issue still lacks a durable final disposition. > - That leaves the control plane unsure whether to resume, escalate, or close the work. > - Issue comments also need a presentation contract so system-authored recovery notices can render as first-class thread messages without overloading normal comments. > - This pull request adds successful-run handoff recovery, comment presentation metadata, and system notice rendering. > - The benefit is stricter task liveness with clearer operator-facing recovery state. ## What Changed - Added successful-run handoff decisions, wake payloads, escalation behavior, and recovery tests. - Added issue comment presentation metadata with migration `0078_white_darwin.sql` and shared/server/company portability support. - Rendered recovery/system notices in issue chat with dedicated UI components, fixtures, tests, and storybook/lab coverage. - Included the current recovery model-profile hint patch so automatic recovery follow-ups use the cheap profile. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts ui/src/components/SystemNotice.test.tsx ui/src/lib/system-notice-comment.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` ## Risks - Migration-bearing PR: merge this before any other branch that might later add a migration. - The branch touches both recovery services and issue-thread rendering, so review should pay attention to recovery wake idempotency and comment metadata compatibility. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
57229d0f24 |
[codex] Add issue monitor liveness controls (#4988)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work must stay observable, governable, and recoverable. > - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue state transitions, and visible recovery behavior. > - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when the assignee still owns a future check. > - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad hoc comments. > - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior. > - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when to use monitors versus `blocked`. > - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits without weakening single-assignee task ownership. ## What Changed - Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state. - Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds, activity logging, and external-ref redaction. - Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child monitor scheduling. - Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces. - Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy: "board"`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` - First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency. - After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites successfully. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot captured from `http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces` with Playwright. ## Screenshots  ## Risks - Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or recovery issue creation. - Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue monitor columns and index. - External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with repository tool use and terminal 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots or Storybook review surfaces - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
a3de1d764d |
Add cheap model profiles for local adapters (#4881)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where adapters are the boundary between the board, agents, and execution runtimes. > - Local adapters currently expose a primary runtime configuration, but operators often need a cheaper model lane for routine or low-risk work. > - That cheap lane has to stay adapter-owned: runtime profile settings should not mutate the primary adapter config or bypass existing auth/secret mediation. > - Issue creation also needs an ergonomic way to request primary, cheap, or custom model behavior for a selected assignee. > - This pull request adds a first-class `cheap` model profile contract across adapter capabilities, heartbeat config resolution, agent configuration, and issue creation. > - The benefit is cheaper task execution can be configured and requested explicitly while preserving adapter boundaries, secret handling, and audit visibility. ## What Changed - Added adapter model-profile capability metadata and a `cheap` profile contract for supported local adapters. - Applied `runtimeConfig.modelProfiles.cheap.adapterConfig` during heartbeat config resolution, including requested/applied/fallback run metadata. - Added agent configuration UI for cheap model profile settings without writing those settings into primary `adapterConfig`. - Added New Issue assignee model lane controls for Primary / Cheap / Custom and request payload handling. - Added run ledger profile badges and Storybook stories for the new cheap-lane UI states. - Added tests for validators, heartbeat model profile application, permission/secret mediation, UI payload helpers, and run ledger rendering. - Added committed UI verification screenshots under `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback around cheap-profile defaults, shared profile types, and fallback test data. ## Verification Local: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/adapter-registry.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-assignee-overrides.test.ts ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` — passed, 8 files / 103 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` — passed after Greptile/rebase follow-up, 2 files / 17 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after Greptile/rebase follow-up. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — did not complete successfully in this local worktree: it stopped in pre-existing `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` sandbox/SSH fixture suites outside this PR diff. Failures were 5s local timeouts plus `git init -b` unsupported by this machine's Git 2.21.0. The branch-specific targeted suites above passed. - Branch was fetched/rebased onto `public-gh/master`; `git rev-list --left-right --count public-gh/master...HEAD` reports `0 9`. Remote PR checks on latest head `e30bf399146451c86cee98ed528d51d33fa5af5a`: - `policy` — passed. - `verify` — passed. - `e2e` — passed. - `Greptile Review` — passed, confidence score 5/5; Greptile review threads resolved. - `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` — passed. Screenshots: - [New issue cheap lane desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-cheap-desktop.png) - [New issue custom lane desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-custom-desktop.png) - [New issue unsupported adapter desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-unsupported-desktop.png) - [Run ledger model profile badges desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/runledger-profile-badges-desktop.png) - Mobile variants are also in `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`. ## Risks - Medium: heartbeat config mediation now merges runtime model profiles into adapter configs, so adapter secret normalization and host-command restrictions must keep covering nested config paths. - Medium: the UI adds another issue creation choice; unsupported adapters must keep hiding the cheap lane and preserve primary behavior. - Low migration risk: no database migration is included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with repo tool use and command execution. Exact served model/context window was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c4269bab59 |
