mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 20:05:57 +02:00
83abfa46f628e5ff6bd8ee333ec130aba4e5016c
14
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
5acf56658b |
feat(onboarding): first task opens as a chat with a chief of staff (#13068)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Onboarding ends by handing a new user to their first agent on a seeded first task > - Today the wizard asks for a mission up front, the UI composes what the agent is told, and the agent starts running before the user says anything > - New users get a cold, ticket-shaped start, and nobody can edit the agent's brief or persona without a code change > - This pull request makes the first task a short chat: a four-step wizard, a chief-of-staff persona, a greeting plus a two-option opening card, server-owned markdown texts, and no run until the user answers > - It also gives question cards one consistent action row (Cancel / Skip / Next), makes agent hires idempotent within a run, and turns the Paperclip Runner flag on by default for self-hosted instances > - The benefit is a first run the user steers, with texts a board operator can edit as markdown ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The feature request fields follow. Related PRs and issues: - Refs #11043 — an earlier draft of the first-task onboarding experience. This PR supersedes it. - Refs #11280 — a report about the onboarding first-task route test. This PR extends that test file. ### Subsystem affected Onboarding wizard, the seeded first task and its texts, task-chat question cards, agent hiring, and the instance experimental settings. ### Problem or motivation The onboarding wizard collects a mission through two extra steps and a questionnaire. The UI then composes the first agent's instructions and the first task description from those answers. The first task wakes the agent at once, so the agent runs and posts before the user types a word. Board operators cannot change the greeting, the brief, or the persona without editing TypeScript. Question cards in chat behave differently per adapter, and a single-select pick submits on click. A misread hire response could create a duplicate agent that the creating agent cannot remove. ### Proposed solution Reduce the wizard to four steps and stop the UI from authoring agent texts. Move the greeting, the brief, the chief-of-staff persona, and the opening question into markdown and JSON files that the server loads at runtime. Seed the persona onto the first agent through an explicit hire marker. Do not wake the first task until the user answers the opening card or types. Give every question card the same Cancel / Skip / Next actions. Add an experimental toggle that switches the single-task proposal between one confirmation card and a plan document with a checkbox card. Make agent hires idempotent within a run. ### Alternatives considered - Keep the mission questionnaire and feed it into the brief. Rejected: the agent asks better questions in chat, and the wizard gets shorter. - Keep the first task open-ended with a plain composer. Rejected: a two-option card gives the user a clear first move. - Derive the plan-document behaviour from the user's intent only. Rejected in favour of an explicit experimental toggle so operators can choose. - Key the "pick does not submit" behaviour off the presence of a submit label. Rejected: several adapters set a submit label on single-select cards, and their cards would change behaviour. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` lists no planned core work on onboarding or the first task. This change refines the existing flow and does not duplicate planned work. ## What Changed - Wizard: four steps (Name your organization, Create your first agent, Connect a model, Review). The front door and both mission steps are removed with their state and saved-progress keys. The UI no longer composes the first agent's instructions or the first task description. - Server-owned texts: the greeting, the brief with two proposal variants, the chief-of-staff persona, the opening question, and a README live in `server/src/onboarding-assets/first-task/` and load at runtime. The create route stores the assembled brief and ignores any client description. - Persona seed: an `onboardingFirstAgent` marker on the hire lets the server seed the chief-of-staff persona over the first agent's entry file. Board-authored hires only. The persona tells the agent the hire response shape and to list agents before it acts on an unclear result. - No auto-run: the first task does not queue an assignment wake. The stranded-assignment reconciler leaves it idle until a user comment or an answered card exists. - Opening card: the server seeds an `ask_user_questions` card right after the greeting with two options: "Interview me and propose a plan and an agent team to execute it." and "I have a task in mind" with free text. Answering wakes the agent. - Experimental toggle `enableFirstTaskPlanProposal` (default off): the single-task proposal is one confirmation card, or a plan document plus a checkbox card when on. - Question cards: every `ask_user_questions` card renders Cancel, Skip, and Next (the submit label on the last question). Skip hides on required questions. Picking an option no longer advances or submits by itself. - Wizard guards: the dashboard's agentless offer ignores a cached empty agent list while a refetch is in flight. The hire step adopts an agent that already carries the typed name instead of hiring "Name 2". - Agent hires are idempotent within a run: a retry of the identical request under the same run id returns the existing agent with `200` and `idempotent: true`. The fingerprint covers the whole validated request, so a corrected payload is a new hire. Lookup, create, and activity record run under one lock per company and run, so overlapping retries cannot both create. - The Paperclip Runner experimental flag defaults to on for self-hosted instances. Cloud keeps its declared default: a managed instance whose tenant row and managed overlay omit the flag resolves it to off. - Question cards: a send that finds an earlier required answer missing returns to that question with a message instead of failing silently. - The two onboarding e2e specs follow the new wizard: the front door and growth intake shots are gone, and the planning-mode spec dismisses the opening card before it reads the composer. - Docs: `docs/board-operator/editing-first-task-texts.md` explains how to edit the texts and the toggle. ## Verification Commands, run from the repo root: ``` pnpm -r --filter './packages/*' --filter '!