mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 00:53:38 +02:00
8d65fd7fc31d8170082f30a314b87c4779f91e8a
5170
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
8d65fd7fc3 |
test: stabilize company seeds and diagnose durable progress failures
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d68f1facf0 |
Merge master Storybook source annotations and preserve Codex qualification
Retain all authored story identities and fixture boundaries under the generated-index contract. Record literal candidate checks, managed model failure and pending package/staging evidence. Native execution, selection, setup, onboarding, credentials, migrations and packaging retain their qualified source. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7eea9d8214 |
fix(github): use bot names in review summaries (#16212)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. **Current behavior** Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. **Proposed behavior** Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. **Reason and benefit** Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. **Breaking changes** The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
433d94ee0b |
refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.15 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
57881c607f |
Preserve selected Codex API-key precedence and login reload continuity
Skip subscription source reads and refresh binding when CODEX_API_KEY is selected, matching the native task materializer. Retain managed subscription validation, no-follow staging and credential redaction. Update the existing mocked-login browser case to verify Connect restoration, the exact active session and saved selection through route reopening and real reload. Retain one login start, no pending hire and existing deadlines. Verification: 93 setup and 12 lower controls, server no-emit, independent source review, map and token gates pass. Preserve initial local import-deadline failures. The old browser expectation was reproduced; final local browser treatment stopped at PostgreSQL initialization and remains for hosted Linux CI. No paid or image qualification was dispatched. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
1d09569b05 | Merge workspace isolation fix and reject unsupported linked Codex homes | ||
|
Dotta
|
736d326822 | Merge master while retaining Codex setup and onboarding fixes | ||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
c7f4b74111 |
fix: isolate fresh task sources from restricted project workspaces (#16095)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each task must have an isolated workspace that its agent can read. > - Older project checkouts can contain worktrees for restricted tasks. > - The source access check correctly rejects these shared checkouts. > - A fresh task then fails even when its agent can clone the project remote. > - This pull request gives fresh default tasks a separate clone of the same remote. > - The task can start while the restricted task files remain protected. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Fresh tasks fail with `Task workspace access is no longer available` when their default project checkout contains a restricted task worktree. The caller has access to the new task and its remote repository. The shared local Git source is unsafe to copy. **Expected behavior** Use a separate clone of the same authorized remote for a fresh default task. Keep source access checks and responsible-user Git credentials in force. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put a restricted task worktree inside a project checkout. 2. Assign a new default task to an agent that cannot read the restricted task. 3. Start the new task. The current source check fails before workspace creation. 4. With this fix, the task uses a separate remote source. The restricted files are absent. Later runs reuse the same owned source. Related work: Refs #15749, Refs #15528. This change keeps their source retention and workspace ownership checks. ## What Changed - Add a remote source path scoped to the company and task. - Clone through the run’s Git connection after the shared source fails its access check. - Reject reused workspaces, explicit selections, pinned branches, local sources, credential-bearing URLs, and symlink paths. - Check source access again before publishing the workspace. - Resolve later runs from the verified recorded source. Ignore leftover clones that the saved workspace does not own. - Record provenance for new implicit Git defaults. Read the current task binding before fallback. Preserve explicit, inherited and ambiguous legacy checkout choices. - Keep the effective task strategy during startup validation of matching implicit defaults. Preserve the existing explicit-selection write check. - Add regression coverage and document the fallback. ## Verification - Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index conflicts. All upstream suites, classifications, source references and story IDs are preserved. Both fix branches combine cleanly in either merge order, with no catalog fingerprint drift. - Passed locally: 313 focused source-isolation, preparation, task-creation, binding and trust tests before the final startup fix. The final fix passes all 100 source-trust, task-binding and environment-selection tests. Earlier workspace-resolution and persisted-source suites also passed. - Real-Git regressions cover all three review findings. Reconstruction ignores an unrecorded clone and preserves unpublished commits/files. Explicit and parent-inherited checkout IDs without typed selections retain their denial and branch tips without cloning or acquiring an environment. A protected-project heartbeat completes and resumes using the task’s Git strategy with read access. Explicit selection still requires writes, and a mismatched default is rejected. - Passed: the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script tests. The generated index counts match the merged catalog. The current upstream verification-route inventory remains unchanged. The catalog contains all 262 authored suites and 2,481 story IDs. - Passed: full workspace typecheck and build after the final guard changes, on latest head `79d2adadcb6d3d7a04b9943a91bdb8b0b6abea6d`. - Latest head `79d2adadcb6d3d7a04b9943a91bdb8b0b6abea6d`: complete CI passed (54 successful checks, two intentional skips), including the full general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards. Fresh Greptile Apex review is 5/5 on this same commit, with no unresolved findings or recommendations. The full local test command was attempted earlier without a complete aggregate result; the complete suite result is from CI. - Manual check: configure a shared project checkout with a restricted task worktree. Admit a fresh default task using the authorized remote. Confirm separate Git storage and no restricted local branch or file. Reuse, close and reopen the task workspace. Confirm that explicit, literal branch and low-trust selections retain the denied source. ## Risks - A clean remote clone excludes unpublished local work. The fallback applies only to fresh default tasks and rejects existing workspace or branch selections. - A private remote can fail to clone when the responsible user lacks Git credentials. The run then reports the failure; access checks are not bypassed. - Older untyped checkout bindings cannot prove default provenance. They keep the source denial instead of silently dropping unpublished work. - New implicit Git defaults use the existing workspace-intent contract. The source directory uses existing instance storage. No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, model ID `gpt-6`, through Codex. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, terminal tools, and test execution. The API session does not expose an exact 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>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.14 |
||
|
Dotta
|
12046f522b | Fix saved Codex setup credentials and onboarding reload recovery | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
393d1c4108 |
docs(skills): add standalone test-audit workflow (#16211)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Repository skills guide agents through engineering work. > - Test gardening must preserve useful regression coverage while reducing repeated work. > - Contributors need a local procedure for evidence, validation, and delivery. > - This pull request adds a standalone test-audit skill with a short entry point and focused guides. > - The procedure supports focused cleanups and coordinated audits without requiring an external skill checkout. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The repository has no standalone `.agents/skills/test-audit/` procedure on master. **What's wrong?** Test audits need consistent rules for retaining contracts, proving removal safety, recording cost evidence, and tracking stacked delivery. **Suggested fix** Add a self-contained skill with candidate evidence, validation, campaign, and Paperclip delivery guides. Preserve upstream attribution. Related audit work: Refs #15978, Refs #16022, Refs #16197. The duplicate search found no standalone skill PR. This docs change does not duplicate planned core features in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Add a short test-audit entry point and agent metadata. - Require contract and keeper evidence before removing tests. Apply an authoring gate to added or changed tests. - Define targeted and exhaustive campaign modes, a second review of redundant layers, and full keeper dependency checks. - Document matched baselines, intended-failure controls, selection checks, honest cost claims, and current-head delivery gates. - Add Paperclip commands and invariants. Retain OpenClaw attribution and its MIT notice. ## Verification - The skill frontmatter validator passed with cached PyYAML. - Agent metadata YAML parsed. The default prompt names `$test-audit`. - All eight relative Markdown links resolve. All seven delivery files matched the reviewed source. - `git diff --check` passed. The PR contains only seven Markdown/YAML skill files. - An independent scenario review checked the campaign completion and coverage rules. - Local application typecheck, full Vitest, and build were not run for this documentation-only change. Fresh current-head CI passed: 55 successful checks and two expected skips on `1a9af8ffacd532882f0a01bac8ab3f5063ab9cd9`. - E2E shard 8/8 was interrupted after its assertions passed. A single same-head job retry passed. The interruption cause was not exposed. - Greptile reviewed the current head at 5/5 with no actionable findings. There are no review threads. The PR has no merge conflicts and remains open as requested. ## Risks - Low runtime risk. This PR changes contributor instructions only. - Agents can misapply audit evidence. The skill requires valid keepers and preservation proof, rejects keeper cycles, and makes incomplete audits explicit. - CI routing can change. The guide requires readers to inspect current repository files. > 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 based on GPT-6 wrote and tightened the skill. Its exact deployment model ID and context-window size are unavailable. Independent scenario review and PR delivery used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, repository inspection, and tool execution. The context-window size was not exposed. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
db65a0863e |
Deliver durable resource lifecycle events to plugins without polling (#16203)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Plugins keep external resources aligned with Paperclip projects and agents. > - The durable resource journal stores changes, but its plugin interface requires polling. > - Project deletion has no journal entry, so consumers must scan for missing projects. > - This PR delivers committed journal events through a native plugin callback and records deletion. > - Plugins can recover unfinished work without periodic change scans. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #15343 introduced the durable inbox. #15631 added required agent lifecycle participation. This change keeps both contracts and adds automatic delivery for the resource inbox. **What happened?** Plugins must schedule reads of the durable inbox. A deleted project has no durable deletion event. Consumers must scan saved bindings to detect its removal. **Expected behavior** Core should deliver committed resource events and replay unfinished work. Empty queues should have no polling timer. Project removal should leave a durable event. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a plugin that consumes project lifecycle events. 2. Create or update a project. The plugin must call `listLifecycle` to discover it. 3. Delete the project. The journal has no deletion entry. ## What Changed - Add `resourceLifecycle` to the manifest and `onResourceLifecycle` to the SDK. Require `events.subscribe` and a configured, enabled company scope. - Reuse transaction-aware work signals and the delivery coordinator. Wake after commit, on startup and plugin activation, and after configuration changes. - Acknowledge only a matching successful result. Retry unfinished or interrupted work. Retain deferred events without an idle retry timer. - Wake again after successful worker configuration application, and retain failed scans through idle drain (both Apex findings fixed). - Keep ordering per resource and deliver past failed or deferred resources. Keep the manual inbox methods for existing consumers. - Record project deletion in the removal transaction. Extend the journal constraint with a generated migration. ## Verification - Apex follow-up: 129 focused worker, delivery, coordinator, and application tests passed; server typecheck passed. Regression coverage verifies configuration-application races and failed scans across idle drain. - Focused lifecycle, transaction coordinator, manifest, and SDK dispatch suites: 105 tests passed, including single-connection saves, redacted failure diagnostics, wakeups retained during idle drain, and per-event retry deadlines. - Complete SDK suite plus delivery database tests: 128 tests passed. - Shared, database, and SDK typechecks passed. Direct server `tsc --noEmit` passed against rebuilt SDK declarations. - Full local `pnpm test:run` finished with 19,491 passed, 148 skipped, and 6 failed tests across 5 files (plus two suite setup errors). This run overlapped branch updates and is not final-head evidence: failures included missing Cargo, local Git default-branch assumptions, and stale in-process lifecycle modules. Final Apex-fix commit `75d028788` passed all CI gates, including the full test shards, and received Apex 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` were attempted. Both stopped because Cargo is unavailable locally. CI supplies the Rust toolchain. - Local installation used the repository's documented lockfile fallback because master has dependencies missing from its lockfile. No dependency changes are included here. ## Risks - Delivery is at least once. Plugins must re-read current state and make external effects idempotent. - Signals are process-local, like the other delivery queues. Startup recovers committed rows. Independent database writers or multiple active server processes require an explicit ownership and wake protocol. - Apply migration `0340_open_warlock.sql` before running code that records project deletion. Earlier deletions cannot be reconstructed. - Automatic delivery selects plugins with company configuration rows. `deferred` waits for a later startup, configuration change, or other work notification. - This does not replace required agent lifecycle participation or establish that external mounts are unused. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with tool-assisted code editing, code inspection, 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 - [ ] 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>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.13 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5a6d0d08a7 |
fix: record verified workspace file recovery from tasks (#16104)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Recovery must preserve files and show the next operator action. > - A stopped run can leave a file repair hold after its recovery action is resolved. > - The task notice shows that hold but has no form to record verified file recovery. > - A chat connection can also replace the file repair instruction with a chat retry instruction. > - This pull request adds a file recovery form and preserves the file repair instruction. > - The form records evidence for the original run and keeps the current task status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A retained workspace file hold can block a task after its recovery action is resolved. The task page offers no file recovery form. A chat binding can hide the required file repair instruction. **Expected behavior** An authorized board member can record verified recovery of the original files. The server checks the original stop proof. The task keeps its current status and does not start another run. Chat instructions must not replace file repair instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a stopped legacy run with a retained workspace recovery marker and a resolved recovery action. 2. Open its task page, including a task with a chat connection. 3. Observe that the file hold has no supported form to record verified recovery. Refs: #15857, #15824, #16095. Those PRs address shutdown export, native finalization and workspace source isolation. This PR uses the existing file repair API. ## What Changed - Add a board-only file recovery form with evidence and an explicit file verification confirmation. - Preserve the current task status when recording file recovery. - Project whether the original recovery marker supports file recording. - Keep file repair instructions when a task has a chat binding. - Add UI, route and Storybook examples for success, denial and chat-connected file holds. - Document the recovery flow and update the affected Storybook catalog entries. ## Verification - Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index conflicts. Upstream review notes and classifications are preserved, together with all four retained-file recovery examples and their stable story IDs. Both fix branches also combine without merge conflicts or catalog fingerprint drift. - Passed locally after conflict resolution: 47 tests covering the file recovery UI, execution blocker notice and retained workspace repair route. The earlier ownership-route pass also covered 196 tests. - Passed: UI token gates, the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script tests. Verification inventory counts match all 262 authored suites and 2,485 story IDs. The upstream production verification obligations remain intact. - Passed: full workspace typecheck, build and Storybook build on latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48`. The built index retains all four file-recovery story IDs. - Latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48` has 54 successful checks and two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Apex is 5/5 on that exact commit, with no unresolved findings. The full general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards passed in CI. Local tests use the focused suites above. Storybook browser interactions have not been executed locally. - Manual check: open a task with a retained file hold. Verify that evidence and confirmation are required. Record verified file recovery. Confirm that its status stays unchanged and no run starts. Repeat without board runtime access and with an unverified stop receipt. ## Risks - The form records an operator attestation. It does not recover files itself or prove external action outcomes. - A stale source or missing stop proof must remain rejected by the existing server route. - No database migration or automatic task retry is added. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`), used through Codex with reasoning, repository tools, code editing and test execution. The exact context window size is not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
e301c68d64 | Merge Storybook coverage from current master | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c8efdbfba4 |
test(storybook): add production examples for feature map UI gaps (#16196)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The feature map records the user-facing capabilities. > - Storybook uses the same feature index. > - Step 2 found 49 UI capabilities with no authored examples. > - This pull request adds shipped-component examples with isolated fixtures. > - The catalog records each example's states and remaining production checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16167. The verification inventory is merged; this follow-up now targets master. ## What Changed - Add 37 suites and 257 scenarios for all 49 UI capabilities from the step-2 inventory. Keep existing stories and IDs. - Use shipped pages and components. Simulate API replies, sockets, props, and callbacks at their boundaries. - Activate story API fixtures before the application providers read data. Block unregistered API mutations and restore owned storage/fetch state. - Add browser checks for rendering, declared play assertions, fixture reset, and selected mobile/theme states. Update the catalog and verification inventory. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - UI Vitest suite: 730 files and 8,208 tests passed. Fixture boundary tests: 4 passed. - Map/catalog checks, 27 generator/map tests, and token gates: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. All 2,248 previous built entry IDs remain present. - Pre-reconciliation static browser suite: 260 checks passed (257 scenarios, token fixture reset, and two mobile/theme cases). All non-play stories assert an explicit subject state; 129 play functions passed. - `pnpm test:run` could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL exhausted host shared-memory allocation. The run also reported native-runner test timeouts. Only this task's verified runner was stopped; other jobs and host settings were preserved. - Reconciled onto merged master `252d9b5077`. The six draft stories and new same-browser reset regression passed (7 checks); 16 draft-persistence tests and UI typecheck passed. Static merge verification: 32 affected-subject/draft checks passed, including same-browser reset. Rebuilt Storybook retains all 2,248 original IDs in its 2,517-entry index. Four additional play-result checks passed: visible onboarding reset, pending probe, filtered-empty runs, and optimistic queued-response removal. UI typecheck and 27 catalog/map tests also passed. Final static browser suite on `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 261 checks passed (257 scenarios plus fixture-reset and mobile checks). Latest head `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 55 CI/status checks passed; the two optional Storybook workflow jobs were skipped. Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - No pinned Linux visual-baseline comparison or real provider journey is claimed. ## Risks Fixtures can drift from production contracts. The catalog records inspected sources and their fingerprints. Capability links provide initial isolated UI coverage; they do not certify every recipe variant, real permissions, persistence, or provider behavior. The new examples expose existing UI limits. Plugin discovery failure stays on Loading. Document and environment-list reads lack dedicated failure feedback; Cases and Inbox fall back to empty views after errors. Goal alignment has display views but no assignment control. These findings remain visible in the inventory. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. The exact runtime deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used code generation, shell execution, and browser verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6c0eca8716 |
Merge current master and preserve qualification failure diagnostics
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
252d9b5077 |
docs(storybook): record verification routes for missing examples (#16167)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product capabilities and verification journeys. > - The Storybook catalog links existing examples to those capabilities. > - A capability without a story can need UI examples, CLI checks, or browser checks. > - This pull request records the required verification surface for all 60 current gaps. > - The next Storybook pass can add useful examples without claiming backend proof from mocks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16154. Reconciles the new task-notification capability from #16153. The related PR search found no duplicate of this classification pass. This change follows the merged association corrections. It does not add product behavior or duplicate a roadmap feature. ## What Changed - Add `maps/storybook-map/VERIFICATION.md` with all 60 unassociated capabilities: 49 UI example gaps, eight CLI/operator operations, and three browser verification boundaries. - Record required UI states, separate production checks, source links, and existing test starting points. Keep execution marked not run. - Link the record from the catalog contract. Tell the maintenance skill to keep its rows, counts, and source revision current. - Regenerate the feature index for personal task notifications. Refresh only the inspected recipe/index-dependent review fingerprints. Retain all 223 suites, 2,212 authored IDs, associations, and classifications. - Record the targeted association revisit. It found no additional justified links. ## Verification - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - All 27 catalog, feature-index, and map structural tests passed. - The maintenance skill validator passed. - A source check confirmed that the 60 unique rows match all non-guide association gaps. All report, contract, and skill file links exist. - `git diff --check` passed. - Inspect the eight CLI/operator rows and three browser rows. UI/API capabilities retain both obligations. - Full repository typecheck, tests, build, Storybook build, and live product journeys were not run locally for this documentation and generated-data change. No live proof is claimed. - Final head `a9ef9e8ebc1f41bb7047142704655d08b3e47be7`: all 57 checks/statuses are green (55 successful, two Storybook jobs skipped). Greptile approved this head at 5/5. The review finding is resolved and the PR is mergeable. ## Risks - This source inventory can become stale as capabilities or associations change. The maintenance skill requires refreshing its rows and source revision. - Existing test links identify starting points. They do not certify complete or passing production coverage. - There is no migration, permission change, product behavior change, story removal, or new visual baseline. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with source review, documentation, and checks. It used shell tools and read-only area agents. The runtime did not expose an exact backend model revision or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.12 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0065d06474 |
Bound the existing Codex onboarding eval before task admission
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ccdc6754b2 |
fix: retain background preparation traces from unsampled requests (#16205)
Start preparation phase root traces independently of request sampling and link each phase to its trigger. Preserve operator root sampling, concurrent child context, and silent unconfigured behavior. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
da9af67415 |
Persist agent-owned instance secrets through lifecycle results (#16191)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agents and controls when they can run. > - Lifecycle plugins prepare and remove resources for each agent. > - Those resources can require private connection credentials. > - The current SDK can resolve configured secrets but cannot save these credentials securely. > - Ordinary company secrets can be bound to agents and do not provide the required server-only boundary. > - This change saves agent-owned instance secrets through the existing local lifecycle result and native secret service. > - The tenant can retain runtime credentials through restarts without a separate encryption system or remote API. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Agent lifecycle, plugin contract, and native secret storage. **Problem or motivation** Lifecycle plugins need to save private runtime connection details for the owning agent. Worker memory loses these details on restart. Plugin state and company secrets do not provide a private runtime-only boundary. **Proposed solution** Add optional instance-secret changes to lifecycle results. Save them through the existing secret service and local encrypted provider before accepting the result. Require company, agent, plugin, phase, operation, revision, and current unexpired attempt ownership. Supply saved values through the existing local preparation/resume request. **Alternatives considered** A separate encrypted store duplicates the native secret system. Generic plugin company-secret writes proposed by #5007 do not supply agent ownership or a server-only secret scope. This change does not add that general write API. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the existing lifecycle contract from #15631. It does not add a resource provider or select an execution backend. ## What Changed - Add an instance scope to native secrets with mandatory agent/plugin ownership, a company-qualified agent foreign key, and key uniqueness per owner. Existing company and user scopes retain their constraints. - Reuse native creation, rotation, deletion, secret versions, access audit, and the local encrypted provider. Keep values out of company catalogs, normal bindings, agent access, and public agent records. - Accept local secret patches only after locking and checking the current lifecycle operation and required plugin selection. Storage failure or a stale reply cannot complete setup. Expired or replaced attempt owners cannot overwrite a successor's credentials. - Keep vault-import conflicts company-scoped. Protect instance-owned account-home paths during failed device-login cleanup with a private, fail-closed scan. - Skip decryption on stop and cleanup so a lost key cannot block removal. Cascade secret records when their agent or plugin is deleted. - Log fixed provider diagnostics without raw errors that can contain credentials. Document the local contract, runtime resolver, and access-map exclusions. Retain the five latest migration snapshots through the normal generator pruning. ## Verification - 239 focused tests passed across agent-instance-secrets, lifecycle, secrets-service, secrets-routes, plugin-secrets-handler, and agent-device-login-routes. Used disposable PostgreSQL 18 clusters through the existing test constructor seam because the bundled binary cannot start on this macOS host. The temporary harness is outside git. - Regression tests reproduced the vault-import conflict and missed cleanup claimant before the fixes; both pass after the fixes. - New coverage includes encrypted native versions, rotation, restart recovery, company/agent/plugin isolation, ordinary-read and binding denial, stale replies, storage failure, safe logging, cleanup without the master key, and same-name secret isolation, native account-home mutation guards, lease takeover/expiry, and live agent/plugin deletion cascades. - Direct server TypeScript check, DB/shared typechecks, migration numbering/safety checks, module boundaries, and git diff check passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build were attempted; both stop at the missing local cargo toolchain. The full test command was started and stopped after failures in unchanged native-runtime/workspace suites plus bundled-PostgreSQL skips; it did not complete. CI must verify the full toolchain paths. - Current head `c0f8bfd12477ad509252ecd40e168a6c84dbeb36`: all 55 CI checks passed, including the previously canceled e2e shard. Greptile Apex reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. GitHub reports the branch mergeable and clean. - No live provider probe, production data access, or deployment. Reviewed the diff for credentials, private references, and run artifacts. ## Risks Apply migration 0339_luxuriant_iron_monger.sql before deploying tenant code. It adds nullable ownership columns, a partial unique index, foreign keys, and a stricter scope constraint. Existing rows remain valid. Keep the schema on application rollback. Preserve the existing secrets master key through deployments and backup restoration. The lifecycle request/result now has a sensitive, server-only field. Plugins must never log it or return it to an agent or browser. Values stay in the tenant database through the existing encryption provider. Trusted runtime consumers must apply normal execution admission before resolving them. Older hosts omit instanceSecrets; plugins that require durable storage must reject those hosts. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and local test execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.11 |
||
|
|
2a56e5c734 |
fix(ui): show soft budget incidents as warnings, not hard stops (#16201)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Budget policies limit what an agent, a project, or the organization can spend. > - At the warning threshold (80% by default), the server opens a soft incident. It does not pause the scope. At 100%, it opens a hard incident and pauses the scope. > - The budget incident card always shows the hard-stop design. A soft incident shows "agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", and a "Keep paused" button. > - Operators read this as a paused agent. The policy card and the "Paused agents" counter for the same agent say something different. > - This pull request shows soft incidents as warnings. Hard stops do not change. > - The benefit is that the Costs and Budgets pages give one consistent and correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description I searched open and closed issues and pull requests for "budget incident", "hard stop", "soft incident", and "BudgetIncidentCard". I found no issue for this bug. Refs #14306: that open PR also changes `BudgetIncidentCard`, for failed-action feedback. It does not change the soft and hard labels. The two PRs can conflict in this file. **What happened?** An agent budget policy reached its warning threshold. The Audit → Budgets page and the Audit → Costs overview showed the soft incident as "AGENT HARD STOP" with the banner "This scope is paused. New heartbeats will not start until you resolve the budget incident." The card showed "Raise budget & resume" and "Keep paused". The agent was not paused. Its policy card showed "Warning", and the "Paused agents" counter did not count it. **Expected behavior** A soft incident looks like a warning. It says that work continues. Its actions are "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". A hard incident keeps the current design and actions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an agent budget policy with a $1,000 monthly limit and the default 80% warning threshold. 2. Record $800 of cost for that agent. 3. Open Audit → Budgets. 4. Look at the active incident for that agent. It says "agent hard stop" and "This scope is paused". **Paperclip version or commit** Seen on v2026.1012.0 (`bba6a45`). The same code is on `master` at `721e87ac0`. **Deployment mode** local_trusted (not deployment-specific). ## What Changed - `BudgetIncidentCard` reads `incident.thresholdType`. A `soft` incident shows: - The heading "<scope> budget warning", with amber styling and a warning icon. - The banner "Spending crossed the warning threshold. This warning does not pause work." - The actions "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". They call the same handlers as before (`raise_budget_and_resume` and `keep_paused`). For a soft incident, the server dismisses the incident for `keep_paused`, and the resume step has no effect because the scope is not paused. - A new-budget prefill of the current limit plus $10. Before, the prefill was equal to the current limit, so "Raise budget" did not change the limit. - A `hard` incident does not change: the same heading, banner, styling, prefill, and actions. - The "Active incidents" description on the Costs page now covers warnings and hard stops. - New tests in `BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx` cover a hard stop, a soft warning, and a project hard stop. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx`: 3 tests pass. Before the fix, the soft-warning test failed with `expected 'agent hard stopOpen…' to contain 'agent budget warning'`. - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Costs src/components/Budget`: 31 tests pass. - Manual check in a running instance (v2026.1012.0 with this patch, seeded with an agent at 100% and an agent at 80% of a $1,000 budget), in light and dark themes: - The 100% agent shows the red "Agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", "Raise budget & resume", and "Keep paused". - The 80% agent shows the amber "Agent budget warning", the warning banner, a $1,010.00 prefill, "Raise budget", and "Dismiss warning". - "Paused agents: 1" agrees with the cards. - `ui` typecheck: no errors in the changed files. The local run had unrelated errors in `PluginOrganizationSwitcher` because the plugin SDK was not built. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is UI-only. Hard-stop rendering and behavior do not change. No API, server, or data changes. - The soft card now prefills a value above the current limit. Before, it prefilled the current limit. - PR #14306 changes the same component. One of the two PRs can need a small rebase. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs, Playwright screenshot capture). A human requested and reviewed the change. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no `doc/` page describes this card, so no change was needed) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Aron Prins <aronprins@icloud.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
ca31623d36 | Keep native setup probes independent of workspace instruction discovery | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e43af9770a |
refactor(server): isolate publication recovery and Board sends (#16192)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip publishes task messages through several chat providers. > - Operator recovery must keep durable receipts and task authority consistent. > - The service combines shared publication transactions with provider recovery details. > - Provider-specific recovery belongs beside its transport implementation. > - This pull request extracts publication requests and resolution workflows. > - Shared workflows keep transaction ownership and delegate provider operations. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16187. Refs #16185, #16183, and #16180. Review against the parent branch. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of publication requests, Board sends, and operator recovery. **Current behavior** Six public publication methods live in the main service and include provider-specific transfer and receipt operations. **Proposed behavior** Move shared requests and resolution to publications modules. Move Teams file resolution and Board preparation, Slack file receipts and Board staging, and Photon retry records to their provider folders. **Reason and benefit** Provider recovery is easier to locate without moving transaction and idempotency ownership into providers. ## What Changed - Extract six public publication methods into two shared workflow factories (629 and 467 lines). - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 5,337 to 4,078 lines. The full stack reduces it from 7,919 lines. - Extract Teams transfer resolution and cold-runtime Board preparation. - Extract Slack upload receipt resolution and Board send staging. - Extract Photon operator retry records. - Preserve the same public service API and keep provider operations in the original transactions. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. This final slice was replayed onto merged #16187 with all chat-channel source unchanged. Current-head CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes previous stack commits. - Publication, attachment, Board send, and operator recovery baseline: 261 passed before and 261 passed after; 1,034 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax audit reconstructs all six public method bodies from the provider helpers and matches the original AST. Unrelated service functions and the public API match too. - Final repository typecheck passed. Build passed. The broad local test run encountered heartbeat fixture setup failures under the macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory limit and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130). Four confirmed abandoned guard slots were reclaimed without stopping active databases. The complete chat integration suite and source-wiring checks passed separately (1,309 tests). - Greptile rates current head 55417debfe 5/5 with zero inline findings. All 55 CI checks pass on that head. Tests use local PostgreSQL and fixture transports, not live provider execution. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Operator recovery can duplicate a send if receipt updates move out of their transaction. The extracted helpers use the caller transaction. Teams preparation remains outside Board locks, and repeated send identities retain their existing receipt. Public method names and return values stay the same. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f18247b7e7 |
refactor(server): isolate durable chat wakeup workflows (#16187)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip accepts chat messages as durable task input. > - Wakeups must preserve current company, identity, and task permissions. > - The main service mixes those shared checks with provider message rules. > - Shared wakeup workflows should own persistence and queue ordering. > - This pull request extracts wakeup authorization, processing, and notices. > - Slack and GitHub rules move into their provider folders. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16185. Refs #16183 and #16180. Review against the parent branch. Related open #13620 covers durable chat wakeup feature work; this PR only moves existing behavior. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of durable inbound wakeup processing. **Current behavior** The service contains authorization, durable wake receipts, queue notices, and provider authority details. **Proposed behavior** Use three cohesive inbound modules and provider-owned authority functions. **Reason and benefit** The shared transaction and company checks stay together while provider rules have a clear home. ## What Changed - Move wakeup authorization, processing, and notices into inbound modules (245, 418, and 377 lines). - Move Slack mention checks and GitHub automatic-event admission and acknowledgements into provider folders. - Preserve lock order, durable receipt ordering, notice cursor lifetime, and the live heartbeat dependency. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 6,340 to 5,337 lines, including blank-gap cleanup. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. This slice was replayed onto merged #16185 with its chat-channel source unchanged. Current-head CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes previous stack commits. - Existing wakeup, queue, retry, and authorization integration cases: 212 passed before and 212 passed after; 1,083 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree audit compares all 12 moved functions, cursor state, retained service functions, and public API after explicit provider delegations. - The first three stack PRs have 55 passing CI checks and current-head 5/5 reviews. - Final stack checks are recorded below. The first broad local run encountered a PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - Greptile rates current head 1462819f53 5/5 with zero inline findings. All 55 CI checks now pass. Initial CI failures: the first workspace job hit EADDRINUSE in sandbox-callback-bridge.test.ts, and cloud-auth.spec.ts hit a disposed Playwright response. Both jobs passed on retry without source changes. Integration uses local PostgreSQL and fixture provider transports, not live providers. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Authorization and wakeups must retain the same locks and transaction scope. Factories receive narrow dependencies and initialize before their consumers. The notice cursor stays per service. Shutdown and heartbeat reads remain live. Provider helpers do not own transactions. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.10 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
721e87ac02 |
refactor(server): separate receiver ownership and provider callbacks (#16185)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip accepts provider callbacks as durable task input. > - Runtime ownership prevents two servers from accepting the same receiver stream. > - Discord and Photon share the lease machinery but have different callback details. > - Moving that shared machinery into Discord would create the wrong platform dependency. > - This pull request extracts common receiver ownership and puts provider callbacks in their own folders. > - The service keeps startup and shutdown coordination. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16183; review against the parent branch. Refs #16180 and #16080. Related open work: #15532 changes Discord command reconciliation scheduling. This extraction preserves existing scheduling. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of shared receiver ownership and Discord/Photon runtime callbacks. **Current behavior** The shared entry point mixes lease acquisition, renewal, provider capability checks, and Photon checkpoint transactions. **Proposed behavior** Put the common lease operations in runtime/ownership.ts and the protocol details in the provider folders. **Reason and benefit** The ownership lifetime stays explicit without making Photon depend on Discord implementation code. ## What Changed - Extract 11 receiver-ownership helpers into runtime/ownership.ts (397 lines). Expose only the operations used by the service. - Extract Photon ownership checks and checkpoint callbacks (44 lines). Retain the same runtime context object. - Extract Discord command and capability reconciliation (112 lines). - Keep the original service-owned lease map, runtime versions, stop tasks, and shutdown sequence. Read shutdown and test overrides through live accessors. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 6,880 to 6,340 lines, including removal of blank gaps left by extractions. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. Current head is 6d52aba35f; CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes the previous stack commits. - Existing Discord, Photon, and runtime integration cases: 110 passed before and 110 passed after; 1,185 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree comparison: 11 ownership helpers, two Photon callback bodies, Discord reconciliation, unrelated service functions, and the full public API/shutdown return expression preserve structure. Intentional binding changes are audited. - Both preceding PRs have 55 passing CI checks and current-head 5/5 reviews. - Repository typecheck and build passed earlier in this stack. Final stack checks are recorded below. The first broad local run hit a macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - All 55 CI checks pass on df15f9dd9c. Greptile rates that head 5/5 with no inline findings. Tests use real local persistence with fixture runtimes; they do not prove live Discord or Photon execution. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Lease loss and partial startup can create overlapping receivers if cleanup order changes. The service retains the same map objects and shutdown ordering. The ownership module reads current shutdown state, and Photon callbacks retain the exact mutable runtime context reference. No new worker or timer starts during module initialization. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
c4e80ccdc8 |
chore(db): prune obsolete migration snapshots and document retention (#16194)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses versioned PostgreSQL migrations to preserve application data. > - Drizzle uses schema snapshots to generate future migrations. > - The database package already prunes snapshots to the five newest files. > - PR #15749 added three snapshots but left eight in the resulting tree. > - This PR removes the three excess files and documents the retention requirements. > - Coding agents and Greptile receive the same scoped rule for future migration changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15749. Related: #16191 includes overlapping snapshot cleanup with its new migration. This PR isolates the existing excess and the repository rule; it has no dependency on that feature. **What happened?** The migration metadata directory contains snapshots 0331–0338. The existing pruning script retains only the newest five, but the older three were left in master. **Expected behavior** Keep snapshots 0334–0338. Commit snapshot pruning alongside additions and recheck the combined tree after rebases or merges. Preserve all SQL migrations and journal entries. **Steps to reproduce** At master commit |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ba00e9ef1a |
refactor(server): isolate provider webhook handling (#16183)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip connects provider messages to governed agent work. > - Webhooks must authenticate and persist messages before acknowledging them. > - The shared service still contains GitHub and Slack protocol details. > - The platform-boundary rule places those details in provider folders. > - This pull request extracts provider webhook handling behind typed methods. > - The service retains dispatch, runtime selection, and durable lifecycle recording. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16180; review this PR against its parent branch. Refs #16080. Related open work: #16163 changes GitHub automatic-author policy. This extraction preserves that policy implementation. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of GitHub and Slack webhook handling. **Current behavior** The shared service implements GitHub signatures, replay fences, automatic event messages, and Slack callback verification. **Proposed behavior** Place those details in the respective provider folders and keep the common dispatcher small. **Reason and benefit** Provider code can be reviewed without reading the shared task service. ## What Changed - Extract GitHub request-local deadline and replay scope (60 lines). - Extract GitHub authentication and durable-ingress coordination (280 lines). - Extract GitHub event admission, message construction, and policy-skip receipts (140 lines). - Extract Slack workspace validation and authenticated callback observation (131 lines). - Keep the same service-owned background task set and GitHub provenance maps. Forward late-initialized callbacks without reading them during construction. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 7,383 to 6,880 lines: 503 net lines removed. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh integration, CI, and current-head review are running. Earlier verification below describes the previous stack commits. - Parent baseline: 544 selected GitHub, Slack, and webhook integration cases passed; 751 other cases excluded. - Initial extracted run: 543 passed and one idle-queue scan assertion failed. The idle-queue case passed separately on both the parent and extracted code. Its publication implementation is unchanged. The full selected-suite retry passed all 544 cases; the initial failure remains documented and its cause is not established. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree comparison verifies unchanged request-scope logic, durable ingress, leased authentication, event handling, workspace validation, and callback recording. All unrelated service functions remain unchanged. - Repository typecheck and production build passed for the parent extraction. Full-stack verification will run at the final handoff. The first broad local run hit a macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - All 55 current-head CI checks passed. Greptile: 5/5 on f74ecb5094, with zero inline findings. No live third-party execution is claimed. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Moving callback code can change initialization timing or lose request-scoped state. The new factories retain live option getters, the exact runtime context and provenance maps, and typed forwarding for late initialization. Authentication stays inside the existing credential lease. The common lifecycle write still completes before returning provider success. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
30bc9e40ce |
Align native setup isolation and finish shared runtime pickers
Use the server-resolved sandbox transport for native setup, retaining local and SSH isolation and stripping injected flags. Preserve the complete local and managed E2E roster and existing graders. Replace the remaining scoped native dropdowns with the shared picker without changing saved runner or account choices. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1e64c875b2 |
refactor(server): move Slack recovery into channel modules (#16180)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - Chat channels connect provider messages to governed tasks.
> - Slack task recovery still lives in the shared channel service.
> - Its provider sends and recovery state belong in the Slack folder.
> - This pull request moves Slack task-start resolution and
Board-message recovery into two modules.
> - The service keeps the public dispatcher and the existing shared
authorization owners.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16080. Related open work: #15421 changes linked-user task trust;
#15532 changes Discord reconciliation. This extraction changes neither
behavior.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The ownership and readability of Slack task-start and Board-message
recovery.
**Current behavior**
The 7,919-line shared service implements Slack retry and cancellation
details.
**Proposed behavior**
Keep those implementations in the Slack folder. Preserve public methods
and all state transitions.
**Reason and benefit**
The channel boundary follows rules/chat-channel-platform-boundaries.mdc
and makes Slack recovery easier to review.
## What Changed
- Move Slack task-start operator resolution into
slack/task-start-resolution.ts (488 lines).
- Move the durable Slack Board-message worker into
slack/board-messages.ts (104 lines).
- Keep initial endpoint/action lookup and provider-effect dispatch in
the service. Pass the original endpoint record to avoid a new read or
race.
- Preserve live reads of heartbeat and deferred-processing options.
- Reduce chat-channels.ts from 7,919 to 7,383 lines: 536 net lines
removed.
## Verification
- Existing Slack integration cases: 282 passed before and 282 passed
after; 1,013 non-Slack cases excluded by the filter.
- pnpm -r typecheck: passed. The first sandboxed attempt could not
create a local tsx IPC socket; the permitted rerun passed.
- pnpm build: passed.
- Module-boundary check and git diff --check: passed.
- Normalized TypeScript AST comparison: moved Board worker and Slack
resolution tail unchanged; all other service function declarations
unchanged.
- All 55 current-head CI checks passed; two optional Storybook checks
skipped. Greptile: 5/5 on
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9cb3e157b3 |
docs: keep routine product work in the harness (#16193)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runtime and server handle routine execution and recovery. > - Product flows can expose internal steps that the system can handle safely. > - Users then have to operate infrastructure to achieve their original goal. > - This pull request adds a short rule that assigns this work to the harness. > - The benefit is a calm product experience with useful details and real choices. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `rules/` and the repository review configuration. **What's wrong?** The repository has no shared product rule for harness responsibility and useful user-facing detail. Recovery can become a user checklist even when the system knows the next safe step. Related implementation: #15824. **Suggested fix** Require the harness to perform routine work within its existing authority. Require visible controls and details to serve a real decision or useful outcome. Keep progress truthful and apply the rule to changed flows. ## What Changed - Add the short product rule in `rules/product-harness-responsibility.mdc`. - Register it as a repository-wide review rule in `.greptile/files.json`. - Link the rule from `rules/README.md`. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - Node assertions passed for rule frontmatter, unique reviewer registration, repository-wide scope, all registered file paths and the README link. - The diff contains only three rule/documentation files. No application behavior changes. Application typecheck, tests and build were not run for this documentation change. - Review the rule's scope and read its four product requirements and review criterion. All applicable CI checks passed on head `89803a6cd7`. Greptile gave 5/5 with no unresolved findings. ## Risks The rule affects future product design and review. It applies to changed flows and does not require unrelated redesigns. Existing permissions, approvals and runtime safeguards remain in force. No migration or deployment is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. The user edited and approved the final short rule. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e67db42dc9 |
docs: define heartbeat execution design principles (#16190)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates AI agents and their work. > - Heartbeat controls when that work starts, who owns execution, and how it settles. > - The extracted modules need shared architectural guidance as they evolve. > - Rules should protect those boundaries without freezing the current implementation. > - This PR adds scoped heartbeat principles for contributors and reviewers. > - The rule helps future changes preserve execution authority and recoverable work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The heartbeat service has a module map but no scoped architectural rule under `rules/`. **What's wrong?** Changes span admission, execution, completion, and recovery. Reviewers need shared principles for authority, ownership, and settlement across these boundaries. **Suggested fix** Add a concise heartbeat rule, route contributors to it from `AGENTS.md`, and register the same scope for Greptile. Keep implementation details in the code and existing developer documentation. Related: #16172 established scoped repository rules. #15984 completed the latest heartbeat extraction. Searches found no duplicate heartbeat-guidelines PR. ## What Changed - Add `rules/heartbeat-execution-boundaries.mdc` with a folder guide, a concise map of existing module responsibilities, and six design principles. - Keep `heartbeat.ts` focused on coordination: extend an existing owner or extract cohesive modules when new behavior would substantially grow it, with tests and explicit contracts. - Cover current execution authority, explicit ownership, distinct completion obligations, recovery intent, durable state, and visible uncertainty. - Register matching paths in `.greptile/files.json` and link the rule from `AGENTS.md` and `doc/DEVELOPING.md`. - Include behavioral review criteria and flag substantial coordinator growth or mixed responsibilities while allowing justified cohesion and ordering exceptions. ## Verification - Parsed the rule YAML and Greptile JSON. Confirmed that the rule globs exactly match the Greptile scope. - Checked 14 positive and negative scope cases with Node's `path.matchesGlob`, including nested heartbeat modules, sibling services, regression tests, and unrelated paths. - Verified local links and heading anchors, including the existing heartbeat module map, and confirmed all 20 named modules exist. Reviewed their responsibility descriptions against the current code and developer documentation. - `git diff origin/master --check` passed after rebasing onto current master. - Reviewed the principles against the current heartbeat code and tests. The diff changes four documentation and review-configuration files. - Application typecheck, runtime tests, and build were not run locally. This worktree has no installed dependencies. CI and review status are tracked below. - CI passed on `a17f5a2cc82b7bb7e4629d4a2d9e3a766e27c5c0`: 55 successful checks, two skipped, no failures or pending checks. This includes typecheck, build, server/runner tests, and browser tests. - Greptile reviewed the same commit at 5/5 with no findings or unresolved review threads. ## Risks The rule can influence later implementation and review decisions. It applies to changed heartbeat behavior and permits justified contract changes with tests. The scoped globs exclude unrelated subsystems. This PR does not change application behavior. Hosted loading of the new rule has not been demonstrated by the local configuration checks. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`) via Codex, with repository inspection, file editing, and command execution. The context-window size was not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (scoped rule/configuration checks described above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (documentation/configuration validation; no runtime changes) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
448db859e3 |
Merge master recovery updates into Codex defaults
Preserve current recovery and controller preparation behavior, both Storybook histories, and the reviewed Codex onboarding source. Targeted controls and direct TypeScript checks pass; exact-head hosted and live qualification remain required. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7956056b2f |
Merge current master and qualify managed Codex onboarding
Reconcile actual master |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e3029c632b |
feat: trace controller preparation before agent dispatch (#16178)
Trace eleven controller preparation operations with the existing hashed run correlation and preserve errors without exporting exception text. Verify asynchronous child-span parenting with a real OpenTelemetry SDK and context manager. Full exact-head CI and E2E passed after one documented fixture-startup retry; Greptile Apex 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.9 |
||
|
|
0b0e53029f |
fix: recover saved workspace results automatically (#15824)
## Thinking Path - Paperclip preserves accepted agent results before workspace copyback and result commitment. - A replaced controller can leave a physical copyback owner receipt behind. A lost database lock or expired lease cannot prove that its tar/Git children stopped. - Infrastructure recovery should belong to the runtime and deployment harness; task users should not investigate processes or attest shutdown. - New receipts record the exact deployment. The harness independently verifies that deployment fully stopped and signs a short-lived proof bound to the stack, run, owner and deployment. - The existing guarded reconciler then finishes the same accepted result without a new agent turn. Legacy receipts retain the documented administrator API after independent platform verification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An accepted native result can remain at `workspace_finalizing` with an abandoned physical copyback owner. Repeated recovery sweeps could replace specific instructions with advice to start new agent work. The first version of this PR exposed a shutdown-evidence form in the task; that asks end users to resolve infrastructure details. **Expected behavior** Automatically verify and recover the exact stopped deployment, preserve the original accepted result and existing approval/monitor waits, and show only a quiet task status. Unknown or live workers must remain fenced. Older receipts without platform identity need independently verified operator assistance through the administrator API. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist an accepted native result and a copyback receipt from a prior controller. 2. Replace that deployment before workspace finalization commits. 3. Let the normal finalization reconciler revisit the saved result. 4. With a platform-bound receipt and a fully stopped deployment, recovery should finish automatically. With missing, live, unverifiable or changed ownership, it must not write files or create another provider turn. Related public work: #14402 introduced copyback ownership; #9687 handles dead-run finalize barriers; #15795 handles terminal stale-run cleanup. This change addresses an accepted result whose physical copyback owner prevents commitment. ## What Changed - Record Railway project, environment, service and deployment identity on new physical copyback owners. - Request read-only platform verification from the managed cloud harness. Require an Ed25519 stop receipt with a disjoint purpose, configured signing key, exact stack/run/owner/deployment binding and valid expiry. - Keep live, unknown, malformed, unavailable and legacy owners fenced. Compare the whole prior receipt during ownership takeover, under the existing dedicated advisory lock. - Persist platform proof and audit automatic takeover. Resume normal finalization of the same saved result, preserving task ownership, approved boundaries, monitors and pending confirmations. - Remove process metadata, shutdown evidence, confirmation checkboxes and infrastructure-repair forms from task views. Suppress the duplicate technical owner-recovery card. Show “Restoring saved work…” only from server-confirmed recovery or queued operator recovery; platform identity alone shows the operator-assistance fallback. Remove the status when recovery resolves. - Share current-task, current-running-execution, accepted-result, authoritative-reviewer and newer-execution checks between automatic and operator recovery. Validate after the provider lookup, atomically with the owner claim, and again before file publication; closed or superseded tasks cannot start copyback. - Keep the separately authorized exact-owner API for operator recovery of legacy receipts, with active-lock, live-controller, stale-result and newer-execution rejection. Generic dismissal cannot bypass the copyback fence. - Replace obsolete form stories with production-backed automatic, queued, legacy, completed and mobile examples; retain stable suite IDs. Update the operator runbook and scoped Storybook catalog. ## Verification - Red/green: new platform-proof tests failed before implementation; the database takeover regression failed against the original ownership guard; reduced-UI assertions failed against the original form. All pass after the changes. - Passed: 59 physical-owner/finalization database tests using isolated PostgreSQL, including real reconciler commitment from all three saved-result phases through both automatic and operator recovery. They preserve result identity, exact saved file bytes, pending approval and overdue monitor waits, and create no new run or wake request. Unknown evidence and changed ownership remain fenced. - Passed: 162 focused proof, cloud identity, recovery route, recovery-card and reduced-UI tests. - Passed: full workspace typecheck and build, final server/UI typechecks, token gates, and Storybook build. - Browser inspection: desktop task composition shows only the quiet status; completed example removes it and retains the approval-wait message. Mobile shows the existing bottom navigation with no horizontal overflow. These are fixture UI observations, not live provider acceptance. - A companion harness change implements the actual provider check, signed receipts, server-token authentication and bounded/coalesced provider reads. Its full typecheck and test suite passed: 3,240 passed, 92 skipped, zero failures. This application alone cannot enable platform verification. - The updated full application `pnpm test:run` was stopped after repeated local embedded-Postgres startup failures; it is not claimed green. The same affected recovery suites pass against isolated PostgreSQL. CI passed on final head `9ad5c3529e`: 54 successful checks, two intentional skips, and successful legacy Snyk status. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Global Storybook catalog validation is green: 225 files, 2,224 stories. Its 17 catalog/index tests pass. Master was merged and the inherited index metadata was reconciled after source review. - Review correction red/green: two UI and two database assertions reproduced misleading progress / missing server recovery state; all pass after server-confirmed state was added. All 153 focused server tests and 68 UI tests pass on the final recovery code, including repeated-sweep idempotence. Full workspace typecheck/build, token gates and Storybook build also pass. - Safety regression red/green: stale-task copyback and publication tests failed against the previous guard. The final suite covers changes during proof lookup, closed/cancelled tasks, replaced execution/checkout, newer and queued legacy runs, reassignment and rejected/unbound results, plus the real reconciler selecting closed or superseded tasks. Files remain untouched and no workspace operation starts. - No staging mutations, deployment, live provider probes or live production recovery were performed. The three historical receipts lack deployment identity and still require independent operator proof. ## Risks Automatic takeover requires the companion harness release and configured runtime-identity keys. Deploying only this application leaves unavailable evidence fenced. Legacy receipts are not retrospectively assigned a deployment identity. An authorized operator can still make an incorrect attestation through the fallback API; its administrator gate and exact-owner safeguards remain. Provider history that is missing or deeper than the bounded lookup defers automatic recovery. Copyback can still fail under its existing retained-workspace policy. No migration, telemetry change or cloud provider credential delivery is required. The companion harness PR also has passing CI and a 5/5 review; neither branch is deployed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, browser verification, tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the relevant tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
dfc00fb650 |
docs: record published canary qualification and Codex merge finish line
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
833769ab55 |
perf(chat): schedule Telegram maintenance from commits and deadlines (#16094)
Replace periodic Telegram discovery and maintenance scans with bounded startup recovery, connection-specific commit notifications, and durable action deadlines. Preserve ownership, inactive subscription parking, retry and cleanup recovery, and atomic credential binding updates. Verified full typecheck/build, 30 focused scheduler tests, 12 database-backed recovery cases, all current-head CI checks, and Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
69f4bfc3c5 |
docs: add external bot integration skill (#16181)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External agents need a connection, a work lifecycle, and clear authority. > - The Dot integration exposed gaps in setup, idle work, recovery, and Cloud delivery. > - Future integrations need a practical procedure that preserves those lessons. > - This pull request adds a core skill and six focused reference documents. > - The skill gives contributors concrete prompts, test cases, and failure diagnostics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** Repository contributor skills for external agent integration. **What's wrong?** The integration process has no single reusable guide for provider discovery, both work directions, setup, managed Runner execution, and live proof. Lessons from Dot are spread across implementation changes. **Suggested fix** Add `create-external-bot-integration` under `.agents/skills`. Keep the core workflow short. Put detailed contracts, examples, tests, diagnostics, and dated evidence in references. Related public implementation: Refs #15402, #15414, #15581, #15691, #15722, #15734. A search found no duplicate skill PR. ## What Changed - Add a core skill for external agents and its Codex interface metadata. - Add references for the release contract, Runner architecture, onboarding, qualification tests, deployment, and the Dot case study. - Include idle intake, native tool use, scoped authority, receipt recovery, and resource cleanup. - Mark provider facts and code paths as dated evidence. Use public PRs for the source trail. - Change only eight files under `.agents/skills/create-external-bot-integration`. ## Verification - Skill validator: passed. - Interface metadata, Markdown fences, and 49 local links and anchors: passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - PR file scope: verified that all eight paths are inside the skill folder. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed in the isolated worktree. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/skills-catalog packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts`: 10 tests passed after the description-budget fix. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` attempt reported 12 native-session lease test failures. It is not a passing full-suite result. One isolated lease case passed. The PR changes no runtime files. - Final commit `bd7aed82f623ee279c800af2b8b87f7bedd6be5c`: all GitHub checks completed, with 55 success results and 2 skipped results. - Greptile reviewed that exact commit at 5/5. There are no open review threads. ## Risks - Provider behavior and code paths can change. The skill requires current code and official documentation checks before use. - The case study describes one integration campaign. It does not claim that every provider supports the same transport or capabilities. - This change adds contributor instructions and metadata. It changes no application code or database schema. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, filesystem access, shell tools, and code review support. The exact serving endpoint ID 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
a0651c96f8 |
Add database-free process liveness probes (#16101)
Expose process liveness without database or credential queries while preserving hostname and runtime identity guards. Deep health and sleep/wake readiness checks retain their existing behavior. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
be380ba155 |
fix(ui): hide agent-created tasks by default (#16157)
Hide agent-created, system-created, and chat-channel tasks from independent collections by default. Preserve task hierarchy context and existing inbox participation. Add a saved opt-in checkbox without helper text. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.8 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3f7b00a8d0 |
fix: preserve public identifiers in feedback redaction (#16168)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People rate agent comments and documents to capture feedback. > - Feedback bundles remove credentials and personal information before export. > - The feedback scanner treats ordinary dotted text as JWTs and authentication terms as bearer tokens. > - This pull request checks encoded JWT headers and preserves known authentication terms. > - The benefit is readable feedback context with credential masking kept in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12309 for the related dotted-identifier false-positive report. This PR fixes the separate feedback scanner. It does not close every case in that report. Related PR: #14318 adds fine-grained GitHub token coverage. It addresses a separate credential form and is not duplicated here. **What happened?** Feedback exports replace `api.openai.com`, dotted filenames, and public schema IDs with a JWT placeholder. They also replace the words after `bearer` in phrases such as “bearer tokens.” Five-part encrypted JWTs are only partly masked. **Expected behavior** Keep public identifiers and authentication terms readable. Mask complete credential tokens. Count only text replacements in the redaction summary. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Pass `api.openai.com` or `Use bearer tokens.` to `sanitizeFeedbackText`. 2. Check that the original text is returned and the redaction counts stay empty. 3. Pass a signed JWT or an encrypted JWT to the same function. 4. Check that the full token is replaced and one JWT replacement is counted. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in the feedback scanner on master at `5e8e992df2b3d71f82091b7bbf29fd482854d9f5`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. The defect is in the shared feedback export service and does not depend on deployment mode. ## What Changed - Use the existing JWT header predicate in the feedback scanner. - Match complete three-part and five-part tokens, including direct-encryption tokens with an empty key segment. Accept short token segments in the predicate. - Preserve the closed set of authentication terms already used by the general scanner, including terms inside closing prose delimiters. - Count only replacements that change the text. - Add tests for readable context, credential masking, nested values, and redaction counts. - Document feedback text redaction. ## Verification - Focused redaction and feedback service tests: 89 tests pass across five suites. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` passes. Full local typecheck, tests, and build were attempted. The kernel killed compiler and test processes at the sandbox memory limit of 4 GB. Serial retries and a capped Node heap still could not complete the server compiler. CI runs the full repository checks. - `git diff --check` passes. - Latest commit `0eb8d3fb4257bb79e67fab615a8299ef69230ad8`: **55 checks passed**, including full typecheck, tests, build, and E2E; two optional Storybook checks were skipped. [CI evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38407932875). Both Greptile findings have regression tests and fixes. [Greptile gives this commit 5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16168#issuecomment-6146917423), with both review threads resolved. ## Risks - This changes the feedback export matching rules. Public dotted text no longer triggers credential masking by shape alone. - Explicit credential assignments, provider keys, structured secret fields, email addresses, and phone numbers remain masked. Tests cover these cases. - Existing feedback snapshots are not rewritten. No schema change or migration is needed. - The encoded-header check remains a heuristic. It is not a full JWT validator. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime identifies the model as GPT-6. It does not expose the exact provider deployment ID or context window size. The earlier patch and this PR preparation were AI-assisted. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
561e956266 |
chore: assign owners to Greptile configuration and rules (#16174)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Repository rules guide code authors and reviewers. > - PR #16172 added rules and Greptile configuration to Git. > - Those directories need named maintainers for future changes. > - This pull request adds ownership for both root directories. > - The entries use the same four maintainers as the existing infrastructure entries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing ownership for repository review guidance. **Where is the issue?** `.github/CODEOWNERS`, for the root `.greptile/` and `rules/` directories. **What's wrong?** Changes to these directories do not match an explicit code owner entry. **Suggested fix** Assign the existing four infrastructure maintainers to both directory trees. Refs: #16172. ## What Changed - Add `/.greptile/` and `/rules/` to CODEOWNERS. - Assign `@cryppadotta`, `@devinfoley`, `@nickyleach`, and `@forgottendev` to both entries. ## Verification - `git diff --check`: passed. - GitHub CODEOWNERS validation API on the published branch: zero errors. - Confirm both entries have the same owner list as the existing `.github/**` entry: passed. - Check root and nested paths with Git's ignore-pattern matching: five positive and three negative cases passed. - Application typecheck, tests, and build were not run locally. This changes only CODEOWNERS and does not change application behavior. - Hosted CI and Greptile review are pending. ## Risks Low risk. Future changes in these root directory trees will request review from the existing maintainers. Nested directories with the same names elsewhere in the repository do not match the new entries. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, official GitHub documentation, and shell verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (ownership and pattern checks above; application suites were not run) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (direct checks for this ownership-only change) - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7ac0354b51 |
