mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-01 06:42:06 +01:00
83abfa46f628e5ff6bd8ee333ec130aba4e5016c
11
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
3bafac12f7 |
refactor: remove automatic productivity reviews (#13263)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its recovery loop keeps assigned work moving after execution failures. > - Productivity review used run counts, comment counts, and elapsed time to create management tasks. > - Infrastructure failures could satisfy those rules and create more tasks without evidence that the source work needed management review. > - This pull request removes that detector and its continuation holds. > - Bounded recovery, budgets, explicit blockers, and normal review stages remain in place. > - Existing task records stay readable and unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #5897. That request describes unwanted automatic productivity reviews and asks to preserve existing tasks. This change retires the feature instead of adding another configuration switch. Related prior approaches: Refs #9191, Refs #12489. Those changes excluded infrastructure failures or bounded review creation. This removal replaces the detector rather than tuning its thresholds. ## What Changed - Delete the scheduled detector, automatic task creation, evidence refresh, and productivity continuation holds. - Remove computed productivity fields, special attention items, badges, and Storybook fixtures. - Retain historical origin values, decision compatibility, and recovery recursion exclusions. Add no migration and change no existing task data. - Update the execution contract. Replace feature tests with regressions for legacy task reads, ordinary attention, and bounded continuation in the presence of an old review. ## Verification - Targeted attention, issue-route, startup, and UI tests: 4 files and 101 tests passed. - Updated issue-route and UI tests: 2 files and 61 tests passed. - Bounded continuation regression: 2 cases passed, including a legacy review plus pre-dispatch cancellation churn. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: all four gates passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. - Greptile: 5/5 on `a5a612eea`, with no actionable findings. - Scheduler and historical recovery regressions: 2 files and 28 tests passed. - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - The complete `pnpm test:run` suite passed across the CI server, serialized-server, and workspace shards on `a5a612eea`. Stopped the duplicate local monolithic run after the full CI suite passed; no completed local full-suite result is claimed. The targeted local suites above passed. - CI serialized shard 5 initially hit a 10-second timeout in the first interaction-route test. The complete file passed locally (78 tests), then the single CI rerun passed. - All CI gates are green, including the build and end-to-end suites. - A local merge check against current `master` (`ce09ea40b`) completed without conflicts. ## Risks - API responses no longer include the computed `productivityReview` field. Consumers must stop using it. - The scheduler no longer creates management work from elapsed time, run counts, or missing comments. This is the intended behavior change. - Existing review tasks and explicit dependencies remain in place. Historical origins still prevent recursive recovery treatment. No task cleanup or data migration occurs. - The native review handoff repair is separate from this removal. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact runtime model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (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> |
||
|
TonioandClaude Opus 5
|
40e7add71c |
test(ui): make the suite independent of the machine timezone (#11478)
Several suites asserted local-time renders from UTC instants, or built date fixtures from the real clock, so they only held where local time happened to match. CI runs in UTC and never reported it; a contributor anywhere else saw failures on a clean checkout. Seven files, anchored to the clock under test rather than to the machine's. The set grew twice while being fixed: the two tests the issue named surfaced three more at UTC+9, and those surfaced two more at UTC+14. `StatusCards/format` is the interesting one. `rollupUpdatesToday` filters on the UTC calendar day to match the server token cap, while the fixtures were built on the local day. West of UTC that lands `iso(0)` in the previous UTC day for the stretch between UTC midnight and local midnight - about seven hours a day at UTC-7 - and east of UTC+12 "today at local noon" is already yesterday in UTC outright. Either way the rows it means to count drop out. A run crossing midnight UTC splits the same way. Fixes #11476. Deliberately left: IssueProperties.test.tsx:1515-1517 still pin the minute of three timestamps against a UTC fixture. They pass at every offset tried, including UTC+5:45, and the minute there is load-bearing - it distinguishes Created from Started from Completed - so it wants more care than mechanical anchoring. Full ui suite 4113 pass. The TZ pin added by #11480 is still in place here and is now redundant; #11508 removes it, stacked on this branch so it cannot land without the anchoring it depends on. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
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
|
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> |
||
|
|
0a09e4d975 |
feat(decisions): add desk workflow and retention (#10672)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision > - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work > - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle old work > - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and reversible retention > - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set > - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts. **Problem or motivation** Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that does not delete work. **Proposed solution** Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed, exact item manifest. **Alternatives considered** Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in `ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474. ## What Changed - Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue page, and aging shelf UI. - Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides. - Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent notification outbox. - Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query, and revive actions. - Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep. - Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks. - Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction contract. - Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused tests, and Storybook screens. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408 files and 3,362 tests passed) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup, and UI API tests. - Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal 50-item page boundary. The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The isolated test passes when those two variables are removed. ## Risks - The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation. - Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set version checks prevent stale archive writes. - Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity, version, or the reviewed set changes. - Archive is reversible and does not delete source records. > 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 model used tool calls, code execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The 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 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
