Keep the accepted-deadline integration contract aligned with permanent run closure and prove terminal polling never resumes a provider. Record the passing 90-case native integration result.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Bound direct eval context before the requested action. Keep receipt-limit runs closed during terminal polling and permit verified runtime execution in offline installer scratch.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Honor the explicit provider binding while retaining durable command identity, reject malformed bindings without fallback, and stop qualification immediately when the real API rejects steering.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Preserve exact queue authority through editor Markdown serialization and bound installer scratch capacity for Pi assembly.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Calibrate partial native arguments against the retained permission boundary, retaining strict conflicting-path rejection. Extend public npm consumer verification through the CLI Pi setup and credential-free packaged startup.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Preserve the historical Copilot declaration, version the pending identity for shared transport changes, and bind Pi admission fixtures to explicit reasoning mode.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Require explicit native-effective thinking modes, reject drift across reconnects, and retain observed settings in qualification artifacts. Version the profile and pinned wrapper closure for the new contract.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Add explicit public CLI setup and full async source/profile/byte admission for an operator-pinned Linux companion. Preserve existing remote integrity checks and explicit overrides.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Add explicit host-only setup, verify the public server vendor layout, and route readiness through the packaged runner boundary. Preserve exact Pi closure and normal-mode admission checks.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Add one explicit Daytona Product cell that admits the exact Pi child before faulting it, then requires production expiry of the original native question, failed-run Blocked disposition, stale-answer rejection, distinct unanswered fallback, and no replay through owned retirement. Retain the existing local scope and pending qualification.
Calibrate public lifecycle evidence, generated observer one-shot dispatch, and candidate failure classification. Runtime, provider profile, dependency closure, deadlines, and lockfiles are unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Integrate 8ec4b84e1c before runtime qualification, preserving the new workspace restore lock, continuation and Docker packaging fixes. Pi profile 11 source and distribution inputs are unchanged by this merge.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A user can send a new message after a native run fails.
> - The server checks that the old execution has stopped before it
starts a fresh turn.
> - A failed run can retain a result accepted before checkpoint or
cleanup failed.
> - The continuation gate treated that saved result as active recovery
and held the new message forever.
> - This pull request removes that false liveness signal while retaining
controller, process, environment, and authorization checks.
> - Live staging then exposed a second defect: chat admission created a
successor without consuming the original deferred receipt, so completion
delivered the message again.
> - Consume that exact receipt atomically with admission, while
preserving separate turns for later chat messages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A new user message stayed in the queue with `controller_settling` after
the previous run had reached `terminal_failure`. The old coordinator had
no lease owner but still had a `resultId`. Its remote environment had a
verified stop receipt.
**Expected behavior**
Start one fresh turn after execution has stopped and normal admission
checks pass. Preserve the failed run and its accepted result as history.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Accept a native result, then fail checkpoint or cleanup and exhaust
recovery.
2. Retain the result ID on the terminal failure record and stop the
execution environment.
3. Send a new user message. Before this fix, it waits forever for the
finished controller.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced in a database-backed regression test on `26900655b`.
**Deployment mode**
Server with a native runner and remote sandbox. Local process stop
checks also apply.
Related: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/14775. Searched
existing PRs for retained-result continuation fixes; no duplicate found.
## What Changed
- Remove the retained-result veto for terminal failures.
- Keep controller ownership, successor, process, environment cleanup,
pending decision, and ordinary admission checks.
- Add regressions for retained results, active execution, missing stop
evidence, and delayed remote cleanup.
- Atomically consume the resumed receipt in agent chat, even though chat
does not coalesce other queued messages.
- Reproduce completion-time duplicate promotion, race cleanup against
periodic recovery, and prove a subsequent chat message keeps its own
turn.
- Document that a saved result does not make a terminal failure active.
- Keep exhausted workspace export on its separate repair path, tested
through the production finalizer.
## Verification
- Red: retained-result admission failed with `controller_settling`
before the original fix. The new chat-specific regression then
reproduced duplicate promotion when the first reply finished.
- Green: 406 tests across native continuation, workspace-export
recovery, and the wake-queue module passed on `cbc531cc0`.
- The chat regressions exercise real Postgres transactions, simultaneous
recovery callbacks, successful completion, the production queue-drain
use case, and repeated drain attempts. A distinct follow-up remains a
separate turn.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on `cbc531cc0`.