Add workflow interaction cancellation and issue cost summaries (#4862)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run history, and cost telemetry. > - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be visible at the issue level. > - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish. > - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a reviewable slice. > - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions and summarizing issue-tree costs. > - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave activity with run ledger rows. ## What Changed - Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result shape for question interactions. - Added the board-only `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service implementation. - Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and `/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route. - Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost summaries. - Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run interleaving. - Added focused server and component regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout. ## Risks - Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`. - Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be watched on unusually large issue trees. - Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium reasoning effort. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1991ec9d6f |
[codex] Split backend control-plane QoL slice (#4700)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so backend task ownership, recovery, review visibility, and company-scoped limits need to stay enforceable without UI-only coupling. > - Closed PR #4692 bundled those backend changes with UI workflow, docs, skills, workflow, and lockfile churn. > - PAP-2694 asks for a clean backend/control-plane slice from that closed branch. > - This branch starts from current `master` and mines only the `cli`, `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server` contracts/tests needed for the backend behavior. > - It explicitly excludes UI workflow/performance work, `.github/workflows/pr.yml`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, docs, skills, package-script, adapter UI build-config, and perf fixture script changes; the only UI files are fixture/test updates required by the tightened shared `Company` contract. > - The benefit is a smaller reviewable PR that preserves the control-plane fixes while staying under Greptile s 100-file review limit. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped attachment-size limits through DB schema/migrations, shared company portability contracts, CLI import/export coverage, and server attachment upload enforcement. - Added productivity review service/API behavior for no-comment streak, long-active, and high-churn review issues, including request-depth clamping and issue summary exposure. - Hardened issue ownership and recovery/control-plane paths: peer-agent mutation denial, issue tree pause/resume behavior, stranded recovery origins, and related activity/test coverage. - Preserved related backend contract updates for routine timestamp variables and managed agent instruction bundles because they live in shared/server contracts from the source branch. - Addressed Greptile feedback by making `Company.attachmentMaxBytes` non-optional, simplifying review request-depth clamping, fixing the migration final newline, and enforcing the process-level attachment cap as the final ceiling for uploads. - Added minimal company fixtures needed for repo-wide typecheck/build and kept the PR to 66 changed files with forbidden/non-slice paths excluded. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD | wc -l` -> 66 files - `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD -- .github/workflows/pr.yml pnpm-lock.yaml package.json doc skills .agents scripts packages/adapters` -> no output - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts packages/shared/src/adapter-types.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` -> 12 files, 147 tests passed - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` -> 3 files, 18 tests passed - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` -> 1 file, 6 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` ## Risks - Includes migrations `0073_shiny_salo.sql` and `0074_striped_genesis.sql`; merge ordering matters if another PR adds migrations first. - This is intentionally backend-only apart from fixture/test updates forced by shared type correctness; UI affordances from PR #4692 are not present here and should land in separate UI slices. - The worktree install emitted plugin SDK bin-link warnings for unbuilt plugin packages, but the targeted tests and package typechecks completed successfully. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected; check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0c6961a03e |
Normalize escaped multiline issue and approval text (#4444)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The board and agent APIs accept multiline issue, approval, interaction, and document text > - Some callers accidentally send literal escaped newline sequences like `\n` instead of JSON-decoded line breaks > - That makes comments, descriptions, documents, and approval notes render as flattened text instead of readable markdown > - This pull request centralizes multiline text normalization in shared validators > - The benefit is newline-preserving API behavior across issue and approval workflows without route-specific fixes ## What Changed - Added a shared `multilineTextSchema` helper that normalizes escaped `\n`, `\r\n`, and `\r` sequences to real line breaks. - Applied the helper to issue descriptions, issue update comments, issue comment bodies, suggested task descriptions, interaction summaries, issue documents, approval comments, and approval decision notes. - Added shared validator regressions for issue and approval multiline inputs. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/approval.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` ## Risks - Low risk. This only changes text fields that are explicitly multiline user/operator content. - If a caller intentionally wanted literal backslash-n text in these fields, it will now render as a real line break. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled with shell/GitHub/Paperclip API access. Context window was not reported by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5a0c1979cf | [codex] Add runtime lifecycle recovery and live issue visibility (#4419) | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7ad225a198 |
[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and follow-up work with active runs > - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent work > - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and navigation clunkier than necessary > - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice > - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the broader task model ## What Changed - restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue thread - folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit thread scrolling behavior - surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee notices on the issue detail view - tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList` - added loose review-request handoffs through the issue execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the return assignee with execution_changes_requested"` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` ## Visual Evidence - UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should use the running preview for final visual confirmation. ## Risks - Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff behavior > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution in the Codex CLI 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots or documented the visual verification path - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
e4995bbb1c |
Add SSH environment support (#4358)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The environments subsystem already models execution environments, but before this branch there was no end-to-end SSH-backed runtime path for agents to actually run work against a remote box > - That meant agents could be configured around environment concepts without a reliable way to execute adapter sessions remotely, sync workspace state, and preserve run context across supported adapters > - We also need environment selection to participate in normal Paperclip control-plane behavior: agent defaults, project/issue selection, route validation, and environment probing > - Because this capability is still experimental, the UI surface should be easy to hide and easy to remove later without undoing the underlying implementation > - This pull request adds SSH environment execution support across the runtime, adapters, routes, schema, and tests, then puts the visible environment-management UI behind an experimental flag > - The benefit is that we can validate real SSH-backed agent execution now while keeping the user-facing controls safely gated until the feature is ready to come out of experimentation ## What Changed - Added SSH-backed execution target support in the shared adapter runtime, including remote workspace preparation, skill/runtime asset sync, remote session handling, and workspace restore behavior after runs. - Added SSH execution coverage for supported local adapters, plus remote execution tests across Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, OpenCode, and Pi. - Added environment selection and environment-management backend support needed for SSH execution, including route/service work, validation, probing, and agent default environment persistence. - Added CLI support for SSH environment lab verification and updated related docs/tests. - Added the `enableEnvironments` experimental flag and gated the environment UI behind it on company settings, agent configuration, and project configuration surfaces. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-hire-payload.test.ts ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Manual verification on a branch-local dev server: - enabled the experimental flag - created an SSH environment - created a Linux Claude agent using that environment - confirmed a run executed on the Linux box and synced workspace changes back ## Risks - Medium: this touches runtime execution flow across multiple adapters, so regressions would likely show up in remote session setup, workspace sync, or environment selection precedence. - The UI flag reduces exposure, but the underlying runtime and route changes are still substantial and rely on migration correctness. - The change set is broad across adapters, control-plane services, migrations, and UI gating, so review should pay close attention to environment-selection precedence and remote workspace lifecycle behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip's local Codex adapter, GPT-5-class coding model with tool use and code execution in the local repo workspace. The local adapter does not surface a more specific public model version string in this branch workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a957394420 |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
236d11d36f |
[codex] Add run liveness continuations (#4083)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution window. > - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still holding useful next-step state. > - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path to be durable and visible. > - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers. > - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff. ## What Changed - Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking, and an idempotent `0058` migration. - Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill. - Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context through shared adapter utilities. - Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness continuation state. - Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run ledger, with component tests. - Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance, onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation behavior. - Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run, excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence, importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts, documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness backfill off the request path. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a plan document update"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity service|treats a plan document update"` - Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and Snyk all passed. - Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after fetching `public-gh master`. - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff. - Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after `0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application. - Greptile inline review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery, activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI. - Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent guards. - Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the background backfill completes. - UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass; validation is currently through focused component tests. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git, GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7f893ac4ec |
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep regressions visible > - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area > - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch overlapping issue APIs > - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat, telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting ## What Changed - Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and blocked-to-todo wake resumption - Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads, compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces - Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material - Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation from local state, and repo verification follow-ups - Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were dropped during branch reconstruction ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they are noted as environment-limited ## Risks - Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow rather than isolated UI polish - Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure modes and not just reshaping harness behavior ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dotta
|
bce58d353d | fix execution policy decision persistence | ||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
b3e0c31239 |
Add issue review policy and comment retry
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
dde4cc070e |
Add blocker relations and dependency wakeups
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
fd6cfc7149 |
fix(routines): address Greptile review findings
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dotta
|
41f261eaf5 | Merge public-gh/master into PAP-881-document-revisions-bulid-it |