@paperclipai/paperclip-runner' build pnpm --filter ./packages/shared typecheck pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck pnpm --filter ./server exec tsc --noEmit pnpm check:token-gates pnpm --filter ./ui exec vitest run OnboardingWizard onboarding QuestionForm InteractionCard ProtocolCard TaskChatComposer Dashboard feature PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false pnpm --filter ./server exec vitest run onboarding-first-task heartbeat-process-recovery agent-hire-idempotency instance-settings agent-skills-routes issue-onboarding onboarding-greeting --testTimeout=90000 ``` Results on this branch: - Typecheck is clean for shared, ui, and server. - Token gates: 4 of 4 clean. - UI: 344 tests pass across 23 files. - Server: all suites pass. The first test in `agent-skills-routes` has its own 10 s cap and needs about 15 s on my laptop for the app cold start. It passes with a longer cap. This PR does not change that cap. Manual steps on a dev instance: 1. Open `/onboarding`. Confirm four steps: Name your organization, Create your first agent, Connect a model, Review. 2. Finish the wizard. Confirm the first task shows the chief-of-staff greeting and the opening card with two options. Confirm no run starts. 3. Pick "Interview me…". Confirm no run starts. Press Continue. Confirm a run starts and an interview card of 3–4 questions arrives. 4. On a fresh organization, pick "I have a task in mind", type a task, and press Continue. Confirm a proposal arrives as one confirmation card. 5. Turn on Settings → Experimental → "First task: propose with a plan document" and repeat step 4. Confirm a plan document and a checkbox card arrive. 6. Visit the dashboard after the hire. Confirm the wizard does not reopen and one agent exists. 7. Open any question card. Confirm Cancel returns the plain composer with the card still pending, Skip advances an optional question, and Next moves to the next question. Design reference with flow diagrams, chat mock-ups, and live captures: https://pages.paperclip.ing/first-task-flow/proposed/ ## Risks - `pnpm dev` now builds the runner daemon because the Paperclip Runner flag is on by default. Developers without a Rust toolchain must set `PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_BINARY` or turn the flag off. Self-hosted instances that never set the flag now let qualified agents use the runner. - The wizard drops the mission steps and their saved-progress keys. A user who is mid-wizard on an older build restarts at step 1 after an upgrade. Existing organizations are not touched. - The first task no longer runs on its own. A user who neither answers the card nor types sees no agent activity. This is intended. - The persona seed applies only to hires that carry the marker from the wizard. API hires are unchanged. - Hire idempotency is scoped to one run id and to the exact request. Retries across runs, or with a changed payload, still create a second agent. The lock is per server process, which matches how an instance serves its API. - Single-select question cards no longer submit on pick. Users of adapters that relied on that behaviour now press Next. - No database migrations. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) through Claude Code. `claude-fable-5-1` with extended thinking, tool use, and code execution wrote most commits. `claude-opus-4-8` wrote the toggle, texts, wizard, and idempotency commits, as the `Co-Authored-By` trailers show. ## 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> |
||
|
|
7e40ed8c43 |
feat(status-cards): add experimental status card update view (#10101)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Operators need a board-level way to monitor a changing slice of company work without repeatedly rebuilding filters or reading raw task threads. > - Existing summaries are useful snapshots, but they do not provide a dedicated query-backed card with refresh policy, change tracking, update history, and per-update cost visibility. > - The capability needs to be safe to evaluate before it becomes part of the default product surface. > - This pull request adds end-to-end experimental Status Cards, from schema and query compilation through update orchestration and operator UI. > - The entire feature is gated behind the `enableStatusCards` experimental toggle, including its route and sidebar entry. > - The benefit is a governed, inspectable way to keep focused operational rollups current while preserving explicit controls over refresh frequency and spend. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`, `ui/`, and bundled skills/docs). ### Problem or motivation Operators cannot currently define a reusable natural-language view of company work, compile it into an inspectable query, and keep its summary current as matching issues change. Rebuilding filters and rereading task threads makes board-level monitoring repetitive and hides the relationship between source changes, refresh cost, and the resulting summary. ### Proposed solution Add experimental Status Cards that compile operator intent into a query, summarize matched work, record each update, expose manual/interval/reactive refresh policies and costs, and preserve the last good result across stale, updating, paused, and error states. The capability is off by default and fully gated behind `enableStatusCards`, including its route and navigation entry. ### Alternatives considered - Extend existing one-off summaries: rejected because status cards require persistent query provenance, refresh policy, update history, and card-specific cost controls. - Add a dashboard-only filter widget: rejected because it would not provide governed background refresh, an update ledger, or an inspectable compile pipeline. - Ship the surface by default: rejected in favor of an experimental toggle while behavior and operator value are evaluated. ### Roadmap alignment This advances Paperclip’s board-level execution visibility and output-first product goals. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate status-card initiative was found. ### Additional context No related open PR was found in the public GitHub search for status cards. The PR-only design wireframes were removed from the repository after review; the published prototype remains external to the production source tree. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped status-card schema, CRUD APIs, compile provenance, update ledger, shared contracts, validators, and OpenAPI coverage. - Added the text-to-query compile pipeline, bundled `status-card-query` agent skill, query versioning, and authorized write-back flow. - Added the experimental board, create flow, lifecycle tiles, detail/settings/debug drawers, archived view, routing, navigation, and instance setting. - Added a change-gated update engine with manual, interval, and reactive refresh policies, trigger selection, active hours, and daily token caps. - Added per-update token/cost recording, today and lifetime rollups, and policy-derived cost previews. - Added operator documentation and agent-authoring hardening for compile and update behavior. - Added PR-prep integration coverage for settings/startup wiring and replaced raw UI values with design-system tokens. - Removed the PR-only `design/pap-15023-status-cards` wireframe artifacts so the repository contains only production feature assets. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passes on the PR head; includes `ui` `tsc -b` passing. The UI compile gate was also independently recorded as passing at `6d7f3cf96b` on July 23, 2026. - `pnpm build` — passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passes with all three gates clean. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,880 tests passed and 1 skipped; the sole failure was an unrelated 10-second `afterAll` database-cleanup timeout in `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — passes on immediate focused rerun (25/25). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — passes (31/31). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardSettingsForm.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardTile.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/format.test.ts src/lib/status-card-state.test.ts` — passes (26/26). - Recorded pre-PR QA: compile-pipeline e2e PASS; full lifecycle and cost QA PASS; security re-review PASS after write-back hardening; UX approved. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` — passes; reapplies migrations `0185`–`0189` against an already-migrated embedded Postgres database. - `pnpm --filter /db check:migrations` — passes migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter /db typecheck` — passes. - Merged current `origin/master` on July 24, 2026 with no conflicts; migrations `0185`–`0189` remain unclaimed on master. ## Risks - The feature introduces five database migrations and a new background update path; all new DDL is repeat-safe after partial application, migration numbering/safety checks pass, and update execution is company-scoped and change-gated. - Natural-language compilation can produce invalid or overly broad queries; compile provenance, query validation, debug visibility, and version history make failures inspectable and recoverable. - Reactive or interval refresh could increase spend; active hours, max refresh frequency, daily token caps, per-update cost records, and budget-paused states bound and expose that risk. - The branch name contains an internal execution identifier because it is a fixed handoff branch; it was intentionally not renamed or rebased per the release handoff instructions. - Overall rollout risk is limited because the route, navigation, services, and UI are disabled by default behind `enableStatusCards`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI, and test/build execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change; the fixed execution-workspace identifier is documented as an authorized handoff exception - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, with the one cleanup timeout passing on focused rerun - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
fce3b439af |