- The earlier full local test run encountered a timeout and follow-on
failure in unchanged AI connection-adoption tests; all 50 tests passed
on isolated rerun. That local run was stopped after the full CI test
matrix passed on the earlier head.
- All 54 CI checks passed on `cbc531cc0` (2 skipped), including the full
test matrix and browser shards. One unchanged interaction-route test
returned HTTP 500 on its first CI attempt; its full 84-test file passed
locally, and the failed shard passed on one targeted rerun.
- Greptile reviewed `cbc531cc0`: 5/5, no unresolved findings.
- Live staging first verified that the original saved message resumes
and receives a successful response; that test exposed the duplicate now
covered above.
- Deployed exact commit `cbc531cc0410e1ef6e8811c6c5c014c3528351ed` to
the affected staging workspace; deployment verification, health,
authentication, and startup recovery passed.
- Submitted a fresh message through the browser. The agent replied in 39
seconds; server records show exactly one successful run, native phase
`committed`, no error, and an empty queue. A later check more than a
minute after completion found no duplicate run.
## Risks
The change affects admission after native execution failure and
consumption of a resumed deferred receipt. A fresh turn must never
overlap the prior execution, and consuming one chat receipt must not
absorb later messages. Tests retain the controller, process, and
remote-stop guards. This change does not migrate data, apply an old
result, or reset the old retry budget.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex (GPT-6). The exact runtime model identifier and context
window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository
inspection, code execution, database-backed tests, and browser
inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs restore workspace files and collect instruction-file
changes.
> - Writers to the same target directory must wait for each other.
> - The current lock records a PID, which a new process can reuse after
a crash.
> - A reused PID can keep an orphaned lock alive and make each later run
fail.
> - This pull request makes a SQLite file lock decide ownership. The OS
releases it when the process exits.
> - Later runs can proceed after a crash, and concurrent live writers
remain protected.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10914. This addresses crash recovery. It does not cancel a stalled
operation in a process that is still alive.
Related work: #9667, #14787, and #12187. The earlier attempt in #9667
assumes one live server per lock root. This implementation uses an
OS-backed lock to support concurrent writers without treating a
different process token or an old timestamp as proof of a dead owner. It
retains the private lock root and bounded timeout diagnostics from the
merged changes.
After a process dies while holding a restore lock, a replacement process
can reuse its PID. The existing `process.kill(pid, 0)` check then
reports a live owner forever. Later runs can complete their model turn
but fail during file collection or restore.
## What Changed
- Hold a SQLite `BEGIN IMMEDIATE` transaction for each directory write.
Use the existing built-in `node:sqlite` dependency.
- Keep each lock database on a stable inode. Keep PID and time metadata
only for diagnostics.
- Retain the 30-second asynchronous wait and existing timeout error code
and diagnostic fields.
- Fail closed when an old directory lock exists. Document a
stopped-writer upgrade and rollback procedure.
- Add real child-process tests for crashes, PID reuse, live owners, and
connection cleanup. Cover callback failures, independent targets, stable
inodes, invalid lock files, and ambiguous legacy records.
## Verification
- Before the fix, the crash/PID-reuse test and the live-owner test both
failed. Both pass with this change.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/directory-merge-lock.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/workspace-restore-merge.test.ts`: 56 tests
passed.
- Restore and agent-file working-copy integration tests: 118 tests
passed before the additional connection-cleanup test.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed.
- `pnpm build`: passed.
- Full GitHub CI: all checks passed, including Linux workspace tests,
server test shards, build, typecheck, and browser tests.
- Greptile: 5/5, with no review threads or unresolved comments.
- `pnpm test:run`: started locally, then stopped with SIGINT (exit 130)
after full CI passed. The local serial run did not complete and is not
counted as a full local pass. The completed CI shards provide the
full-suite result.
## Risks
- **Upgrade and rollback require a drain.** Stop every old writer that
shares an instance root before switching protocols. Old and new versions
must not write concurrently.
- Existing legacy `.lock/` directories remain blocking. After all
writers stop, preserve run evidence and move those directories to an
operator scratch directory. The new code does not infer that they are
abandoned from PID or age.
- Never delete or replace a `.lock.sqlite` file while writers can run.
These small files remain after release.
- The shared filesystem must support reliable SQLite locking. Broken
network-filesystem locking is unsupported.
- This change prevents new orphaned ownership. It does not recover file
changes lost during earlier failed collections, or interrupt a live
operation that stalls.