docs: track chat channel rules and Greptile configuration (#16172)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels connect shared task workflows to several platforms. > - Recent refactors moved platform behavior into named channel folders. > - Authors and reviewers need a durable rule that preserves these boundaries. > - Review settings also need version control and an explicit source of rules. > - This pull request adds scoped MDC rules and a staged migration of supported Greptile settings into Git. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation and versioned review configuration. **Where is the issue?** Root contributor instructions, chat channel architecture guidance, and Greptile configuration for this repository. **What's wrong?** The channel folder boundary is established in the refactor but has no focused rule for future changes. Greptile settings and custom context are maintained in the dashboard. **Suggested fix** Keep canonical rule bodies under `rules/`. Route coding agents through `AGENTS.md` and load matching rules through `.greptile/files.json`. Preserve supported review settings in `.greptile/config.json` and document the remaining dashboard controls. Related work: #15823 and #16080. A search for related rule PRs found no duplicate configuration change. ## What Changed - Add `rules/chat-channel-platform-boundaries.mdc`. Its scope covers `server/src/services/chat-channels/**` and the sibling `chat-channels.ts` entry point. - Define provider folder ownership, shared workflow boundaries, typed dependencies, behavior-preserving extraction, and dispatch exceptions. - Add rule-loading instructions to root `AGENTS.md` and `.greptile/rules.md`. - Add explicit, scoped context references in `.greptile/files.json`. - Record observed review triggers, the Dependabot exclusion, Base tier, High strictness, summary options, fix prompts, status checks, and disabled auto-approval in `.greptile/config.json`. - Move existing PR-description, source-file growth, and repository-specific screenshot guidance into `rules/pull-request-review.mdc`. - Document supported settings, remaining dashboard controls, and the staged cutover. The dashboard was inspected read-only; no settings or saved rules were changed. ## Verification - Parse both MDC headers with Ruby `YAML.safe_load`: passed. - Parse both Greptile JSON files and verify documented field types and observed values: passed. - Verify all four context references resolve to repository files: passed. - Compare scoped MDC globs with the corresponding Greptile scope: passed. - Check ten positive and negative scope cases with Node `path.matchesGlob`: passed. Includes the service entry point, nested provider files, and unrelated runner, connection, and UI paths. - Verify the scope covers all 101 tracked chat-channel files: passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Application typecheck, `pnpm test:run`, and build were not run locally. This change contains only guidance and reviewer configuration, and this worktree has no installed application dependencies. No runtime behavior or application tests changed. - Greptile reviewed commit `32647dfd001289a297b9d43c381371da8575df38`: 5/5, eight files reviewed, zero comments. Hosted CI is still running. ## Risks - Instructions depend on agent and reviewer compliance; these files are not deterministic lint rules. - The new MDC directory is explicitly routed through `AGENTS.md` and Greptile. Cursor does not automatically discover arbitrary `rules/` directories. - This preserves the observed High strictness setting, which the dashboard says omits P2 comments. It does not change that review policy. - Dashboard instructions and custom rules remain additive. Their copies were not disabled during read-only inspection. The repository-specific no-screenshot rule explicitly takes precedence over the conflicting older organization instruction. - Draft review, the required 5/5 status threshold, image badges, and other controls without documented config equivalents remain in the dashboard. See `.greptile/README.md` for the inventory and cutover limitations. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, shell validation, official documentation, and read-only browser inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (configuration parsing and scope checks described above; application suites were not run) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no runtime change; checked configuration directly) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5e8e992df2 |
fix(storybook): reconcile capability associations and map omissions (#16154)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The feature map describes user capabilities and verification recipes. > - Storybook holds isolated examples of those capabilities. > - Missing catalog links can hide existing examples. > - Some stories also expose shipped capabilities absent from the map. > - This pull request adds verified source associations and three paired map entries. > - Readers can find existing examples without changing their homes or URLs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16052, #16049 and #16046. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook capability lookup and the feature/agent access maps. **Current behavior** Seventy capabilities have no example link. Some matching stories already exist. Primary-agent preferences and company decision/fast-response services appear only under broad neighboring capabilities. **Proposed behavior** Add source-supported links across 34 suites. Keep shared foundations in place while cross-listing them. Add primary-agent, decision-model and fast-response capabilities to both upstream maps. Retain explicit simulation and partial-example limits. **Reason and benefit** The catalog distinguishes missing associations from missing examples. The upstream map describes three existing product capabilities more precisely. **Breaking changes** None to product behavior, story exports, folders, sidebar titles or URLs. A shared foundation can declare a reasoned `home: "foundations"` override while referencing related capabilities. ## What Changed - Add 55 references across 34 suites. Replace primary-agent suites' reporting-line association with their own capability. - Add three source-reviewed capabilities and their API/actor boundaries to paired maps. - Preserve the shared Foundations home when cross-listing developer design examples. Add a validation regression test. - Record which exports demonstrate each association and what remains simulated or unverified. - Regenerate the catalog and capability data. Preserve all original 223 authored suites and 2,210 story IDs. Retain the two skill-removal stories added by current master, for 2,212 authored stories in total. - Reduce empty example lookups from 70 of 171 capabilities to 59 of 174. Links do not establish complete capability coverage. ## Verification - Passed: 27 catalog/generator/map tests, catalog validation, map structural checks, token gates and skill validation. - Passed: source inventory comparison preserves all authored files, titles, meta IDs and story IDs. - Passed: repository typecheck/build and Storybook build. Final built index has 2,248 entries and preserves all previous entries, including the two skills stories added by current master. - The broad local repository test run was interrupted before completion to resolve a new master conflict. A complete local suite pass is not claimed; fresh CI passed on the reconciled branch. - Browser: Design links to preserved Foundations stories; company-service sections link settings/history/journey suites; decision SetupToHistory passed 12 interaction steps; primary-agent ReplacePrimary passed four steps. No console errors in selected checks. - Greptile: 5/5 on final commit `805a8af62abe589907e7cc6ca1b415ce1e0cc3c0`, with no findings or unresolved threads. - Final-revision CI passed all 57 checks/statuses, including all eight browser shards, server and Runner tests, typecheck and build. The unchanged Cloud-auth mocked-response race seen on a superseded revision did not recur on the final commit. No test expectations were changed. - New agent-access evidence is source-only. Live provider and agent-credential verification is not established. ## Risks - Suite-level associations can represent only selected states. Notes retain those limits and existing review classifications. - In-memory connection drafts do not prove reload persistence. Resume-failure UI does not prove successful continuation. No-op budget controls do not prove relief or resumption. - Three map capabilities document existing behavior. No permission, API, provider or production component changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution and source inspection. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.7 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
aded4197e5 |
fix: make multiplayer task toasts personal (#16153)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A company can have several human users and shared agents. > - Live task events currently produce toasts for any user who can read the task. > - This makes unrelated work interrupt other users. > - This pull request checks each user's task participation before it permits a toast. > - Users receive relevant task notifications while company views continue to refresh. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Company task activity and agent failures produce noisy toasts for users who have no involvement in the task. **Expected behavior** A task qualifies when the viewer created it, commented on it, is its assigned user, deliberately acted on it under the Mine rules, or has an explicit user mention in its description or a non-deleted comment. Viewing, agent ownership, responsible-user attribution, and parent participation alone do not qualify. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in as two users in the same company. 2. Have the second user create and update a task that does not involve the first user. 3. Observe a task toast in the first user's company view before this fix. The duplicate PR search found no existing change for personal task-toast eligibility. ## What Changed - Extract the existing Mine participation predicate without changing Mine behavior. - Compute task eligibility from stored tasks, comments, and run associations after WebSocket access checks. Use an exact indexed comment-mention lookup with `LIMIT 1`. - Add optional `toastEligible` metadata to each viewer's event copy. Keep it off the shared event bus. - Require eligibility for live task activity and task-linked run errors. Suppress generic agent errors. - Continue cache updates for quiet events. Refetch visible comments when authenticated events omit hydration details. Ignore stale socket callbacks after account or company changes. - Document toast semantics and add feature-map and agent-access-map coverage. - Add persisted-data, socket, UI, and authenticated browser regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit: `1dc4f9402c5883744738cfe236ad00fa0bb5ca4c`. - All 55 current-head checks passed. Two Storybook checks were skipped because this change does not affect that coverage. - Greptile approved this exact commit with 5/5. The security scan passed. Both review threads are resolved. - Local `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - The focused socket/UI suite passed 123 tests. The persisted eligibility suite passed 9 tests, including long history, exact viewer matching, and regex escaping. The existing Mine service suite previously passed 140 tests. - The named browser case `task toasts follow personal involvement in multiplayer` passed against the final commit in an isolated authenticated instance. It used two real sessions, real WebSocket delivery, and persisted tasks, edits, comments, and mentions. It verified quiet unrelated activity, viewing alone, first and historical mentions, own-action suppression, visible-task suppression, and live cache refresh. - A prior-head server shard passed its single rerun after a fixture-cleanup deadlock. The final-head CI run passed without a rerun. - The broad local run remained in progress when CI completed the full test suite. Local focused checks and CI provide the completed test evidence. ## Risks - This intentionally reduces live notifications. A new client stays quiet against an older server that omits eligibility. - Eligibility queries add work to live event delivery. A lookup failure suppresses the toast and still delivers the authorized event. - Deleted mentions cease to qualify unless another participation rule applies. Historical comment authorship retains the existing Mine behavior. - No database migration or notification-settings change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with implementation, tests, documentation, and PR preparation. It used repository tools, shell commands, and browser automation. The runtime did not expose an exact backend revision or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2ad36f4ff2 |
Fix skill source removal with a keep-or-delete choice (#16150)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - GitHub sources import skills and keep their updates together.
> - Disconnect only disabled a source and kept its read-only imports.
> - A disabled source could not be removed or imported again.
> - Removing a source needs an explicit decision about its imported
skills.
> - This pull request removes the source after the user keeps editable
copies or deletes the imports.
> - Existing disabled sources use the same removal flow.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #15731, #14713.
**What happened?**
Disconnect left the repository on Sources. Its Disconnect action was
then disabled. The saved repository still blocked a new import.
**Expected behavior**
Remove the repository from Sources. Require a choice to keep editable
copies or delete its imports. Allow removal of sources that are already
disconnected.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Import a repository in Skills → Sources.
2. Choose Disconnect source.
3. Observe the disconnected row and disabled removal action.
4. Try to import the repository again.
**Paperclip version or commit**
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
df06df2306 |
fix(slack): allow direct messages without at-mentions (#16151)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connections let people start and continue agent tasks. > - The Require at-mention setting currently applies to channels and direct messages. > - A person who sends a direct message has already selected the agent. > - This pull request exempts direct messages from mention checks, including queued work. > - People can talk normally in DMs while channel messages keep the configured mention rule. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15612, which introduced the Require at-mention setting. Searches found no duplicate PR for the DM exemption. **What happened?** With Require at-mention enabled, a plain Slack DM does not start or continue agent work. New Slack connections enable the setting by default. **Expected behavior** Direct messages do not need an at-mention. Top-level DM replies remain top-level. Channel messages and channel thread replies still follow the saved mention setting. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Allow direct messages and Require at-mention on a Slack connection. 2. Send a plain DM from an authorized sender. 3. Confirm the agent responds without an at-mention. Send a plain follow-up and confirm it also works. 4. Confirm unmentioned channel messages remain filtered when Require at-mention is enabled. 5. Disable Allow direct messages and confirm new DMs remain blocked. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline: `eb06c9fedd`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. Automated tests use disposable local Postgres and provider fixtures. This change has not been deployed or retested in live Slack. ## What Changed - Exempt DMs at inbound admission, task mutation, work authorization, and heartbeat queue claim. - Keep channel mention checks and all existing sender, endpoint, and destination checks. - Update regressions for new connections, follow-ups, deferred delivery, and coalesced queued messages. - Clarify the Slack settings copy, connection documentation, and verification maps. - Refresh the affected Storybook review references after source inspection. ## Verification - Passed 55 Slack and durable scheduler tests with Vitest on the current rebased commit, including admission through the extracted inbound module. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` on the rebased PR commit. - Passed token gates and map checks. - Passed Storybook catalog validation after rebase: 223 files and 2,210 stories. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after three failures in the unchanged tool-access suite. All 418 tests in that suite passed in a standalone rerun. The focused regressions passed; full GitHub CI remains the merge gate. - Greptile reviewed commit `b0293fa6571403c5e01c30bb7b5fcc5e91b88c97`: 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. All 55 GitHub checks passed on this commit; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - No live Slack messages were sent during implementation verification. ## Risks Existing Slack connections now accept authorized plain DMs even when Require at-mention is enabled. Allow direct messages and sender authorization still apply. Queued DM work follows the same exemption. Channel behavior and DM reply routing are unchanged. No schema or migration change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fc3b15537b |
fix(runner): match call_api to existing agent REST permissions (#16040)
Route native call_api through existing agent REST permissions. Preserve admitted credentials across restarts, protect sensitive replies and private snapshots, and compare saved completion with provider history through the same redaction projection. Add permission, privacy and recovery regressions and update the access map and run-log guide. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
eb06c9fedd |
refactor(server): split chat channel workflows into provider and shared modules (#16080)
Move provider operations into channel folders and shared chat work into named interaction, setup, admission, delivery and publication workflows. Consolidate reviewed PRs #16085, #16089, #16096 and #16105. Preserve upstream execution-default and recovery behavior. The main service is 7,917 lines. All 55 current-head CI checks pass, with two optional Storybook skips. Greptile is 5/5 with no findings. All 1,294 current chat integration cases, repository-wide typecheck and build pass locally. Broad local tool-route timing/socket failures are recorded in the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
60bc0d5fee |
fix(release): run native builds and canary smoke after skipped channels (#16149)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents for work. > - Published packages need the native runner artifacts from their exact source. > - The release workflow selects one channel and deliberately skips the other channels. > - The native producer used an implicit success condition across those skipped dependencies. > - The merged-source release selected native artifacts but skipped their build and canary publication. > - This pull request makes the existing producer and canary smoke conditions explicit. > - Successful source selection, artifact verification and cancellation checks still apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16028. **What happened?** [Release 38389963483](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38389963483) passed source selection, then skipped native production, canary publication and onboarding smoke. The exact source script requires native artifacts; the API does not expose the source job outputs. The registry canary still points to an older source. **Expected behavior** The selected release channel builds its required native artifacts, publishes its verified package, then runs the exact-version onboarding smoke. Skipped inactive channels must not suppress these jobs. **Steps to reproduce** Inspect the linked master-push run at `d67e3507b23041212fa26302ce6de078c5ebcc05`. Compare the successful source job and exact source script with the three skipped jobs. The two existing workflow contract cases also fail against the original conditions. **Paperclip version or commit** `d67e3507b23041212fa26302ce6de078c5ebcc05`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions release workflow. ## What Changed - Require `!cancelled()`, successful source selection and `required=true` for native production. - Require `!cancelled()` and successful publication for canary onboarding smoke. - Extend the existing workflow tests for selected channels, skipped ancestors, missing outputs, failed jobs and cancellation. ## Verification - The two affected contract cases fail before treatment and pass after treatment. - Focused source controls cover 28 producer and five smoke condition combinations. - Independent source review found no changes to source, trust, artifact, channel, permission or publication gates. - These tests check source predicates. Actual hosted routing and publication must still pass after merge. - Full existing release suite: 70/70 pass. Existing source-verification neighbors: 20/20 pass. - Workflow structure passes actionlint. Full shell lint reports five hints in unchanged commands. - Full hosted checks and fresh Greptile review are pending. ## Risks The producer serves all release channels. The explicit source-result and required-output checks retain each channel's admission gates. Cancellation still prevents new work. This does not change runtime code, packages, agent selection, or stored configurations. [GitHub documents the implicit status check](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-actions/expressions#status-check-functions) and [skipped dependency behavior](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/how-tos/write-workflows/choose-what-workflows-do/use-jobs). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning and code tools. This session does not expose a verifiable exact model ID or context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.6 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fd61dc1dd5 |
docs(skills): distinguish Paperclip verification targets (#16145)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Verification must show which runtime and user journey passed. > - The existing skill centers on an empty instance launched from source. > - Seeded data, reused databases, published packages, and hosted stacks prove different outcomes. > - This pull request makes the target and starting conditions explicit. > - It routes deployment to private Cloud skills and keeps feature checks in Verify Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `.agents/skills/verify-paperclip/SKILL.md`. **What's wrong?** The skill does not distinguish source development, npm installation, staging, and production. It also needs to distinguish fresh onboarding from seeded or reused data and make platform scope explicit. **Suggested fix** Add target selection and focused references. Preserve the existing empty-instance helper. Name the private Cloud deployment skills as a separate prerequisite when deployment is requested. No duplicate documentation PR was found in the open-PR search. ## What Changed - Record artifact, environment, starting data, platform, and journey before testing. - Document dev servers, fresh instances, seeded/reused test drives, and cloned worktrees. - Separate exact-version canary and stable npm verification from source and Cloud evidence. - Document staging and production checks and route deployment to `deploy-paperclip-stack` or `deploy-cloud-harness` in the private Cloud repo. - Limit local ownership helpers to instances created by their launcher. ## Verification - Current-head GitHub CI: 55 passed, 2 skipped, no failures. Typecheck, tests, build, and the aggregate gate passed. Greptile: 5/5, all threads resolved. - Skill validator: passed. - Relative Markdown file links: passed across the changed skills and references (29 links in final validation). - `python3 -m unittest discover -s .agents/skills/verify-paperclip/tests -v`: 2 passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed (structural coverage only). - `git diff --check`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`: attempted; blocked by missing workspace dependencies (`node_modules`, Node type definitions, and the checkout tsx entry point). These are not passing full-suite results. - Existing published-launcher test attempt was blocked by sandbox loopback permissions; it does not provide package-install evidence. - Reviewed commands against development docs, release workflow, and current Cloud runbooks. No live deployment, publication, or production mutation was performed for these documentation changes. ## Risks - Low runtime risk: only skill documentation changes. - Private deployment skills require access to the Cloud repo and must be available before that handoff works. The verifier reports the prerequisite when unavailable. - Workflow changes can make command guidance stale. The skills direct readers to maintained workflows and runbooks before use. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, file editing, shell execution, and GitHub CLI access. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (the focused ownership suite; full-suite limits are listed above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no runtime change; existing tests retained) - [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> |