fix: warn operators that experimental features may break (#8382)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Board operators rely on the settings UI and CLI docs to understand which product surfaces are stable to depend on. > - Experimental features already existed in the product, but the operator-facing contract around them was too soft and too fragmented. > - That created a risk that users would enable experiments without being told clearly that they can break, change, or disappear. > - The docs and the in-product settings page both needed the same explicit warning language so the contract is visible at the moment of decision. > - This pull request adds that warning to the board-operator guide, CLI references, and the experimental settings page. > - The benefit is clearer operator expectations without changing the underlying feature flags or rollout behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this docs/polish gap. Problem description: - Board operators could enable experimental features without a clear operator-facing statement that those features are opt-in and come without compatibility guarantees. - The docs site, repo CLI reference, and in-product experimental settings page did not present one consistent warning contract. - This PR closes that gap by documenting the risk explicitly where operators discover and enable those settings. Related public search: - Searched public issues/PRs for related work with `gh search issues --repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features warning'` and `gh search prs --repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features warning'`. - Reviewed open PR #6165 during that search and found it unrelated; it changes experimental auth/routing flags rather than documenting experimental-feature risk. ## What Changed - Added a new board-operator guide at `docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md` that defines the Paperclip contract for experimental features. - Registered that guide in `docs/docs.json` so it appears in the public docs navigation. - Added matching caveat language next to `instance settings:experimental` in `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md`. - Added the same caveat to `doc/CLI.md` so the repo CLI reference does not drift from the published docs. - Added a single page-level warning banner to `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx` stating that experimental features are opt-in, carry no compatibility guarantees, and may change, break, or be removed. - Added a targeted UI test in `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` that asserts exactly one page-level warning renders with the new risk language. ## Verification - `jq empty docs/docs.json` - `git diff --check` - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` - Manual review of the warning contract across: - `docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md` - `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md` - `doc/CLI.md` - `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx` UI note: - This is a copy-level warning addition rather than a layout rework. I did not attach before/after screenshots in this PR body. ## Risks - Low risk: this changes operator-facing documentation and warning copy, not feature-flag behavior. - The main failure mode is wording drift across docs and UI in future edits, which is why this PR adds the same contract to all relevant operator-facing surfaces. > I checked `ROADMAP.md` before opening this PR. This is docs/UI polish around an existing experimental surface, not overlapping roadmap-level core feature work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex Local using `gpt-5.4` with high reasoning and tool use for coordination, review, docs changes, and PR preparation. - Anthropic Claude Local using `claude-opus-4-8` with high reasoning and tool use for the in-product warning and targeted UI test. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- 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> |
||
|
|
b9a80dcf22 |
feat: implement multi-user access and invite flows (#3784)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - V1 needs to stay local-first while also supporting shared, authenticated deployments. > - Human operators need real identities, company membership, invite flows, profile surfaces, and company-scoped access controls. > - Agents and operators also need the existing issue, inbox, workspace, approval, and plugin flows to keep working under those authenticated boundaries. > - This branch accumulated the multi-user implementation, follow-up QA fixes, workspace/runtime refinements, invite UX improvements, release-branch conflict resolution, and review hardening. > - This pull request consolidates that branch onto the current `master` branch as a single reviewable PR. > - The benefit is a complete multi-user implementation path with tests and docs carried forward without dropping existing branch work. ## What Changed - Added authenticated human-user access surfaces: auth/session routes, company user directory, profile settings, company access/member management, join requests, and invite management. - Added invite creation, invite landing, onboarding, logo/branding, invite grants, deduped join requests, and authenticated multi-user E2E coverage. - Tightened company-scoped and instance-admin authorization across board, plugin, adapter, access, issue, and workspace routes. - Added profile-image URL validation hardening, avatar preservation on name-only profile updates, and join-request uniqueness migration cleanup for pending human requests. - Added an atomic member role/status/grants update path so Company Access saves no longer leave partially updated permissions. - Improved issue chat, inbox, assignee identity rendering, sidebar/account/company navigation, workspace routing, and execution workspace reuse behavior for multi-user operation. - Added and updated server/UI tests covering auth, invites, membership, issue workspace inheritance, plugin authz, inbox/chat behavior, and multi-user flows. - Merged current `public-gh/master` into this branch, resolved all conflicts, and verified no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is included in this PR diff. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/access-validators.