- No application database migration or new native dependency is
required. See `doc/workspace-restore-locks.md` for the procedure.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with code execution and repository tools.
The exact model variant and context window are not exposed in this
session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused regression and
integration suites; see the full-suite note above)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their tasks.
> - The dashboard shows recent agent activity in compact cards.
> - Those cards use run records, so two runs for one task can create
duplicate task cards.
> - An operator needs to see each task once when scanning the dashboard.
> - This pull request selects one run per linked task before it applies
the card limit.
> - The live runs page still shows each run for run inspection.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The dashboard showed the same task in two agent cards when that task had
both an active run and a completed run.
**Expected behavior**
The dashboard should show a linked task at most once. It should keep the
active run card when one is present.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start an agent run for a task that already has a completed run.
2. Open the company dashboard.
3. Observe two cards linked to the same task.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on the pre-change master at `8b4aa0692`.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev, built from source. The bug is in the core dashboard UI and
does not depend on an agent adapter or database mode.
## What Changed
- Select distinct linked tasks from capped active and recent run samples
before applying the dashboard card limit.
- Keep separate cards for runs without a linked task.
- Preserve the dashboard's count of additional distinct cards behind the
live-runs link.
- Add UI and embedded Postgres regression tests for duplicate runs and
document the dashboard rule.
- Give the existing multi-request cross-tenant authorization test enough
time on loaded CI runners.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/ActiveAgentsPanel.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/api/heartbeats.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/dashboard-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- Review the dashboard with an active and a completed run on the same
task. Confirm that it shows one card. Open Live agent runs to inspect
both run records.
## Risks
- A very high volume of recent runs for one task can fill the capped
sample and leave older tasks off the dashboard. The Live runs page
remains available for full run inspection.
- The dashboard may fetch up to 50 distinct run representatives to
preserve its overflow count. The default run API response and persisted
data are unchanged.
> 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-6. The runtime does not expose the exact model ID or
context window size to this task. The model used reasoning, tool calls,
and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task preparation can create an isolated Git worktree and run its
setup script.
> - The Paperclip repository setup script also prepares a seeded
development instance.
> - A server configured through environment variables can have no local
seed config.
> - This stops ordinary task preparation before the agent starts.
> - This pull request prepares checkout dependencies when no seed source
exists, while preserving errors for invalid sources and existing
development instances.
> - Tasks can start without creating or claiming a seeded development
runtime.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A task with the Paperclip repository fails during setup when the host
has no repository-local or default instance config. The automatic
worktree provisioner requires a seed source even when the task only
needs the checkout.
**Expected behavior**
A plain checkout should prepare its dependencies without a local
development database. A missing custom source, invalid source path, or
existing development instance with a missing source should still fail.
Starting a seeded runtime must still require a valid source.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run an environment-configured Paperclip server without a local
instance config.
2. Add the Paperclip repository to a project.
3. Start a task that uses an isolated Git worktree without a custom
provision command.
4. Observe the setup error before agent execution.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced against `0d3e7bf6ac` with a real script subprocess and
workspace realization regression.
**Deployment mode**
Environment-configured server with external PostgreSQL.
**Additional context**
Searched open and closed GitHub PRs and issues. Related work: Refs
#14795 (seed-source diagnostics) and Refs #11733 (source validation).
This change keeps source validation and seed-readiness checks in place.
## What Changed
- Permit dependency setup when the default seed config is absent
(including the Docker image config path) and the worktree has no
development-instance state.
- Keep missing custom configs, invalid paths, and lost sources for
existing instances as errors.
- Create no config, environment file, or seed manifest for a plain
checkout.
- Keep dependency install failures visible and allow normal instance
setup once a source becomes available.
- Cover the setup script, seed-runtime refusal, and automatic server
worktree realization.
- Document the difference between checkout preparation and
seeded-runtime readiness.
## Verification
- Regression tests failed before the fix for absent-source checkout
preparation and dependency setup.
- `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree.sh`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs`
— 34 passed; 1 existing flock-dependent test skipped on macOS.
- Server regression — 2 passed, covering an unset config and the Docker
image default path.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- All CI checks passed, including the full test shards, build,
typecheck, browser tests, and canary dry run.
- The first local `pnpm test:run` encountered two chat-test failures
because skill discovery selected an unrelated parent directory. Both
tests pass at the PR commit in a clean temporary checkout. The full
local run was not completed; the redundant clean run was stopped after
the complete CI suite passed.
- `git diff --check` and added-line secrets/PII scan passed.
- Greptile: 5/5, no comments. The branch has no merge conflicts.
- No live tenant deployment or task retry was performed.
## Risks
- A new checkout with no implicit seed config now completes dependency
setup. It has no seeded development instance. A runtime request still
fails until a valid source exists.
- Existing instances and custom source paths retain their failure
behavior. The script does not synthesize a source from environment
credentials or copy a live database.
- No schema, API, or task-setting changes. Revert the commit to restore
the previous setup behavior.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with tool-assisted analysis, code edits, and local
tests. The runtime did not expose a verified model variant or
context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Connected Apps let an operator control which MCP actions an agent
can use.
> - The Permissions page lets the operator run a real action as an
agent.
> - The Test dialog displayed the nested MCP response as escaped JSON.
> - A useful result was hard to read, even when the action worked.
> - This pull request renders known MCP content as a readable preview
and keeps the raw response available.
> - The benefit is faster validation without losing the data needed to
diagnose a failure.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The per-action Test dialog on a connection's Permissions page.
**Subsystem affected**
ui/ — React board UI.
**Current behavior**
The dialog shows the gateway response as an escaped JSON blob. Text
content that contains JSON stays inside a string. The obsolete
connection Test page also keeps a separate set of stories.
**Proposed behavior**
The dialog uses structured MCP content when present. It parses JSON text
blocks when possible. It shows compact tables, cards, fields, or plain
text. It keeps the full raw response behind a control and opens that
view for errors or unknown block shapes. Stories exercise the
Permissions page dialog, and the obsolete Test page and stories are
removed.
**Reason and benefit**
An operator can inspect a successful action result at a glance and still
inspect the exact gateway response when a call fails or looks wrong.
**Breaking changes**
No API or stored data changes. The Test dialog presentation changes. The
raw response stays available.
**Additional context**
I tested a read-only Notion search through the real Permissions page.
The dialog showed three result cards and the raw response control
worked. Storybook uses invented example data.
No directly matching public issue or open PR was found in the GitHub
search.
## What Changed
- Render structured MCP output and JSON text content in the action Test
dialog.
- Show wide rows as cards, keep short rows as tables, and retain the raw
response for diagnosis.
- Remove the obsolete connection Test page and its stories.
- Add focused dialog tests and Permissions page Storybook cases for
success, errors, mixed blocks, and malformed blocks.
- Document the Test dialog result behavior in the connection playbook.
- Keep agent mention icons visible when the Lucide icon node is
unavailable in server rendering, which repaired a repeatable CI failure.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui` — passed (7,111
tests).
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/pages/apps/app-detail/ActionTestDialog.test.tsx` — passed (11
tests).
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx` — passed (53 tests).
- `pnpm test:run` — started, then stopped after the review fixes changed
the head; the full sharded suite passed in CI.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- Use a connected MCP app. Open Permissions, select a read action, and
run Test. Inspect the preview and the raw response control.
## Risks
- MCP tools can return provider-specific block shapes. Unknown blocks
open the raw response so the operator can inspect the exact result.
- Row and field previews limit visible data. The raw response preserves
the complete result.
> This is a targeted improvement to the existing Connected Apps item in
`ROADMAP.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The session used tool access, code execution, and
browser validation. The exact deployment ID and context window were not
exposed to the 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>
Use the shared animated prompt-copy control across setup, invitations, webhooks, and task handoffs. Preserve first-click copying, clipboard recovery, and logo continuity. Add Storybook coverage and restore mention icon masks for the current Lucide data shape.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Remote OpenCode and ACPX runs need a provider pack from the
application build.
> - Cloud now builds its application image from the standard production
image.
> - The provider pack was added only to the legacy cloud image target.
> - The standard image therefore cannot supply the pack to downstream
Cloud images.
> - This pull request adds the pack to the production image and lets the
cloud target inherit it.
> - Remote runs can then use the pack that matches the application
source commit.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13827. Refs #14024.
The standard production image does not include the remote provider pack.
Downstream Cloud images inherit that omission. Remote OpenCode and ACPX
runs fail with `runner_remote_provider_artifact_incompatible` and ask
for `PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_REMOTE_PROVIDER_PACK_PATH`.
## What Changed
- Build and copy the provider pack into the standard production image.
- Set the pack path and check that an unprivileged user can read its
artifacts and execute Node.
- Let the legacy cloud target inherit the pack from production.
- Add regression checks for production packaging and cloud inheritance.
- Document stamped image behavior and the default pack path.
## Verification
- The 12 focused Docker stamp and provider-pack reuse tests pass on
commit `4a11f8d52aead55f85527c8e82c6d7f2644ce0da`.
- The new packaging regression failed against the old Dockerfile and
passed with the fix.
- On the current commit, `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` pass. All
seven standard-image contract tests also pass.
- The current-head CI build, typecheck, test, browser, and native Runner
checks passed. The local full suite hit one chat-channel assertion
failure; that exact test passed in isolation. The remaining local run
was stopped after CI completed to avoid duplicating its full suite. An
earlier run on the pre-rebase base had a heartbeat comment batching
timeout; the external chat wait integration suite passed all 142 tests
in isolation.
- [The stamped preview image build
passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36885002850/job/110446106393),
including the production-stage provider pack build, copy, and
unprivileged artifact readability/executable check. Publication,
compatibility validation, and deployment of this exact commit to a
staging QA instance passed.
- Reproduced the exact missing-pack error on an existing staging image
with Paperclip Runner, ACPX, and Claude in a remote Daytona computer.
The legacy Claude adapter succeeds with the same account and computer.
After deploying this commit, the same native task succeeded: it computed
`5050` with a real remote shell command, wrote a proof file, read it
back in a separate call, uploaded the file as a deliverable, and
completed the task. The uploaded file contents and Done state persisted
after a page reload. The run trace confirms Paperclip Runner, ACPX, and
Claude. The first run took 2m 59s, including approximately 97s of remote
artifact preparation. A second native run read the unchanged file from
the prior run and completed successfully. Its startup took about 120s;
this verifies repeated execution and file persistence, not fast
provider-pack reuse.
## Risks
- Stamped standard images now include the provider pack and its build
cost. A pack build failure now fails the production image build.
- Unstamped local builds still skip pack generation. Setting the path
alone does not create a pack.
- No database, provider authentication, or runner verification rules
change.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model identifier and context
window are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: repository
inspection, code editing, shell verification, and browser testing.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - Agent Chat keeps one conversation for each agent and board user.
> - The Chat sidebar entry opens the agent chooser each time.
> - A user must then find and reopen the chat they just used.
> - The browser already records recent agent chat visits by company and
user.
> - This pull request uses that record to reopen the last available
chat.
> - The chooser still serves users who have no available saved chat.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related: #14706 added the secondary Agent Chat navigation.
**What happened?**
The Chat sidebar entry opened the agent chooser, even after a user
opened an agent chat.
**Expected behavior**
The Chat entry should reopen the last agent chat visited by the current
user in the current company.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable Agent Chat and open a chat with an agent.
2. Open another page.
3. Select Chat in the sidebar.
4. Observe the agent chooser instead of the chat.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `0829d94af`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development, browser UI. The change also uses the same browser
storage path in authenticated mode.
## What Changed
- Use the existing recent chat record when the Chat landing route opens.
- Check saved agents against the current roster and chat history before
redirecting.
- Keep the chooser when no saved chat is available, and show a retry
state for load errors.
- Add route tests and update the Agent Chat implementation spec.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/AgentChats.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/recent-agent-chats.test.ts` — 16 tests passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/agent-chat-sessions.spec.ts --grep 'secondary chat navigation
preserves layout'` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed on the final
commit.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` — passed earlier in this branch;
latest-head CI completed all 47 jobs successfully.
- `pnpm test:run` reported an unrelated native runtime test failure
before it was stopped. That test and an unrelated external object
refresh test passed in isolation. CI runs the same suites on the PR.
- To check in the UI: open an agent chat, leave it, and select Chat. The
same chat should open. Clear the recent chat record or use another
company to see the chooser.
## Risks
- The recent order is stored in the browser. Clearing browser storage
returns the user to the chooser.
- An existing chat ID is stored with its visit. If the chat is removed,
the landing route skips that visit when history loads. Cross-tab storage
removal clears the identity; failed writes retain an in-tab fallback.
- The landing route waits for the agent roster and validates saved issue
IDs against chat history when available. If history fails, an active
agent chat can still open; roster or session failures show a retry
action.
- No database or API contract changes are required.
> 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-6 family. The runtime did not expose an exact API
model ID or context window. It used reasoning, repository tools, shell
commands, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