30c49c8327 |
feat(decisions): add queues and prioritized attention feed (#10651)
<!-- 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 control plane for companies of AI agents. > - Operators use the attention feed to find decisions that need action. > - The feed has eleven source kinds, but it has no durable queue or triage state. > - The feed also returns every item and lacks decision deadlines, snooze state, and decision-focused ordering. > - This pull request adds secure queue sidecars and enriches the attention feed with triage data, filters, cursor pagination, and decide-now ranking. > - The benefit is a bounded feed that can show the most urgent decisions first without weakening source visibility rules. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request replaces the closed [#10634](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10634). It combines that queue foundation with the dependent attention-feed change as one review unit. **Subsystem affected** Database schema, shared contracts, server authorization and REST APIs, and the UI attention client library. **Problem or motivation** The attention feed can contain hundreds of mixed decision items. Operators cannot group them into durable queues, set a decision deadline, snooze an item, or request a bounded page ordered by urgency. The current client must download the full feed on each refresh. **Proposed solution** Store queue membership and triage state by stable attention identity. Re-authorize each source during queue reads and writes. Enrich attention items with queue, deadline, snooze, expiry, rule, and origin data. Add activity and queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, decide-focused ordering, and a decide-now count. **Alternatives considered** Adding queue fields to every source would duplicate schema and authorization logic across eleven source kinds. Client-only filtering and sorting would still transfer the full feed and would make pagination unstable. **Roadmap alignment** This change improves the core decision-attention surface and operator oversight. It does not implement the separate general-purpose work queue milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped queue, membership, triage, and append-only event tables with actor and run provenance. - Added queue CRUD, item membership, starter-rule discovery, and decide-by and snooze endpoints. - Kept source authorization on each queue mutation, read, and count. - Added attention fields for expiry, rule, origin agent, queues, decide-by attribution, and snooze state. - Added activity date filters, queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, and configurable page limits. - Added decide-now ordering by deadline, expiry, severity, and activity. - Added `decideNowCount` and excluded actively snoozed items from the default feed. - Updated the shared and UI client contracts. - Added focused server, route, OpenAPI, and UI client tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/decision-queues-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/attention.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts` (72 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - The migration adds four company-scoped tables and provenance foreign keys. Migration numbering and safety checks pass. - Attention reads can lazily create starter queues and memberships. Inserts are idempotent, audited, and transactional. - Cursor validity depends on the filtered feed. The API returns a clear validation error when the cursor item no longer exists in that feed. - Queue reads re-check source visibility. This favors correct authorization over fewer queries. > 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, model `gpt-5`. The runtime used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The runtime did 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> |
||
|
|
9c1f8e7887 |
feat(decisions): add first-class propose mode (#10010)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can currently perform many mutations directly, while humans often need a durable review point before cross-issue or destructive actions occur > - Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone, reusable object for presenting options, collecting typed inputs, detecting stale targets, and auditing effect execution > - The control plane therefore needs a first-class propose mode that separates an agent's recommendation from the governed mutation it may cause > - This pull request adds Decisions v1 across the database, shared contracts, server execution and telemetry, agent skill guidance, and operator UI > - The benefit is that agents can propose multi-option actions safely while operators get explicit provenance, fail-closed execution, per-effect results, and a focused attention workflow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server`, and `ui`. ### Problem or motivation Agents need a governed way to propose consequential work without immediately mutating issues, especially when one choice can affect several issue trees. Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone object with typed options, target snapshots, effect-level authorization, expiration, execution outcomes, and reusable attention-feed presentation. ### Proposed solution Add first-class Decisions that store options and typed inputs, surface open proposals in the operator attention feed, validate target freshness and the origin-agent/operator authorization intersection at decision time, execute a bounded set of auditable effects, and retain terminal outcomes. Decisions v1 supports comments, status and assignee changes, follow-up issue creation, blocker resolution, and issue-tree cancellation, plus bundle grouping, expiration/dismissal, rule-key telemetry, and agent-facing API guidance. ### Alternatives considered - Extend approvals with arbitrary effects: rejected because approvals represent governed yes/no actions and would become an unsafe generic mutation envelope. - Model every proposal as an issue-thread interaction: rejected because decisions can span several targets and need independent lifecycle, telemetry, idempotency, and effect results. - Let agents perform the mutation and ask for retrospective review: rejected because it removes the pre-execution governance boundary this feature is meant to provide. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` sections **Agent Reviews and Approvals**, **Enforced Outcomes**, **MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool access)**, and **Activity History** by making explicit decisions, authorization gates, auditable execution, and terminal outcomes first-class control-plane objects. ### Additional context This does not replace existing approvals or issue-thread interactions, and it does not add an unrestricted generic mutation effect. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped decision, option, target, and effect-execution schema plus migration and shared TypeScript/Zod contracts. - Added decision routes and services for propose, list/get, decide, dismiss, cancel, target freshness checks, authorization intersection, idempotency, activity logging, and execution auditing. - Added rule-key decision telemetry and attention-feed metadata so open decisions are visible and measurable. - Added agent skill documentation for proposing and resolving decisions through the Paperclip API. - Added the Decisions UI: API client, query keys, inline attention resolver, bundle grouping, target-issue strip, terminal history, destructive confirmation, and per-effect result rendering. - Added server service coverage, DecisionCard state tests, and Storybook stories for the supported visual states. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,876 passed, 1 skipped, with one unrelated cross-suite cleanup-order failure in `heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`; the failing file passes in isolation (`6/6`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx` — passed (`9/9`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed (`5/5`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — passed (`16/16`). - `pnpm --filter paperclipai exec vitest run src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` — passed (`1/1`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Rebased-head focused suite — passed (`6` files, `88` tests): shared decision contracts, Decisions service, OpenAPI routes, startup feedback export, DecisionCard states, and attention helpers. The follow-up stale-secondary-target regression passes in the DecisionCard suite (`10/10`). - Rebased-head scoped typechecks — passed for `@paperclipai/shared`, `@paperclipai/db`, `@paperclipai/server`, and `@paperclipai/ui`. - Rebased-head migration numbering and safety checks — passed after renumbering the additive migration to `0193` and making it replay-safe for environments that applied the earlier feature-branch number. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - GitHub PR workflow and Greptile review for `1f9f7645882d05dfdd9c99377c03a1f53f20e8be` — running after the stale-secondary-target fix and PR metadata refresh on July 27, 2026. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` exposes an existing Storybook version mismatch (`storybook` 10.4.6 vs `@storybook/addon-docs` 10.5.0); Decisions stories were validated with the docs addon temporarily disabled and the tracked config remains unchanged. ## Risks - **Migration:** Adds replay-safe migration `0193`; migration numbering and safety checks pass. The new tables and indexes are additive. - **Authorization:** Effect execution intersects the proposing agent's permissions with the responsible user context and fails closed; mistakes could reject a valid proposal rather than silently over-authorize it. - **Concurrency:** Target snapshots and idempotency keys protect against stale or duplicate execution, but reviewers should focus on mixed-effect partial outcomes and retry behavior. - **UI:** Decisions are integrated into the existing attention feed rather than a separate navigation surface, reducing routing risk but increasing the importance of attention-item metadata compatibility. > 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 using `gpt-5.6-sol` for final PR preparation, review fixes, and verification; repository tools and code execution were enabled, and context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context assisted with the Decisions UI implementation, as recorded in the relevant commits. ## 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 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
TonioandClaude Opus 5
|
492555aaf9 |
design(decisions): flatten decision cards to two task-borrowed types (#10474)
The Decisions queue ran five parallel colour/icon vocabularies chosen by source kind, plus a separate severity badge, so two rows needing the same response could look unrelated and none of it matched the task list. Every row now resolves to one of two kinds, each borrowing the task status it corresponds to: blocking renders as `blocked`, review as `in_review`, both through StatusGlyph and the existing --status-task-icon-* tokens. Source kinds keep their own wording; only colour and icon merge. Card anatomy follows the design mock: no left accent rail, rounded cards 16px apart, a "/"-separated meta breadcrumb, a named See more / See less control, and no separately tinted drawer when expanded. Verb order is fixed across both states. Severity moves from chrome to a toolbar filter. Four defects fixed along the way: - blocked rows reported themselves as their own blocker (server-side) - the task key was missing wherever the row's subject IS the task - the task quicklook stuck open, because closing handed focus back to a trigger that opens on focus - the card ring appeared on click, and only on cards with a toggle Also: the standard task preview is aligned to its trigger's text and scales out of it, the task eyebrow renders its project as a tile, and the first motion tokens land alongside the disclosure and crossfade. Supersedes #9574 and #9575. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a090c09ee5 |
feat: add decision training snapshot foundation (#9702)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - Human approvals, issue interactions, and execution decisions already capture high-value decision moments > - Those moments are currently transient and cannot be reused as stable evaluation or training examples > - Reusable examples need a server-owned, immutable snapshot so later comments or runs cannot leak into the recorded state > - Human notes need to remain editable and auditable without changing the captured state > - This pull request adds the database model, snapshot capture service, API, export format, and attention-feed enrichment for decision training > - The benefit is a durable, inspectable foundation for evaluating whether agents can reproduce good human decisions from only the context available at decision time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`). ### Problem or motivation Paperclip has no durable dataset for converting human decisions into evaluation-ready examples. Teams need to capture pending or resolved decisions with the exact issue context, comments, runs, and repository evidence available at a cutoff, while preventing future context from leaking into the example. ### Proposed solution Store immutable, schema-versioned snapshots anchored to durable interaction, approval, or execution-decision records; keep notes separately editable with history; expose human-only CRUD, list, and JSONL export APIs. ### Alternatives considered Client-generated snapshots were rejected because they duplicate cutoff logic and cannot reliably enforce no-leakage boundaries. Automatic outcome backfill was deferred so captured examples remain faithful to what was known at capture time. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the roadmap direction of turning completed work and decision patterns into reusable organizational knowledge. ### Additional context The implementation records explicit commit-resolution confidence (`exact`, `nearest_run`, `workspace`, or `none`) so downstream evaluation can distinguish evidence quality. ## What Changed - Added the `decision_training_examples` schema and idempotent migration with company, issue, and source/author indexes. - Added shared types for decision-training records, notes history, and versioned snapshots. - Added a single server-side snapshot capture path with inclusive comment cutoffs, pre-cutoff run capture, durable decision payloads, and explicit commit-resolution confidence. - Added create, list, detail, notes-only update, delete, and JSONL export routes with human-only write authorization and activity logging that skips no-op note submissions. - Added per-user `trainingExampleId` enrichment to attention items. - Added focused embedded-Postgres tests for cutoff boundaries, post-cutoff leakage, immutable snapshots, human-only writes, duplicate prevention, notes history, attention enrichment, and export shape. - Updated UI test and Storybook attention-item factories for the new required `trainingExampleId` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 10 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. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - The migration adds a new table and indexes only; it does not rewrite existing rows or install resolve-time hooks. - Snapshot JSON can grow with long comment threads and run histories; v1 intentionally favors complete, inspectable examples over aggressive truncation. - Commit SHA resolution is evidence-based and records `exact`, `nearest_run`, or `none` so downstream consumers can account for confidence. - The API is additive, but future UI work must continue to treat the snapshot as immutable and use notes-only updates. > 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-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use, terminal execution, and code-editing capabilities; context-window size is 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 - [ ] 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> |
||
|
|
8a0db228a6 |
perf(ui): improve Decisions scrolling performance (#9468)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators use the Decisions page to review an uncapped attention feed across active, snoozed, and dismissed items > - Large feeds mounted every row eagerly, and routine interactions re-rendered the full queue > - That made initial paint and scrolling progressively slower as decision history accumulated > - This pull request bounds rendering, stabilizes row props, and lets off-screen rows skip layout and paint work > - The benefit is a responsive Decisions page even for companies with large attention histories ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Opening `/decisions` for a company with a large attention history eagerly mounted every visible-feed row. Expanding, selecting, dismissing, snoozing, or restoring an item could also re-render the entire queue. ### Expected behavior The page should render a bounded initial window, progressively reveal more rows near the scroll boundary, and avoid re-rendering unaffected rows during interactions. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Populate a company with hundreds of attention items. 2. Open `/decisions`. 3. Scroll and interact with individual rows. 4. Observe increasing initial render, layout, paint, and interaction cost on the previous implementation. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` before this PR. ### Deployment and installation Local development, built from source. This is a core UI issue, not adapter- or database-specific. ### Additional context Searched open public issues and PRs; no duplicate was found. ## What Changed - Added a pure `planAttentionRenderRows` helper that allocates one render budget across active groups and open snoozed/dismissed curtains in document order. - Render 50 rows initially and add 100 more when the Decisions page approaches the scroll boundary. - Memoized `AttentionQueueRow`, stabilized parent callbacks and inbox dismissal actions, and passed row items through a shared expand callback. - Added `content-visibility: auto` and intrinsic containment so accumulated off-screen rows avoid unnecessary layout and paint work. - Added render-plan coverage and a regression test proving identical row props do not re-render after a parent update. ## Verification - `pnpm -C ui typecheck` - `pnpm -C ui exec vitest run src/lib/attention.test.ts src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 96 tests passed - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean ## Risks - Low risk: the change is UI-only and does not alter API or database contracts. - The main behavioral risk is incorrect row-budget accounting across collapsed groups or open curtains; the pure planner has focused tests for ordering, truncation, and collapsed/closed sections. - Progressive rendering means rows beyond the current budget are intentionally absent until scrolling nears the boundary, matching the existing Issues list pattern. > This is a targeted performance fix and does not overlap planned core feature work in `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Fable 5 assisted with the implementation using repository tools and code execution. - OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol` prepared and verified the PR with high reasoning effort, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub/Paperclip API access. 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 (no documentation changes were required for this UI-only behavior) - [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> |
||
|
|
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> |