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authz-company-access.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/sidebar-preferences-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openclaw-invite-prompt-route.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/auth-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyAccess.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm db:generate` - `npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list` - Confirmed branch has no uncommitted changes and is `0` commits behind `public-gh/master` before PR creation. - Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is staged or present in the PR diff. ## Risks - High review surface area: this PR contains the accumulated multi-user branch plus follow-up fixes, so reviewers should focus especially on company-boundary enforcement and authenticated-vs-local deployment behavior. - UI behavior changed across invites, inbox, issue chat, access settings, and sidebar navigation; no browser screenshots are included in this branch-consolidation PR. - Plugin install, upgrade, and lifecycle/config mutations now require instance-admin access, which is intentional but may change expectations for non-admin board users. - A join-request dedupe migration rejects duplicate pending human requests before creating unique indexes; deployments with unusual historical duplicates should review the migration behavior. - Company member role/status/grant saves now use a new combined endpoint; older separate endpoints remain for compatibility. - Full production build was not run locally in this heartbeat; CI should cover the full matrix. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-based model, CLI/tool-use environment. Exact deployed model identifier and context window were 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 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 Note on screenshots: this is a branch-consolidation PR for an already-developed multi-user branch, and no browser screenshots were captured during this heartbeat. --------- Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
HenkDz
|
14d59da316 |
feat(adapters): external adapter plugin system with dynamic UI parser
- Plugin loader: install/reload/remove/reinstall external adapters from npm packages or local directories - Plugin store persisted at ~/.paperclip/adapter-plugins.json - Self-healing UI parser resolution with version caching - UI: Adapter Manager page, dynamic loader, display registry with humanized names for unknown adapter types - Dev watch: exclude adapter-plugins dir from tsx watcher to prevent mid-request server restarts during reinstall - All consumer fallbacks use getAdapterLabel() for consistent display - AdapterTypeDropdown uses controlled open state for proper close behavior - Remove hermes-local from built-in UI (externalized to plugin) - Add docs for external adapters and UI parser contract |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
b3d61a7561 |
Clarify manual workspace runtime behavior
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
a5d47166e2 |
docs: add board-operator delegation guide (#1889)
* docs: add board-operator delegation guide Create docs/guides/board-operator/delegation.md explaining the full CEO-led delegation lifecycle from the board operator's perspective. Covers what the board needs to do, what the CEO automates, common delegation patterns (flat, 3-level, hire-on-demand), and a troubleshooting section that directly answers the #1 new-user confusion point: "Do I have to tell the CEO to delegate?" Also adds a Delegation section to core-concepts.md and wires the new guide into docs.json navigation after Managing Tasks. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> * docs: add AGENTS.md troubleshooting note to delegation guide Add a row to the troubleshooting table telling board operators to verify the CEO's AGENTS.md instructions file contains delegation directives. Without these instructions, the CEO won't delegate. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> * docs: fix stale concept count and frontmatter summary Update "five key concepts" to "six" and add "delegation" to the frontmatter summary field, addressing Greptile review comments. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
56a39fea3d |
Add importing & exporting company guide
Documents the `paperclipai company export` and `paperclipai company import` CLI commands, covering package format, all options, target modes, collision strategies, GitHub sources, interactive selection, and API endpoints. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
e9ffde610b | docs: add tailscale private access guide | ||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
09d2ef1a37 |
fix: restore docs deleted in v0.2.3 release, add Paperclip branding
- Restored docs/ directory that was accidentally deleted by `git add -A` in the v0.2.3 release script - Replaced generic "P" favicon with actual paperclip icon using brand primary color (#2563EB) - Added light/dark logo SVGs for Mintlify navbar (paperclip icon + wordmark) - Updated docs.json with logo configuration for dark/light mode - Fixed release.sh to stage only release-related files instead of `git add -A` to prevent sweeping unrelated changes into release commits Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
28bf5e9e9b | chore: release v0.2.3 | ||
|
Dotta
|
cabd16bc70 | docs: sync docs and skills updates from backup branch | ||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
02dc46e782 |
docs: add external documentation site content
Add structured documentation covering quickstart, architecture, core concepts, API reference, adapter guides, CLI commands, deployment options, and operator/developer guides. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |