304 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	d33b40a5c3	fix: recover saved work and provide reliable task Retry (#16965) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must retain work when an execution or workspace export fails. > - Retained-workspace holds can leave saved input waiting with no usable Retry action. > - Users cannot verify process ownership or repair provider allocations. > - This pull request gives system recovery a durable budget and gives each deliberate Retry a durable intent. > - Safe recovery can preserve files, settle an accepted result, or prepare an independent workspace. > - One task state keeps infrastructure diagnostics out of the ordinary conversation while preserving real permission and approval gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a retained workspace can show recovery, failed-run and saved-message warnings at the same time. Historical runs without native workspace descriptors cannot use the native restore path. Old recovery metadata can prevent a new attempt even when an independent workspace would be safe. **Expected behavior** Paperclip owns bounded infrastructure retries and file preservation. A user can request another attempt with ordinary Retry. Thinking appears immediately. The service preserves completed effects and current user controls. It does not claim that starting fresh recovered the old files. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a failed run and its workspace after export or process-stop failure. 2. Save a follow-up while the recovery hold is active. 3. Open the task and try to continue without infrastructure credentials or operator certification. Refs #16906, #16835, #16883. This extends their recovery and receipt contracts. Related work: #16962 and #16963. ## What Changed - Add task-level Retry with company-scoped authorization, all-status idempotency and durable admission before physical work. Keep exact-run Retry compatible. - Add typed recovery phases, finite persisted backoff, historical adoption and durable local failure diagnostics. - Preserve native workspaces or verified historical snapshots. Admit an independent fresh workspace only after execution containment. Keep old-source preservation and cleanup obligations separate. - Carry completed publication and API receipts forward. Fence uncertain mutation retries across replacement runs. Preserve connected-chat identity and authorization. - Re-enter normal dispatch for saved input. Reuse accepted results through the existing finalizer. - Use one task interruption projection across the thread, composer and task list. Show optimistic Thinking, ordinary Retry and genuine user gates. - Add PostgreSQL, filesystem, API, browser-fixture and controlled provider coverage. Document the behavior and update the feature/access maps. ## Verification - All GitHub Actions CI jobs pass on `6d8c6d27d50586d8548b31d03b47f6d73a0ee11d`: typecheck, all server/chat/workspace and serialized suites, Runner checks, eight browser shards, canary and build. The required merge gate passes. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. Its two earlier P1 findings are fixed. - Full recursive typecheck and build pass locally on the final commit. All 16 task Retry cases pass against isolated real PostgreSQL. The unrelated-success case and both stale Retry cases fail on the previous code and pass after the fix. - The corrected gateway fixture passes its uncertain-mutation and independent-read case. Four real HTTP API cases pass for definite 403/422 rejection, completed-effect reuse, and uncertain-effect fences across deliberate and automatic retries. These focused gateway/API checks used a temporary database lifecycle harness on an existing healthy local PostgreSQL process. The standard repository helper is unchanged. - Earlier qualification covers 291 task UI cases, saved-file copyback and ancestry, current Agent Chat ownership races, nine chat Retry API browser cases, and six assembled browser recovery fixtures. A real API/PostgreSQL/native-runner journey showed Thinking in 25 ms despite a delayed response, admitted one successor in a separate workspace, retained original files, and survived reload. - The controlled Daytona test interrupts export, joins the controller, restarts it in a separate process, and verifies one agent start, one external sentinel operation, retained file contents and no premature cleanup. It does not establish abrupt-kill or live LLM/GitHub acceptance. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and was not green: an OAuth row-lock timing assertion failed, and a later suite exhausted macOS PostgreSQL semaphores. The ten OAuth timing cases passed on rerun against a separate database. Later embedded database initialization failures remain recorded; the final CI matrix passes. - Security scanning passed on production-code commit `63953edf069b111c6becc3144dffa6deb52f68b5`. Its only successor changes one test-fixture identity line. The final scan is neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. Both rerun API requests returned 404, so no fresh successful scan is claimed. Socket and Snyk checks pass on the final head. - The optional Paperclip Review remains queued behind an earlier run in workspace finalization. Its prior completed assessment was incomplete because a comparison tool was blocked by the platform filter. It is not counted as a completed code review. GitHub does not require this check for merge. - Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment. Local and CI results do not establish recovery of a hosted task or its retained files. ## Risks - Recovery changes span admission, physical ownership and dispatch. Incorrect evidence could permit overlapping work. Existing physical locks and authoritative stop requirements remain in place. - The migration adds concurrent indexes. It requires the existing top-level migration runner and retries incomplete index creation safely. - A fresh attempt can complete while old-source preservation remains unresolved. The service retains that obligation and does not report those files as recovered. - Unknown tool mutations remain blocked until their authoritative receipt owner resolves them. Generic upstream tools have no universal result-query protocol. - Recovery and diagnostics stay inside the stack. No Cloud incident endpoint, notification worker or new outbound reporting channel is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell execution, source editing and browser tools. No model subagents were used for this implementation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused suites; the full local run limitation is documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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>	2026-10-20 19:58:53 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	8b4ab65b1c	Add plugin-owned project storage and task workspaces (#17001) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks can use isolated repository workspaces. > - Core currently prepares those repositories on its own filesystem. > - A storage provider may only expose repositories inside remote agent computers. > - Project storage and task workspace preparation must have one provider owner. > - This pull request adds that contract and keeps execution as a separate plugin interface. > - Core keeps authorization, durable task bindings, and lifecycle fences. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Plugin SDK, project workspace policy, heartbeat preparation, execution leases, and workspace lifecycle. **Problem or motivation** Core cannot prepare a task workspace when its repository storage is unavailable on the Core host. An execution lease must not be required just to prepare persistent storage. **Proposed solution** Let one plugin provide project resource lifecycle and workspace prepare, inspect, restore, and remove behavior. Core reserves a task workspace before it calls the plugin. The plugin returns an opaque durable reference. The matching execution plugin receives that reference on its task RPC. **Alternatives considered** Preparing repositories on Core would require a provider mount on Core. Preparing them only during task launch would tie persistent workspace lifecycle to execution leases and agent availability. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the remote provider model in ROADMAP.md. Related execution work is in #16978. This PR does not replace that task bridge. Native execution of managed storage requires the bridge; this change fails closed when it is absent. ## What Changed - Add one storage provider declaration with supported modes/strategies, a capability, a validated RPC contract, and a test harness. - Persist provider ownership, repository revision, and execution-workspace identity before external effects. Reconcile retries with a stable operation ID. - Prepare provider storage before environment acquisition. Keep Core filesystem preparation out of this path. - Pin the durable reference to the matching execution plugin and validate the lease binding before task dispatch. - Route inspection, reopen, and removal through the existing lifecycle process. Keep local data when remote recovery is uncertain. - Keep the application database pool free during lifecycle locks. Preserve pending workspace selections, validate source edits before retirement, and retry unfinished closed storage cleanup. - Protect provider metadata and live repository sources from caller edits. Storage edits retire only closed records with confirmed removal; retired records cannot reopen. ## Verification - Current head `8214b3ca5`: all 25 provider lifecycle tests pass with `maxConnections=1`. They cover preparation, inspection, reopening, removal, a paused provider with responsive ordinary SQL and a competing source edit, pending selection preservation, rejected source edits, cleanup retry scheduling, and providers that cache operation results, and committed cleanup notifications for storage intent and recovered state. - Final frozen-tree lifecycle run on `8214b3ca5`: all 318 tests passed in 10 files, covering workspace services, reopen, compaction, task binding, project sources, heartbeat preparation, display caching, and source locks. - Direct server `tsc --noEmit` passes. The SDK build and all 128 SDK tests passed during initial verification; later SDK changes are documentation only. - Full CI on the previous head `ec5c7209a` passed all 55 applicable checks; 2 conditional checks skipped. Standard Greptile reviewed current head `342e6d9c3` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All 55 applicable CI checks passed on `342e6d9c3`; 2 conditional checks skipped. The Slack browser and CLI startup jobs passed on their single unchanged-head rerun. Its Apex review returned 4/5 with one pending-restoration issue. Commit `1b58943b1` reconciles that durable intent before cleanup, advances the generation without reopening the Core row, and blocks direct removal or retirement while intent remains unresolved. Standard Greptile reviewed `1b58943b1` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 54 applicable CI checks passed on `1b58943b1`; 3 conditional checks skipped. The chat job passed on its single unchanged-head rerun. Apex then returned 4/5 for a missing cleanup wake after recovery. Commit `8214b3ca5` atomically registers cleanup intent before storage intent and recovery-result writes. Its provider test observes real committed notification hints and the visible advanced generation. Standard Greptile reviewed `8214b3ca5` at 5/5 with no new findings. All 55 applicable current-head CI checks passed on the first run; 2 conditional checks skipped. Final Apex verification completed at 5/5 on this exact head: 38 files reviewed, no new comments, and no unresolved threads. The PR is ready for review and mergeable. - The first Apex review found five issues after a standard 5/5: application-pool starvation, stale pending selections, retirement during rejected source edits, lost cleanup retries, and reused inspection identities. Commits `6d72e7fd4` and `342e6d9c3` fix each with regression coverage. Archive lock waits use dedicated connections, and source edits fail promptly if the lifecycle is busy. Retirement compares normalized values. The normalized-source regression initially failed with the raw-value comparison; after moving the check after normalization, a clean provider-suite rerun passed all 24 tests at that stage. Those threads are resolved; the earlier Apex 0/5 is not a passing acceptance result. - Earlier local integration attempts could not bind localhost inside the sandbox. The same suites passed with permission to start local PostgreSQL. - The earlier broad local `pnpm test:run` overlapped edits and reported stale-revision and checkout-path/Git-fixture failures. It was not a final-tree result. Full CI subsequently passed; the original local failure remains part of verification history. - Local repository-wide typecheck/build cannot complete because `cargo` is unavailable. Direct server TypeScript checks and affected tests pass; full Rust and build validation comes from CI. - An earlier browser run on `ff918c5a8` failed in the unchanged case-filter journey: expected “Done,” received “All statuses,” with an announcement handler recorded during the assertion. The cause is not confirmed. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39500611857/job/118896954508) remains verification history. The unchanged shard passed in the next full CI run on `ec5c7209a`; no UI or fixture change was made. - Current-head browser shard 2 failed waiting five seconds for the mocked Slack setup Success heading. This PR changes neither that UI nor its fixture. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021232) remains verification evidence. The cause is not confirmed; the single unchanged-shard rerun passed; no UI or fixture change was made, and the original cause remains unconfirmed. - The workspace test shard passed its 3,978 general tests, then its CLI company-import/export fixture timed out after 30 seconds waiting for startup health before creating any company or workspace. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39506070513/job/118916021855) remains verification history. The child reached external-PostgreSQL startup without exiting or reporting an exception. Its cause is not confirmed; the single unchanged-job rerun passed, including the CLI fixture. No startup or fixture change was made, and the original cause remains unconfirmed. - The new cached-removal regression initially failed because its fake worker advertised availability for unrelated fixture plugins, so another workspace changed its fake checkout state. Worker availability now matches the fixture plugin; the complete 25-test provider suite passes. - On `1b58943b1`, the chat shard timed out polling for one conversation after an authorized GitHub description edit. [The failed job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39510521657/job/118930193418) remains evidence. The exact case passes locally against PostgreSQL (1 passed, 1,380 unrelated cases skipped), and this PR changes neither that test nor its handler. The original cause is unconfirmed; the single unchanged-job CI rerun passed without a code or fixture change. The original cause remains unconfirmed. - The diff was checked for credentials, private references, and generated artifacts. ## Risks This is an additive provider contract with no database migration. Existing projects keep their local behavior unless their policy selects a storage plugin. A selected provider must be ready and enabled. Unknown or unsafe cleanup fails closed. Managed native execution depends on #16978. Core refuses a host Runner fallback. Providers must fence lifecycle generations, preserve ambiguous retries, and report remote recovery honestly. Provider-specific live storage and guest mount qualification remain separate from these Core contract tests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with repository inspection, code execution, and tests. The exact model variant 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (affected suites; broad-run limits are documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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>	2026-10-20 16:35:33 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	505e1a5582	feat(cases): add persistent workflows with same-task agent handoffs (#16959) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - An agent workflow needs persistent facts and a safe way to transfer work. > - Creating a task for each phase splits the objective, discussion, workspace, and review policy. > - A case can retain the facts while one primary task moves between agents. > - Transfers must survive process failure and preserve private access, budgets, and completion gates. > - This pull request adds durable case handoffs, native case tools, and read-only case pages. > - Prompts describe the workflow. Existing task controls decide when work can run and finish. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Prompt-driven agent teams need a persistent record that can move through triage, implementation, verification, and correction. Ordinary reassignment does not provide a durable instruction, safe release barrier, or recoverable delivery receipt for an agent handing off its own running task. **Proposed solution** Extend standalone cases with one primary task, a descriptive phase, retained access sources, and a handoff ledger. Apply assignments after source execution and workspace settlement. Deliver each transfer through the existing durable wake queue. Provide `create_case`, `read_case`, `update_case`, and `handoff_case` in the native runner. Creation requires kickoff and explicit workflow text. An explicit handoff to `done` closes the case when normal task completion is accepted. **Alternatives considered** Do not add a workflow engine, filesystem queue, configured state graph, or one task per phase. The workflow document combines transition prose with an optional Mermaid `stateDiagram-v2` map. The server does not execute the diagram. The Pipelines experiment removed on master stays removed. **Roadmap alignment** This extends Agent Reviews and Approvals, Enforced Outcomes, Bounded Run Recovery, and Activity Log attribution. Existing approval, review, budget, privacy, workspace, and responsible-user rules remain authoritative. Related work: [ordinary handoff wake recovery](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15019). This feature adds a separate persisted case-handoff receipt and release barrier. ## What Changed - Add case routing fields, retained access sources, durable handoff history, delivery leases, and replay-safe migrations. - Keep the same primary task across agent phases. Preserve each returning agent's own session and the task's workspace. - Fence outgoing mutations, wait for provider and workspace release, and recover delivery without duplicate task comments or runs. Recheck current assignment permissions as the original caller before applying a delayed transfer. Scope a run Stop to that run’s own handoff intents, so repeated old Stop requests preserve newer work. Cancelling terminal intent without a source run also requires fenced current task ownership, including native retries and preparation with an old checkout. For Cloud callers, revalidate current stack membership with an uncached Cloud RPC and derive owner elevation from the current managed setting. - Keep case reads, documents, assets, Audit, and live events inside retained task/project permissions. - Add native case creation/read/update/handoff tools. Store required workflow text and initial documents on the first task. Page oversized case facts and referenced document bodies through the dedicated tool with bounded UTF-8 JSON, current routing versions, snapshot conflicts, and current source authorization on every page. - Add read-only case lists and detail pages, task-style list controls, compact dotted field tables, linked handoff tasks, and case filters in Audit. - Add native/legacy integration tests, migration/restart tests, browser coverage, and bounded live receipt fixtures. Extend the trusted sandbox condition to cover the new subscription fixture profile. - Hide obsolete paused-agent warnings on completed or cancelled task threads. - Synchronize the company-switch settings test with React effects after a CI failure. Preserve its security assertions and production remount behavior. ## Verification The branch directly includes master `9ef434fe79`. The required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates pass on head `765fccd67c`. [Current-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39464348614) passes typecheck, build, tests, and all eight browser shards. Security checks pass. [Greptile gives this exact head 5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16959#issuecomment-6291156549), with no unresolved review threads. The optional Paperclip Review check remains queued because its assigned agent is paused. It is not a required branch check. No check result was overridden. Local workspace typecheck and build pass after the master merge, along with database migration checks, token gates, map checks, Storybook catalog checks, and the Copilot profile identity check. Standard builds refresh Runner vendor output. Focused checks pass 2,008 API/paging/context tests and 7 strict case protocol tests. The final commit changes one test fixture only; its ten tests, UI typecheck, and token gates pass. No production source changed in that commit. On current head `765fccd67c`, all **194 critical workflow tests** executed and passed with no skipped tests in those files: - 38 Stop/ownership tests, including board completion intent, native retries, stale Stop, and preparation with an old checkout. - 2 actual legacy process/HTTP handoff tests, including scratch failure, a closed-stdio child that continues writing, and recovery through a fresh worker after the process group stops. - 5 migration tests, including SQL column metadata, preserved null authority context, and all six prior-numbering receipts. - 3 process-settlement and 5 scratch tests. - 88 handoff-service, 18 heartbeat handoff, and 21 native case-tool integration tests. - 7 bounded case/document-read projection tests and 7 strict protocol-contract tests. The current CI checkout was `fed65d49`, merging `765fccd67c` into master `9ef434fe79`. Its new document regressions reconstruct exact Unicode/escaped bodies and revisions through real native authority and authenticated HTTP with generic API tools disabled. They cover case-owned, primary-task, and linked-task documents; routing on every page; stale document snapshots; access loss and unlinking; unrelated/foreign/private sources; system documents; and quarantined content. Active-task document tools retain their existing behavior. These are current-head test results from the first CI attempt; the browser-only retry did not rerun these suites. The full `64fdd3403f` CI failed one separate settings test: after a company switch, it observed an unsettled API-key draft. The production component and test were unchanged from prior green source. Production switches remount both keyed settings layers; the test directly reused an unkeyed view and used a timer tick instead of waiting for React effects. The final commit replaces that fixture synchronization with React `act`. The exact secret-clearing assertions and all timeouts remain unchanged. The original assertion failure remains recorded; no unchanged retry was used. The narrow unchanged baseline and fixed fixture each pass 10 tests. The upstream result-paging merge preserves case capture namespaces and current asset privacy. Its API integration suite executed 39 of 41 tests successfully, with two skipped; the optional assigned-result PRP integration test was skipped. Neither skipped suite is counted in the 194 critical tests or as live provider proof. All 361 upstream migration entries and SQL bodies remain unchanged. Six case migrations follow master as 0363–0368 with identical SQL hashes. Official Drizzle generators produced the combined metadata and five retained snapshots. Generation reports no schema changes, and the snapshot drift test passes. The earlier `ce361ae5d0` CI passed on attempt 1, including its then-current 179 critical tests. Fresh review later identified unusable document references with generic API tools disabled; the bounded document reads and ten additional authenticated HTTP tests address that finding. The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was cancelled after this Mac exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore capacity; it is **not** counted as a pass. Later database attempts also stopped before assertions or skipped, including one sandbox socket denial. Two original stale-Stop regressions did reproduce the bug against the old source. A REST serialization assertion passed after two preserved database-startup failures. No test timeout was increased. All 194 assertions listed above executed and passed in current-head CI. The complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard also passed after the fixture repair. A configured-provider receipt workflow passed 13 backend checks across triage → implementation → verification → correction → done, using one task and four work runs. The saved receipt is revision 2 with total 6 USD; case and task both closed. The original canonical attempt remains failed because its browser assertion confused the terminal destination with completed-task tooltips. The corrected full browser verifier passed on the same retained database and original runs, with no additional provider calls. The last clean-build browser readback is on `6a86c54a53`; later changes affect recovery, authorization, bounded reads, and settlement. Accounted work cost is a $1.010574 rate-card estimate; provider billing and setup-probe usage are unavailable. Copilot profile 49 passed the unchanged seven-fixture private protocol pack (46/46 checks, no retries) and the product file-edit canary after master's completion-replay change. All 60 bound implementation hashes remain unchanged on the current source. Historical profile-47/48 identities and results remain intact. See the [profile-49 compatibility record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/persistent-case-handoffs/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-completion-recovery-compatibility-v49.json). This is bounded compatibility evidence, not a fresh full matrix, installed-package product test, or Daytona rollout. Preserved CI failures and retries: - On `20662930ac`, Slack managed setup failed a five-second success assertion after reload. Its test/application path was unchanged from a prior green head. One unchanged-source retry passed all 25 tests in that shard; no source or timeout changed. - On `9402b4f17a`, two CI workers received shutdown signals at 15:24:19 UTC. Neither log had an assertion failure before interruption. One unchanged-source retry of each passed all Runner static checks and all 32 tests in browser shard 6; both aggregates passed. The next head, `7b4374edaf`, passed all CI without retries. - On `295f289b5a`, serialized shard 9 timed out during its first device-login test, then the next test found an active login lease. Direct login/test paths were unchanged from a prior green head. Cold import plus a timed-out async body using the next test's mutable actor/store is the supported fixture-race explanation; no request trace proves that sequence. The original failure remains recorded. One unchanged-source retry passed all 294 tests in 19 files, including all 41 device-login tests. No login source or timeout changed. The subsequent `ce361ae5d0` CI passed without retries. - On `64fdd3403f`, one company-switch settings assertion observed an unsettled draft. The final test-only commit uses React `act` without changing assertions, timeouts, or production code. On `765fccd67c`, all ten settings tests and the complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard passed. - On `765fccd67c`, browser shard 3 completed the split-handoff assertions, then cleanup received HTTP 500 from run cancellation after a one-second PostgreSQL row-lock timeout. The extra chat run was reporting completed work while teardown began. Cleanup stopped before restoring a global experiment flag, causing a later assertion to fail. Relevant production and test paths are unchanged from an earlier green commit. Stop's lock order is consistent, and no nested self-lock was found; the exact PostgreSQL blocker was not recorded. One unchanged-shard retry passed. The original failure, trace, and downstream flag failure remain recorded. No Stop implementation, cleanup assertion, or timeout changed. The retry supports intermittent cleanup contention; it does not identify the original blocking transaction. ## Risks - Local process transfers require host-owned PID/group absence. Missing or uncertain termination evidence keeps delivery pending, independently of scratch setup. - Handoff admission and task cancellation share execution ownership. New regression tests cover temporary holds, late source writes, and uncertain provider termination. - Retained private sources use an intersection of existing permissions. This intentionally fails closed when a source is missing or an existing task cannot preserve that boundary. - Migrations add tables and indexes. They preserve master history and can replay over prior feature installs. Migration 0368 adds nullable internal authorization provenance with no default or authority backfill. Historical transfers still awaiting release without this context fail closed; an operator must cancel them and request a new handoff. - Delayed Cloud handoffs depend on the current Cloud membership RPC. An unavailable, ambiguous, expired, or mismatched response holds the handoff for retry; it does not reuse cached authority or grant access. - Bounded reads reload and reauthorize the selected projection per page. Underlying work grows with the data size and number of pages. Changed data or routing requires restarting from offset zero without the old snapshot. - Phase names and workflow diagrams remain advisory. They do not satisfy review or approval gates. - This is a large, cross-cutting PR. The maintainer requested one PR for the whole feature; the commits separate data, runtime, UI, and qualification work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and delegated code review. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size were not exposed in the session. Live fixture agents used the explicitly configured provider model recorded in their test evidence. ## 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>	2026-10-20 12:46:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	bc091f0a21	fix(recovery): recover retained workspaces before saved messages (#16906) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stopped run can leave useful files in its original sandbox. > - The server keeps that sandbox when it cannot confirm file copyback. > - The task can then save new user input but offers no safe way to recover the files. > - A retry of the old agent turn can repeat work that already finished. > - This pull request recovers files through the existing workspace owner and delivers only saved human input. > - The user can recover a task without certifying infrastructure facts or losing completed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16883 and #16835 for publication receipts and verified process termination. Related: #16478 clears stale holds after copyback already succeeded. This change performs the missing export and records its proof. #16901 manages the main GitHub response comment and does not perform workspace repair. **What happened?** A failed run retained its workspace. A later user message stayed saved behind a file-repair hold. The task asked the user to verify process termination and file recovery but offered no repair control. Sending a message could show an optimistic Working state and move the task to Todo before admission succeeded. **Expected behavior** The harness should recover the original files when it can prove ownership and termination. It should preserve newer edits and completed operations. Only waiting user input may start another turn. Missing evidence must keep the source held with a specific explanation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Interrupt a sandbox run before workspace finalization succeeds. 2. Retain its exact allocation and save a user follow-up. 3. Observe the file-repair hold and missing end-user repair path. ## What Changed - Add source-bound background recovery for native and legacy runs. An accepted native result is not required. - Share the physical copyback lock and durable owner. Resume only the exact stopped allocation, export files, verify persistence and obtain a fresh stop receipt. - Persist retry limits and idempotent requests on the existing recovery record. Limit each server to two background exports. Add an indexed candidate scan and a separate cleanup obligation. - Add a task-editor recovery endpoint. Deny agents and viewers. Reject caller-supplied stop or repair claims. - Deliver waiting human input once through ordinary admission. Preserve pause, approval, budget and assignment gates. Require historical conversational-adapter evidence for legacy-to-Runner continuation. - Include exact GitHub publication receipts in continuation context. Preserve unknown effects and the original failed run. - Show observed recovery progress, a transient-failure retry action and specific service blockers. Keep saved messages visible. Suppress false startup feedback and implicit Todo promotion behind a file hold. Hide unavailable workspace links. - Update execution semantics, capability maps and production-component stories. ## Verification - Red: the original read model failed the new recovery-progress assertion; the other 23 checks in that file passed. - Passed: recovery regressions with 28 cases with real PostgreSQL, files, tar and Git operations. Lifecycle provider calls are controlled test boundaries. Coverage includes native/legacy export, concurrent owners, rollback after export, interrupted archive export with a new database connection, lost replies, historical discovery, durable retry limits, separate cleanup and saved-input delivery. The actual candidate query uses its partial index with 3,000 unrelated history rows. A first automatic repair can bind verified old-controller stop proof without an accepted native result. Review also reproduced and fixed export-only continuation and cleanup lost after a committed repair. Cleanup remains discoverable without waiting input and after task reconciliation. - Passed: two GitHub integration cases verify that continuation context carries the existing publication receipt and does not write another response. Company and task boundaries are checked. - Passed: 293 continuation, workspace-sync, platform-receipt and OpenAPI checks. After file repair, actual dispatch retains pause, cancellation, approval, real budget-policy and assignment gates. - Passed: 174 route checks, including editor admission, agent/viewer denial and rejection of fabricated repair claims. - Passed: 351 task detail, workspace properties and comment-reopen checks after updating the new read boundaries and asynchronous workspace-link expectations. Two new route cases keep held tasks Blocked when a comment is saved. - Passed: 265 task-thread and recovery-notice checks. The broader continuation suite also passed; its new legacy migration case first exposed a gap that the focused recovery suite now covers. - Passed after rebase: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The later master merge adds an unrelated permission migration; recovery migration generation and safety checks passed after the merge. - Passed: token gates, module boundaries, map structure and migration checks. The recovery index is migration 0360 after current master. - Browser: inspected the production recovery component and its retry-to-queued transition with fixture data. The first dev dependency load failed; a reload after optimization resolved it. This is UI evidence, not a live provider recovery claim. - Every test shard passed on final commit `bbbc09efb4`. The older local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the complete CI test matrix passed. Local full typecheck and production build passed. The first CI build compiled and booted, then lost its runner during the clean public npm-install check. An isolated retry passed the build, production boot and clean public npm-install verification. - Greptile reviewed final commit `bbbc09efb4` at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - The change is not deployed. Hosted recovery remains unverified until the served revision includes this change. ## Risks - Recovery crosses process, provider and persistence boundaries. Missing or mismatched ownership, stop, descriptor or file evidence keeps the hold. It never selects a replacement allocation or silently starts over. - File recovery does not certify external action outcomes or authorize replay. New input still uses normal execution admission. - Historical sources without sufficient durable evidence can remain blocked. Destructive reconstruction stays separate. - The index migration is idempotent. It changes no task data. Snapshot pruning follows repository policy. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with code execution and browser tools. `gpt-6-astra` assisted earlier investigation. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 21:51:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	16689de291	fix: add one-click retry for restricted workspace setup (#16909) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks need a clear way to resume after a setup failure. > - A shared repository can contain another task that the assigned agent cannot read. > - Paperclip correctly stops before the agent starts, but the user must then understand workspace settings to recover. > - This pull request gives that failure a single Retry button and selects a clean copy of the configured repository through normal admission. > - The task keeps its assigned agent and execution settings, while access checks and existing work remain protected. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16895 classifies the restricted source failure. This change adds the user recovery action. #16906 handles retained files after execution; this change handles a setup failure before execution starts. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Recovery of a task whose shared repository includes a task workspace the assigned agent cannot read. **Current behavior** The task stops before provider work and asks the user to understand workspace choices or access grants. **Proposed behavior** Show Retry above the task message box, independent of loaded conversation history. One click requests one attempt using a clean checkout of the configured remote. Show Retrying while the request is pending. Show an error only if the request fails. **Reason and benefit** The user can resume work without understanding repository isolation or changing access to another task. **Breaking changes** None. The recovery source value is server-owned. The public workspace selection request does not accept it. No migration is required. ## What Changed - Add one Retry control above the composer in both task conversation views. It stays available when an older notice is outside the loaded comment pages. - Bind recovery to the latest failed run, current assignee, and recorded proof that provider work did not start. - Use the existing atomic recovery route and pending workspace selection. Normal admission clears the old session and creates the isolated checkout. - Choose a fresh task-owned branch for recovery, including fixed project branches, existing task branches, and adapter branch overrides. Preserve the model, environment, setup commands, pending user workspace choices, previous files, and all execution gates. - Update execution documentation and both workspace maps. ## Verification - Passed all 461 tests in the eight affected database, Git, HTTP, workspace binding, and conversation suites after the review fixes. An additional 292 tests passed after the final compatibility fixes, including IssueDetail and recovery action routing. - Concurrent HTTP retries produce one wakeup. Paused projects and runs that started provider work reject recovery without changing the workspace. - Real Git tests exclude private files, private commits, and unpublished original files from the clean checkout, preserve the original, and exercise reuse, cleanup, and reopen. - Verified in a running local app: a task failed twice, displayed only Retry, and reached Done after one click. A second browser test put the failure notice behind 501 newer comments and used a fixed project branch. Retry stayed visible and the task reached Done. The credential-free process worker used the selected checkout and wrote its result there. This does not claim a live model-provider run. - The first manual fixture lacked a responsible-user membership and failed after successful workspace recovery. Corrected the fixture, retained that failure evidence, and verified the full flow with ordinary authorization. - Full typecheck, build, token gates, and map checks passed. The full local suite was stopped after review changed its source during execution; current-head CI provides the complete suite result. - An earlier unrelated peer-comment read test hit a socket hangup. The next complete affected-suite run passed; the first failure is retained in local evidence. - Current-head CI hit an unchanged runner credential-concurrency test failure. That lane passed on the preceding commit, and all 42 credential tests passed locally. The original failed job is retained; the one-time rerun passed. All latest-head CI checks are green (55 success, 2 skipped, 1 neutral), and Greptile is 5/5 with both review threads resolved. ## Risks - A remote repository outage can still prevent the next attempt. Retry does not grant access or copy unpublished files from the old checkout. - Recovery accepts only the latest recorded pre-provider failure and preserves normal execution gates. This limits duplicate work and stale recovery requests. - No database migration, dependency, or lockfile change. - The first review found fixed-branch retry loops and dependence on paginated notice history. Both had failing regressions before the fixes and now pass targeted tests and the combined browser journey. - Full CI then caught assumptions about missing run evidence and unrelated recovery actions. The final changes tolerate absent evidence and scope the new lookup to board-owned actions with valid run IDs. The previously failing suites now pass locally. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. The exact serving 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>	2026-10-19 21:49:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7c58ea07b2	fix(issues): guard prepared task promotion by status version (#16893) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Integrations can prepare a backlog task before its assigned agent starts. > - A person can change its status or assignment during preparation. > - An unconditional promotion can replace that newer decision. > - Safe promotion needs a saved revision that includes every assignment path. > - This pull request checks that revision under the task row lock and derives policy cleanup from the locked row. > - The benefit is safe initialization recovery with the existing company, task, and run authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Prerequisite #16896 has merged. This PR now targets master and contains only the conditional promotion API. The prerequisite fixed the confirmed baseline first-upload browser regression. **What happened?** A client that saves a task's initial documents and then sends an unconditional status update can override a concurrent status or assignment decision. The update validator previously dropped an expected version, so clients could not make this promotion conditional. Some direct assignment and release paths also did not advance the revision. **Expected behavior** A prepared task moves from backlog to todo only if its original status and assignment revision still matches. A stale request returns 409 before a task mutation, audit publication, or wake. Policy cleanup preserves unrelated saved settings. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a backlog task and save its statusVersion before preparing it. 2. Release its assignment, or change an assignee and then restore that assignee. 3. Send `{ "status": "todo", "expectedStatusVersion": <original revision> }` to its PATCH endpoint. 4. The stale promotion must return 409. A matching revision on an unchanged backlog task must succeed. Duplicate and related PR searches found no existing prepared-task promotion fix. ## What Changed - Accept an optional nonnegative expectedStatusVersion for exactly a status-only backlog-to-todo promotion. Reject extra public fields before parsing can discard them. - Check the current revision and backlog state under the issue row lock. Reject stale requests before checkout adoption or execution-control effects. - Add SQL migration 0358 to advance the revision for both assignee fields at the database boundary. Release, administrative release, direct writes, and assignment round trips now invalidate an old version. - Derive guarded policy cleanup from the locked row. Preserve review limits and protected authorization when removing a monitor. Reject derived ownership changes or review decisions. - Add schema, real HTTP/PostgreSQL, concurrency, migration replay, and policy regression coverage. Update the response type, OpenAPI, developer docs, and access map. ## Verification - Red before the initial fix: stale requests returned 200 instead of 409, validation removed the expected version, and a stale active task could adopt a checkout. - Review found two further defects. Four new release/direct-assignment tests showed unchanged revisions. The real HTTP/service test returned 422 for a valid two-field promotion after monitor cleanup. Helper tests also proved that cleanup lost valid review limits and protected authorization. All now pass after focused repairs. - Green: 124 route and policy tests, including 7 real Express/PostgreSQL cases, 37 existing route tests, and 80 policy/helper tests. The real row-lock race preserves a policy edit committed while promotion waits. - Green: all 23 database client tests, plus 9 focused assignment and replay checks. Historical migration 0227 receipt recovery cannot remove the new assignment trigger. Reapplying migration 0358 leaves existing rows unchanged and installs one trigger. Combined status/assignment writes increment once; unchanged assignees do not increment. - Earlier verification passed all 218 schema/route/service cases and the generated OpenAPI capability test. Rebased focused regressions passed all 27 selected cases. Final server TypeScript passed after all repairs; shared TypeScript passed. Migration safety/numbering, five-snapshot retention, map validation, and diff checks pass. - The baseline browser attachment case failed twice on the earlier head. Separate #16896 proved the lost-composer cause, passed 335 component tests and the real first-upload journey, and has green CI with a 5/5 review. No assertion or timeout was weakened. - Some early local checks were blocked by missing or stale sibling dependency artifacts. This worktree now has its own frozen offline install and standard SDK prerequisites. The failures and successful reruns remain in the task evidence. - Before rebasing, head `3304bb00de6ad6a248b5e046c008072ad20ac8f5` passed all CI (55 successful checks and one neutral), Greptile 5/5, and a secondary source review at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The secondary reviewer did not execute project tests, inspect CI, or exercise a live agent journey. Earlier incomplete and must-fix assessments remain visible; both established findings are repaired above. - After #16896 merged, all five CAS commits were rebased onto master `87d9386ae637c652d1fed09d2046be1bcaeb413b`. Migration 0358 was regenerated because master added another 0357. Range comparison shows no other change to the CAS patches; inherited UI commits are absent. The original head is preserved locally. - Rebased head `1c0264e51a280b1dbf597725a7e42e72d4be1b1b` passes all 124 route/policy tests, 9 selected assignment/promotion tests, and all 24 database client/snapshot-drift tests. Database build, migration checks, generated snapshot linkage, five-snapshot retention (0354–0358), maps, and diff checks pass. Fresh-head CI and review are pending. No deployment or live agent journey was performed for this API. ## Risks - The guard supports prepared backlog promotion only. Other statuses or mixed public mutation fields return 422. A stale revision or non-backlog row returns 409. - Preserve the original version from a server that already advertises this guard before initialization. Older versions did not track every assignment path. Reconcile older or uncertain initialization instead of fetching a new revision and blindly retrying. - Migration 0358 is SQL-only and idempotent. It adds no table, column, or task backfill. Its separate trigger survives historical status-migration replay. - Existing authorization and unguarded updates remain in place. Guarded promotion does not provide a general lifecycle or review-stage control API. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used tool calls, code execution, and test-first regression 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-10-19 16:27:11 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3e5a9f5afe	perf(ui): load recent tasks with bounded summaries (#16851) ... Replace passive recent-task detail reads with bounded, authorized summaries. Keep account isolation, stored history, task actions, and live recovery behavior. Overlap access checks with shell settings and avoid duplicate session and health reads on the first healthy socket opening. Retain domain reconciliation. Add focused coverage and local performance evidence. Isolate the existing cache capacity test from entry expiry on slow CI runners. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 12:13:28 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d20cb69ce5	fix(heartbeat): preserve active retries when comments arrive (#16855) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - Heartbeat retries preserve task ownership after a recoverable failure. > - The issue read model includes retries that are scheduled, queued, or running. > - The human comment route treated every retry in that model as parked work. > - A normal status comment could therefore cancel a running continuation and return its task to Todo. > - This pull request limits comment supersession to parked retries and checks that state at the cancellation fence. > - The agent can keep working when a person adds context. Explicit Stop and Interrupt remain available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A Board comment on an in-progress task cancelled its running recovery continuation. The handler read a live retry from `getCurrentScheduledRetry` but did not check its status. The cancellation also forced workspace recovery when copy-back did not complete. **Expected behavior** A comment must preserve queued and running execution. Only a retry that is still `scheduled_retry` may be superseded. If promotion wins the race, the comment must keep the task in progress and follow the normal wake path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task retry advance from `scheduled_retry` to `running`. 2. Keep its retry reason and source run identity in the stored row. 3. Post a normal human comment, without an Interrupt request. 4. Observe the old handler cancel the run and move the task to Todo. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master base `9966f31bee`. The staging incident served `f3cd3f4ea89539b68410841d39ec15a5c626007f`. **Deployment mode** Staging server with a remote runner. The defect is in the core comment and cancellation path. Refs #16835 and #16843. Those repairs cover runner health and workspace preservation. This change prevents a normal comment from requesting the wrong cancellation. Related #9732 promotes human wakes on parked retries; it does not protect a retry that is already running. ## What Changed - Check the live retry status in both comment routes: POST comments and PATCH issue with a comment. - Add an optional expected-status fence to cancellation. A concurrent promotion or terminal outcome returns a no-op result. - Make due-retry promotion honor a cancellation claim under its issue and run row locks. A scheduler cannot promote work after cancellation has won. - Finish persisted cancellations of parked retries through the existing startup and periodic recovery sweep. Preserve their original request and retry a failed settlement without starting provider work. - Keep the task active when guarded cancellation does not win. Do not record a cancellation that did not occur. - Add route regressions, real PostgreSQL race tests, and pending-retry and explicit Stop safety coverage. - Exercise both normal HTTP comment routes with real services, stored Board membership, PostgreSQL, and a live child process. Assert that the process can still perform work, the task keeps its original execution, and no second executor starts. - Document the comment supersession contract and update the task feature/access maps with the local regression coverage and deployed acceptance recipe. ## Verification - Before the fix, all four POST/PATCH regressions cancelled queued or running work. - Before the fix, the real PostgreSQL race test cancelled a retry that became running after lookup. - The comment-route suite passes **103 tests**. The final dispatch, cancellation, restart recovery and HTTP/live-process suites pass **119 tests**, for **222 affected tests** across these runs. They cover comment delivery, both sides of the promotion race, concurrent terminal outcomes, pending retries, explicit Stop, and a live process that can continue work. - Command: `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat/run-control.test.ts`. - The normal HTTP/live-process acceptance suite passes all **14 tests**, including both comment endpoints with stored Board membership and deterministic wakeup teardown. - Review exposed a second race after the cancellation claim. Its new PostgreSQL test failed before the dispatch guard with `promoted` and passes afterward with `not_promoted`, followed by completed cancellation. - A real PostgreSQL constraint interrupts the terminal cancellation write after its intent commits. The assembled recovery service failed to settle that row before the repair. Afterward a fresh service settles it, clears its task lock, cancels its saved wake, preserves the original request and leaves unrelated parked retries alone. A repeated database failure preserves the intent for a later successful sweep; a second successful sweep adds no duplicate event. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Server typecheck and build pass again after the final server-only review fix. A local full-suite attempt started on `f8773bf` did not return an overall result; its log is preserved and no local full-suite pass is claimed. The new recovery change passes the focused suites and fresh server typecheck/build. Latest-head CI on `8f928adee67c089e1ac405d2ad3b169eedb8da27` is green: the full PR workflow and commitperclip review passed; only the two optional Storybook jobs skipped. - Greptile reviewed final head `8f928adee67c089e1ac405d2ad3b169eedb8da27` at **5/5**, with no unresolved findings. All actual latest-head CI checks passed; the two optional Storybook jobs skipped. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes after the map updates (34 areas, 172 capability IDs); it checks structure only. - Fixed-revision staging acceptance is pending deployment. The original workspace remains held and its latest source checkpoint is backed up and verified. ## Risks - A promoted retry must keep its execution and ownership when a comment arrives. The database status predicate and route no-op handling enforce this at the race boundary. - A cancellation intent must prevent promotion without leaving work parked forever after a restart. The recovery sweep consumes at most 20 such intents per pass through guarded cancellation, and a failed settlement keeps its intent for retry. - A parked retry must still accept fresh instructions. Its existing cancellation and wake behavior remains covered. - Ordinary Stop and Interrupt calls omit the expected-status option. Their cancellation authority is unchanged and remains covered by the run-control suite. - No schema migration or API request contract changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` in Codex, with extra-high reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The session does not expose its context-window limit. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 11:34:27 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9077748894	Remove the Pipelines experiment and preserve its data (#16834) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Pipelines was an unused experiment with its own UI, API, CLI, and automation. > - Keeping it leaves unsupported product surfaces and extra task-detail queries. > - Removing the experiment must preserve data that users already saved. > - This pull request removes the feature and keeps its database schema and migration history. > - Cases and Routines remain available as separate features. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Remove the unused Pipelines experiment across the application. **Current behavior** The experiment includes pipeline boards, stage settings, case automation, review queues, learnings, permissions, and CLI commands. Task detail also queries pipeline links. **Proposed behavior** Remove all these product surfaces and their implementation. Preserve existing tables, records, and documents. Ignore the retired boolean in older managed configurations so upgrades still start. **Breaking changes** Pipeline URLs, API endpoints, CLI commands, and `pipelines:write` are removed. Task detail no longer includes the old `linkedCases` field. The independent Cases API remains available. No database migration or cleanup is included. Related feature work: #7907, #9110, #10905, #11375, #13004, #14671, #16133. Related issues: #9663, #10310, #10312. This removal supersedes the feature; it does not implement those pending enhancements or delete their saved data. ## What Changed - Remove Pipeline UI pages, navigation, gates, clients, query keys, helpers, and unused design tokens. - Remove Pipeline REST routes, services, automation dispatch, task-detail queries, and OpenAPI discovery. - Remove the CLI commands, shared contracts, experimental flag, catalog entry, and permission defaults. - Remove feature-specific tests, tutorials, smoke scripts, maps, and Storybook examples. - Preserve database schema, migration history, and the reserved document key used by old records. - Keep Cases routes independent and cover obsolete stored and managed settings. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: targeted settings, managed configuration, sidebar, settings UI, routing, and feature-catalog tests. A first sidebar run caught a shared Workspaces icon import; the import was restored and the sidebar rerun passed. - Passed: 40 tests covering Cases routes, OpenAPI discovery, retained Pipeline table constraints, and schema snapshot drift. - Passed: token gates, map validation, generated API metadata check, Storybook catalog validation, and 28 map/catalog tests. - Passed: isolated local browser verification of navigation and Experimental settings with Pipelines absent; Cases and Routines still open normally. Live GET/POST requests to retired Pipeline endpoints return 404, and the retired setting is absent. CLI help has no Pipeline commands. - Passed: 22 access-service and agent-default-grant tests after restoring unrelated permission assertions flagged in review. - Local full run: `pnpm test:run` reported one failure in the unchanged workspace-runtime port-allocation test. That test passed in an isolated rerun. The long local run was stopped after full CI passed; it is not reported as a complete local pass. - Passed: all 56 checks on `def9181f3a4491d95fca1d38e9739f5b821aae3e` (2 conditional checks skipped), including build, typecheck, test shards, and browser suites. Eleven interrupted CI jobs reported “The operation was canceled”; their one-time retry passed. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39255211006). - Greptile: 5/5 on the final commit, with the only review finding fixed and resolved. - Sandbox socket restrictions affected the first build/API test attempts. The same commands ran with local sockets available. ## Risks - Existing Pipeline clients must stop using the removed endpoints and commands. - Existing data remains in the database and backups, but the removed UI no longer displays it. - Historical boolean `enablePipelines` values are ignored. They cannot restore the feature. - Cases and Routines must retain their separate behavior. Targeted route tests cover this boundary. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, editing, shell execution, and browser verification. The exact deployed model 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>	2026-10-19 08:09:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7c7d2d8d2c	fix(runtime): continue from saved sources after workspace loss (#16690) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runtime must preserve saved work and prevent duplicate execution. > - Older cleanup could destroy a sandbox before its workspace export finished. > - The existing recovery controls require either the original sandbox or recovered original files. > - Surviving attachments can support a rebuild, but they do not prove that missing edits were recovered. > - This pull request adds an explicit reconstruction decision and one fresh continuation through the normal execution gates. > - Operators can continue useful work while the original failed run remains truthful. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A historical failed export can have an accepted result, a prepared workspace descriptor, and a confirmed destroyed sandbox. Its notice can also say `new_source_execution_path` and disappear. The task then has neither a truthful original-file repair path nor a supported reconstruction path. **Expected behavior** Keep the missing-file obligation visible. Let an authorized operator choose surviving task attachments and record lost work and external action outcomes. Start one fresh continuation after current execution checks. Keep the old result and failed export intact. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Seed a failed native export with a prepared descriptor and an exact destroyed-lease receipt. 2. Resolve its notice with the historical `new_source_execution_path` bookkeeping value. 3. Read the task. The baseline hides the hold even though no source reconciliation exists. 4. With this change, choose **Continue from saved sources** and submit a reconstruction decision. Related public work: #16451 preserves healthy warm sessions. #16583 prevents destructive cleanup of unexported work. This change handles historical source loss that those fixes cannot undo. Searches of open and closed work found no equivalent reconstruction endpoint. ## What Changed - Add a board-only reconstruction endpoint with `runtime:manage` and task visibility checks. - Validate the exact run, result, descriptor and destroyed lease. Reject active copyback, competing owners, newer work, stale task status, and foreign attachments. - Record attachment hashes, missing work, and external action outcomes. Preserve the original failed run, accepted result, prepared descriptor and terminal failure. - Hold other continuation paths until the durable reconstruction intent admits its successor. Record that successor in the same transaction and preserve the retry count. - Add an operator control that distinguishes reconstruction from original-file recovery. Update the recovery runbook and capability maps. ## Verification - Exact baseline source returns no blocker for the destroyed-source fixture. The same fixture returns a required recovery hold with this change. - New real PostgreSQL and assembled API/heartbeat suite: 25/25 pass. It covers duplicate submissions, lost acknowledgement, context reset, source identity, task ownership, concurrent execution attachment scope, later human blocks, deleted sources and agent pause. - Existing export retry, explicit continuation and recovery-action suites: 386 cases pass. One new-fixture constraint error in the combined run was corrected; the full new suite then passed. - UI recovery suites: 46/46 pass across three files. They cover disabled actions, loss acknowledgement, failure retention and runtime authority. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The first sandboxed typecheck attempt could not open the TypeScript IPC socket; the authorized rerun passed. - Module boundaries, map checks, token gates and diff whitespace checks pass. - OpenAPI route coverage: 21/21 pass. The first CI head exposed a missing endpoint registration; this head adds the registration and the focused suite passes. - Review identified a missing dispatch-time check and an isolated attachment cache. Both are fixed. Claim and final handoff recheck the exact successor, sources and current execution gates. A controlled post-claim operator block prevents the assembled heartbeat from entering the provider. The shared attachment cache refreshes uploads and removes deleted selections. - Final focused run: 180/180 pass across six suites, including reconstruction, existing dispatch/stale-queue contracts and UI recovery. - A second review reproduced cancellation by an already satisfied historical connection card while the task was `todo`. Read-only connection availability now works before checkout; active-task mutation checks remain strict. The baseline failed two cases; after the fix all 74 connection and reconstruction tests pass, including revoked access, pending questions and pending approvals. - All current-head CI gates pass on `9d197236da11fa24f1ceadf5589cb2b81179d824`, including general/serialized tests, Runner, build and browser gates. Greptile is 5/5 for that exact head with no unresolved threads. The full local `pnpm test:run` is still running its serial server group; no full local pass is claimed. Live staging recovery is pending deployment. ## Risks - Reconstruction cannot restore missing bytes. The operator must identify surviving sources and actions that must not be repeated. The agent must verify those attachments before rebuilding. - This path is limited to exact, confirmed destroyed remote sources with an accepted result. Retained or uncertain sources keep their existing repair path. - No schema migration, credential change, budget increase or warm-session policy change is included. Normal pause, ownership, budget, approval and dispatch gates still apply. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. The session does not expose an exact backend 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 (focused suites; full local run limitation recorded above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-17 22:57:10 -05:00
Dotta	f1d925b726	fix(issues): keep workspace restoration failures retryable (#16489) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its saved files. > - Finished Git workspaces can expire and restore from a saved commit. > - A task comment must restore a closed workspace before the comment is saved. > - Failed restoration returned HTTP 503 and hid the restoration message. > - The composer treats 5xx writes as uncertain, so it blocked the draft instead of offering a clear retry. > - This change returns a definite rejection before the write and preserves the restoration message. > - Users can restore repository access and retry the same draft. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16457 and #16476. Live acceptance found this gap with a disposable expired workspace and an unavailable upstream. The saved commit and unique-file control stayed intact. No fallback workspace or comment was created. The UI still showed an uncertain comment result because the route returned 503. ## What Changed - Return HTTP 409 for a rejected workspace rebuild before the consuming write. - Preserve the service's safe restoration message in the response. - Cover rejected comment, comment-update, and checkout paths. - Document the response and draft retry behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-closed-workspace-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`: 38 passed in 26.80s. - Route tests assert that failed restoration does not save a comment or update the task. - Existing client controls preserve 409 rejections and still treat network failures and 5xx writes as uncertain. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Full PR CI passed on attempt 2: [run 38804449401](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38804449401). The first attempt timed out in the unrelated fresh personal-AI connection browser case while waiting for its first reply. Logs and browser evidence were inspected and retained; only failed jobs were rerun once, and that shard passed. - Retained live fixture will verify the error, retry, exact saved commit, and subsequent persisted work after deployment. ## Risks Clients now receive 409 instead of 503 for this known pre-write rejection. They must retry after repository access is restored. The route uses the service's fixed messages, not raw Git errors. This change does not alter restoration, authorization, cleanup, or genuine uncertain-write handling. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code execution and browser tools. The exact deployment model 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 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	2026-10-15 15:59:31 -05:00
3 people	8d9d2f9ddf	fix(recovery): preserve deliberate stops and dependency waits ... Preserve deliberate assignee blocks and operator stops during dependency and run-release recovery. Attribute native waits to their bound owner. Ignore unrelated edits and shared-workspace exports from another issue. Continue after genuine dependency changes while preserving independently authorized user input. Keep the original contributor's implementation and review history. Add native ownership, unrelated-edit, later readiness, and shared-workspace regressions. The shared-workspace loop was reproduced before the fix. Co-Authored-By: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 00:18:23 -07:00
3 people	976cdc77ed	fix(recovery): expose settled holds and their preserved decisions (#16169) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task recovery preserves work when execution or tool outcomes are uncertain. > - Automatic recovery can settle its record while keeping replay blocked. > - The recovery-actions API omitted those records unless they held workspace files. > - Operators and agent tools could therefore see an empty recovery history for a task that still had an execution hold. > - This pull request lists those holds and shows their matching decision in the existing stopped-run notice. > - Existing stop verification, continuation, and file repair gates remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A cancelled or failed task can retain a settled recovery record with `automaticRecovery.replay: blocked`. The task remains held, but the recovery-actions API returns no action. The board notice also lacks that record's decision. **Expected behavior** List settled execution holds that still block replay. Let an authorized board user inspect the current action and run in Recovery details. Preserve the existing guarded continuation and required-file repair paths. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Stop a run whose outcome requires inspection. 2. Let automatic recovery settle its record with replay blocked. 3. Read the task's recovery actions and open its stopped-run notice. 4. Before this change, the action list is empty unless workspace recovery is required. **Paperclip version or commit** This PR includes current master through `66424362a85`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated and local deployments with persisted execution recovery holds. The original API correction and route regression are by Tao Xie (@TaoXieSZ). This update preserves those commits and adds the board inspection path, current documentation, and regression coverage. Related: #14840 describes controller lease loss. This change exposes recovery records; it does not change controller lease renewal. ## What Changed - Include settled execution reconciliation holds with replay blocked in the company-scoped recovery-actions response. - Read the matching action from the existing stopped-run notice. Show its decision under Recovery details, including when active recovery is empty. - Reject mismatched historical records in the notice. Bind history to the current action/run and refresh visible decisions every five seconds. Keep history read errors visible beside the current guidance. - Preserve existing run inspection, new-message continuation, and required-file repair controls. No new reconciliation form is added. - Update the execution documentation and both recovery capability maps. ## Verification - Recovery route suite with real embedded PostgreSQL: 80 passed, none skipped. - Notice and retry-client suites: 36 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. This checks structure only. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Full `pnpm test:run` was started. It is not yet a full local pass. Initial database tests were affected by missing packaged macOS library aliases; the aliases were restored in this worktree's dependencies, and the complete recovery route suite then passed. - All CI checks passed on `09e4461e4d3a0960a4dc8bc270a2a10c628bf524`, including the full test matrix, typecheck, build and browser checks. Optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - Apex: 5/5 on the same head. Both review threads are resolved; the reviewer confirmed the existing guarded continuation design. ## Risks - The API response now includes settled records that still block replay. Consumers must distinguish a settled record from permission to continue. - Recovery history is supplemental. A failed history read keeps the current blocker and guidance visible. - The UI binds the decision to both the current action and run. It does not certify tool outcomes or grant execution authority. - No schema, dependency, telemetry, or runtime admission changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution, assisted with the board inspection and verification follow-up. The exact serving snapshot ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. The original API work is retained from Tao Xie's contribution. ## 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 (targeted suites; full-suite limits above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 17:32:35 -07:00
4 people	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>	2026-10-13 10:14:45 -05:00
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>	2026-10-13 09:26:37 -05:00
Dotta	4a641d0980	fix(ui): default human task replies to the latest assigning agent (#15594) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks let agents ask a person for input. > - The reply composer needs a useful default recipient. > - A recent comment does not identify the agent that assigned the task. > - The old fallback can select the person who is writing the reply. > - This change uses the latest agent assignment and keeps manual choices. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** When an agent assigns a task to a person, the reply composer can select that person or a different commenter. A data refresh can also replace a manual selection. **Expected behavior** For a task assigned to the current person, select the latest agent that assigned it to them. If no such assignment exists, use the latest other commenter. If neither exists, leave the recipient empty. Keep explicit choices during refreshes. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Have agent Alpha assign a task to a person. 2. Assign it to agent Beta, then have Beta assign it to the same person. 3. Open the task as that person. 4. Check that the reply composer selects Beta. 5. Select another recipient. Refresh task data. Check that the selection stays. Related work: #15091 shares task composer controls. This change fixes recipient defaults. ## What Changed - Read real assignment changes from REST and native runner task activity, in time order. - Record human assignee fields in native create and reassign activity. - Ignore unchanged assignment fields and assignments to other people. - Use the assigning agent before comment hints for human-owned tasks. - Connect the suggestion to current and classic task composers and pipeline replies. - Keep manual selections when suggestions change. - Add regression tests and document the fallback. - Use tasks with no assignee in the attachment receipt tests. This keeps the tests on the comment route. Dismiss announcements through the real UI. - Record human and agent assignees in REST creation receipts. Include child creation in the assignment history resolver. ## Verification - Focused tests cover assignment order, creation, other recipients, unchanged fields, fallback, and manual selections. - Browser fixture uses the real composer and assignment resolver. It selects Beta and keeps a manual human selection after history refresh. - Passed: 223 focused tests across four suites. - Passed: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - Passed: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`. - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates`. - The initial CI run passed full build, typecheck, Rust, unit tests and seven E2E shards. The attachment shard exposed tests that relied on the old self-selection default. The tests now select the recipient explicitly. - Native assignment regression tests and resolver tests pass: 40 tests. - Attachment E2E suite: 10 passed; one page-load timing failure passed on an isolated rerun. All 11 cases passed across the suite and rerun. - Previous full CI passed at cc7ed05. New CI must pass on the current head. - Latest local checks: 16 resolver tests and 7 workspace policy tests pass. REST creation audit tests cover both creation routes. - The latest browser check could not start. The UI build exceeded the local memory limit (exit 137). Full typecheck, tests, build, and browser checks will run in CI. ## Risks - Old activity rows without previous assignment values cannot prove a reassignment. They use the comment fallback. - An empty fallback requires the person to choose a recipient or use the existing no-assignee flow. - No database or API schema changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The session does not expose an exact model build or context window. Used code editing, shell tools, tests, 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 Final validation at f83f2f6: 55 checks passed. Two optional Storybook checks were skipped. All browser shards passed. Both review threads are resolved. Classic attachment tests use the real no-assignee confirmation.	2026-10-13 00:56:15 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	6c198d616e	fix(issues): preserve human handoffs from the active agent run (#16082) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks have one owner, and the server records assignment changes. > - An agent can finish its work by handing the task to a human for review. > - The assignment route stops the active run before it saves that handoff. > - When the caller is that run, a slow workspace restore can exceed the stop timeout and prevent the assignment from saving. > - Recovery can then mark the task Blocked while its comment says the handoff succeeded. > - This pull request lets the authenticated legacy run save a human handoff and finish its turn normally. > - Other actors and transfers to executable agents keep the verified stop requirement. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13730. Related: #13782, #14700, and #15094. **What happened?** An agent posted its review handoff, then sent `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` to assign the task to its human creator with status `in_review`. The route cancelled that same run before saving the assignment. Workspace restore took 66 seconds. The stop limit is 60 seconds. The assignment never committed. Recovery marked the task Blocked, and it stayed assigned to the agent. **Expected behavior** The authenticated active legacy run can hand its own task to a human and finish normally. The human assignment and requested review status must save without waiting for workspace restore. Native runs, board reassignment, agent API keys, and transfers to another agent still require a verified stop. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a legacy agent on its assigned task with a signed run token. 2. Send a task PATCH from that run with a human `assigneeUserId`, a null `assigneeAgentId`, and status `in_review`. 3. Make stopping the sandbox take more than 60 seconds. Before this fix, the handoff fails before the task update. With this fix, the update saves and the run finishes normally. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in hosted execution. The patch is based on master at `56a0bf0d492`. **Deployment mode** Hosted authenticated server with a legacy agent in a remote sandbox. The same route serves local deployments. PR #13782 proposes a broader exemption for all self-handoffs. This focused change limits the exemption to human recipients and legacy runs. It checks the exact active run, agent, company, and task, and it retains the stop requirement before an executable successor can take ownership. PRs #14700 and #15094 address later wake and recovery behavior after a reassignment stop. ## What Changed - Skip the reassignment cancellation only for an authenticated legacy run handing its own task to a human. - Reject later mutations from the outgoing run against its human-owned task, both in route authorization and under the update transaction locks. - Keep assignment permission checks, goal control, and queued human response protection. - Add route regressions for slow stops, active-run lookup, actor and runtime boundaries, recipient types, permission denials, and follow-up edits, completion, and reassignment. - Update the real HTTP low-trust handoff test to prove the run stays alive, its late edit fails, and the human wake receipt remains invalidated. - Add Postgres tests for saved assignment, former-owner rejection, and review state after the outgoing run succeeds or fails. - Document the handoff rule and update the task feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - 328 relevant tests passed across the route, issue service, low-trust HTTP, and legacy recovery suites. The route suite passed all 160 tests, and all 13 low-trust HTTP tests passed after updating the obsolete cancellation expectation. - Removing the production guard makes both slow-shutdown handoff regressions fail with HTTP 500. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - All 54 current-head checks passed; 2 optional Storybook checks were skipped. The CI lanes cover the full Vitest suite, typecheck/build, Runner checks, and product E2E checks. - Apex reviewed `c68fbfb356c3d80eb7136babb49940709a3c3459` at 5/5 with no findings; both earlier review threads are resolved. - The complete test lanes passed in CI. The duplicate local full `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI completed; it did not finish locally. All 328 focused local tests and full local typecheck/build passed. ## Risks - The outgoing legacy turn stays alive after the human takes ownership. Route and transactional ownership checks reject its later mutations of the human-owned task. Read and comment access follows normal policy. Goal control still runs before the handoff. - This exemption does not apply to native runs or another agent as recipient. Those paths still stop the old execution before assignment. - This fix prevents future failed handoffs. It does not infer or replay old assignment requests. - There is no schema change or API shape change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific runtime 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>	2026-10-12 20:34:28 -07:00
3 people	83e13db8fa	fix(inbox): keep automatic recovery cleanup out of personal participation (#16063) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The personal inbox uses issue activity to identify a person's participation. > - Issue reads can cancel stale recovery actions and record that cleanup as the reader's action. > - This adds unrelated tasks to the inbox and refreshes their activity timestamps. > - A workspace owner hold can also alternate between creation and cancellation after a task finishes. > - This pull request corrects cleanup attribution, excludes historical read cleanup, and retains one exact owner hold. > - Agents can read authorized issue activity to diagnose the same problem themselves. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15742 excludes logs by the execution-recovery actor from activity timestamps. This PR covers reader-attributed stale recovery cleanup, personal inbox participation, exact workspace owner holds, and sandbox issue activity access. I searched open issues and PRs for recovery inbox and activity bridge fixes. I found no duplicate for this defect. **What happened?** Loading issue lists cancels stale recovery actions under the reader's identity. The personal inbox treats those rows as user participation. One completed issue had hundreds of such rows and no edits or comments by the affected reader. A retained native workspace owner repeatedly creates a verification action that read projections then cancel. Sandbox agents cannot inspect the issue activity because the reverse bridge rejects the route. **Expected behavior** Automatic cleanup belongs to the system and does not add an issue to a reader's inbox. Historical cleanup rows remain auditable but do not count as participation or recent activity. An unresolved physical workspace owner keeps one stable verification action. Agents can inspect activity only for issues their identity may read. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Finish a task whose native run retains an unverifiable workspace owner receipt. 2. Repeat workspace recovery checks and GET requests for issue detail, compact lists, and recovery actions. 3. Observe new recovery action IDs and reader-attributed cancellations in the activity history. 4. Query the personal inbox for that reader and observe the unrelated task. 5. From a sandbox agent, request GET /api/issues/:id/activity and observe Route not allowed. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed at f5346c05b9. Regression tests use current master behavior. **Deployment mode** Authenticated hosted instance with native and legacy sandbox agents. The inbox defect is independent of the adapter. ## What Changed - Attribute automatic stale recovery cleanup to the recovery system actor. - Exclude exact historical read cleanup rows from personal inbox membership, unread counts, and both activity timestamp queries. Keep all audit rows and explicit user recovery decisions. - Retain owner verification holds only while the exact company, run, issue, and owner fingerprint still match. Apply the same rule to reads and background recovery. - Make repeated checks for the same owner hold leave its identity, attempts, and timestamps unchanged. Keep physical takeover blocked. - Allow GET issue activity through the sandbox bridge. Keep the existing company and issue-read authorization and reject broader audit routes. - Add regressions and update the runtime API and recovery documentation. Refresh generated source references for the documentation edits. Update the paired activity, inbox, and recovery maps. ## Verification - Focused Vitest verification: 315 tests pass across five files. The updated terminal owner hold regression also passes. The files cover issue service, recovery routes, activity authorization, sandbox callback bridge, and native workspace finalization. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass locally. The full general and serialized unit test matrix passes in CI on the latest commit. The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after about 30 minutes once that full CI coverage passed; it did not report a local full-suite pass. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for all paired areas and capability IDs. - Apex is 5/5 on commit 44c3787888. Its access map finding is fixed and resolved. All CI checks are green on this commit. - The new regression repeats reads and background sweeps for done and cancelled tasks. It checks one unchanged hold, zero physical copyback, zero personal inbox participation, and system cleanup after the exact receipt is cleared. - Historical cleanup tests preserve explicit recovery decisions, nullable metadata, unread counts, and the original audit rows. - Authorization tests permit an authorized agent and reject cross-company or issue-boundary reads. Bridge tests reject write methods, extra path segments, and company-wide audit routes. ## Risks Existing inbox items can disappear if their only participation evidence was automatic read cleanup. No data migration or audit deletion is needed. An unresolved workspace owner remains visible after task completion; this preserves the physical writer fence. A stale or cleared owner does not retain the hold. Issue activity access expands only the sandbox transport allowlist and still uses existing controller authorization. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and test tools. The session identifies the model family as GPT-6. A more specific runtime model ID and context window size are 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> Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-12 19:25:15 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	f329b24ee1	feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749) ... Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries. Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head 753680b61c. All review findings are resolved; the PR records focused verification and historical acceptance limits. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 20:45:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a7dd5284b5	feat: add company fast-response acknowledgements (#15748) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Human messages start agent work through task, chat, and external-channel intake. > - Agent startup can delay the first visible response. > - A small direct model call can acknowledge the request while normal work starts. > - This response must remain separate from evidence that the agent answered or completed work. > - This pull request adds optional company-wide fast responses with durable receipts, access checks, and cost accounting. > - Users receive prompt acknowledgement without changing the agent execution path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: database, shared contracts, server orchestration, connections, and UI. **Problem or motivation** Users can wait for an agent to start before they receive a contextual response. Generic progress messages do not confirm what the user asked. An acknowledgement must not falsely complete work or satisfy an unanswered turn. **Proposed solution** Add a disabled-by-default experimental fast-response model using an existing shared API connection. Generate one short acknowledgement for each accepted human turn. Use the existing agent identity and external publication outboxes. Retain platform provenance and account for the inference independently. **Alternatives considered** Running the acknowledgement through the agent runtime adds startup latency. Restricting implementation to OpenRouter leaves other existing API connections unsupported. This change supports all existing API connections and uses OpenRouter for live verification. **Roadmap alignment** This extends existing agent communication and connection settings. ROADMAP.md and open pull requests were checked. No duplicate fast-response implementation was found. The maintainer supplied the feature plan directly. ## What Changed - Add Experimental fast responses to instance settings. Keep the feature off by default. Enforce the flag at intake, dispatch, and publication. - Move Decision model and Fast response setup to company Settings → Connections when the experiment is enabled. Place Connections below Environments. Separate the model sections with clear headings and a divider. Keep Decision model in General when the experiment is off. Route Costs setup links to the available settings page. - Make the acknowledgement prompt a multiline template string. Ask for a brief, positive response in the user’s language. - Add settings, connection/model selection, sponsorship, fixed-sample testing, and Costs history. - Add a Vercel AI SDK text service for existing native, routed, Bedrock, and local API connections. - Add durable per-turn requests, a bounded worker, a three-second admission deadline, and one inference attempt. - Integrate task creation, task and agent chat, steering, queued follow-ups, experimental board chat, shared chat intake, and email. - Preserve receipt provenance and exclude receipts from completion, recovery, interaction resolution, and agent wakeups. - Recheck authorization, source validity, real replies, budgets, and destination binding before publication. Preserve accounting for suppressed or uncertain outcomes. - Add provider contracts, database race tests, channel outbox tests, UI tests, Stories, and documentation. Keep decision-model execution unchanged. ## Verification - Local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after rebase. The UI typecheck and build also pass after the final navigation fixes. All 37 focused navigation tests pass. The first full local `pnpm test:run` invocation reported seven chat failures. All seven passed in isolated reruns after fixture updates and host cleanup. This invocation was stopped after the full final-head CI suite passed. - Initial local database tests hit macOS shared-memory exhaustion. A diagnostic confirmed `shmget: No space left on device` with the system limit of 32 IDs. Three abandoned, unattached PostgreSQL IPC headers were reclaimed. The isolated rerun passed all 31 fast-response and channel tests. The two additional Slack regression cases also passed in a separate rerun. No active database was stopped. - UI token gates pass. Provider contract tests cover all supported API connection types. Fast-response tests cover uniqueness, authorization, budgets, expiry, cancellation, restart, real-reply races, and the experimental flag. - The test drive verified that disabling the experiment hides Connections and redirects its direct URL. Enabling it restores the saved OpenRouter setup. After restart on the final commit, the OpenRouter settings sample returned “Sure, I’ll take care of fixing the border around the settings panel.” in 428 ms. It used 260 input and 31 output tokens and recorded $0.0000576 in reported cost. - Earlier live OpenRouter verification produced a receipt in 1.013 seconds for a new task. The real agent then supplied its substantive answer. A separate settings test took 1.34 seconds, used 246 input and 23 output tokens, and recorded $0.0000361. - Live Slack verification on final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` passed for a fresh initial task and a follow-up in a disposable bot DM. The initial acknowledgement appeared 2.405 seconds after the Slack message and 1.413 seconds after durable acceptance; the follow-up appeared in 2.322 seconds and 1.160 seconds respectively. The recorded generation/settlement durations were 898 ms and 697 ms. The initial call used 291 input / 39 output tokens and cost $0.00006705; the follow-up used 281 / 47 and cost $0.00007035. - The Slack acknowledgements retained the assigned agent identity and `origin: fast_response`, source-turn references, and no fabricated run ID. A status snapshot after the initial receipt showed the task still `in_progress` with its real execution run. The agent then read the CSV fixture and correctly reported two ready items, two blockers, and their owners. Both replies stayed in the originating DM, and no duplicate generic working message followed the delivered contextual acknowledgements. The `new` command started a fresh conversation session without generating a fast response. - An earlier eligible Slack turn generated a response but suppressed publication. Its reported cost was retained, generic progress remained, and the real agent completed the requested result. This is recorded separately from the two delivered acknowledgements; the history did not expose a precise suppression reason. - Slack verification used real signed provider events, the existing intake/publication paths, and a user-approved temporary webhook-only HTTPS tunnel. Subscriptions were limited to direct-message events. The test bot was paused and the tunnel stopped afterward. Live channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified; their mocked tests cover intake, destination binding, publication, and continued underlying work. - Greptile reviewed final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` at 5/5. Both new review findings are fixed and all threads are resolved. [Final-head CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38060015730) passed. This includes grouped server/chat/workspace tests, serialized suites, runner checks, browser journeys, typecheck, build, release registry, policy, and the canary dry run. - Manual check: enable Experimental fast responses. Open company Settings → Connections. Select a shared API connection and model. Save and use Test response. Submit a task message and confirm that its receipt does not complete the task. ## Risks - The migration adds receipt and configuration tables plus accounting references. It uses idempotent statements and follows the current migration sequence. - A slow provider, authorization change, or real-agent reply can suppress an acknowledgement. Existing progress feedback remains available. - Unknown provider billing retains a reservation until reconciliation. External deliveries with uncertain outcomes must not be blindly repeated. - Live Slack initial-task and follow-up DM journeys pass. Live Slack channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified. The PR remains a draft and records these gaps. Final-head repository CI and automated review pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose an exact model snapshot ID or context-window size; these are not asserted. ## 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>	2026-10-10 13:09:17 -05:00
3 people	32745f4e84	feat(issues): keep follow-up parents and show the creation source (#15762) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents delegate work by creating follow-up tasks through the issue API, the CLI, and the chat `create_task` tool > - An agent can omit `parentId` when it creates a follow-up from an ordinary execution task. The API accepts the task as a top-level task. The task hierarchy does not show where the task came from, even though the run provenance is recorded > - The operator must read run history to learn why the task exists. This is slow and it hides delegated work from the parent task > - This pull request keeps the parent link for delegated follow-ups by default, keeps intentional standalone tasks possible, and shows an access-checked "Created from <task> by <agent>" note on the task page from the recorded run provenance > - The benefit is that each agent-created task shows its source without log inspection, while structural parentage, provenance, and blockers stay separate concepts ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13241 (shows tasks created from a task on the source task page; this PR shows the reverse direction on the created task) Refs #9727 (open proposal for creation provenance tracking) **What existing behavior does this improve?** Issue creation by agent runs, and the task detail page. **Subsystem affected** Server (`POST /api/companies/:companyId/issues`, `GET /api/issues/:id`), shared types, UI task detail page, CLI `issue create`, Paperclip skill docs. **Current behavior** When an agent run bound to an execution task creates a task and omits `parentId`, the task is created with no parent. The task page shows no source. The operator must inspect the run log to find the task that the agent was working on. The source run and the privacy parent are recorded, but the UI does not use them. **Proposed behavior** - When an agent run bound to an ordinary execution task omits `parentId`, the server sets `parentId` to that task. The `issue.created` activity records `parentDefaultedFromRunIssue: true`. - An explicit `parentId: null` keeps the task standalone. Conversation runs (chat handoffs), board or user creates, watchdog follow-ups, a run task the agent may not mutate, a default parent that would cause a delegation cycle, and a default parent the agent may not create a child under (for example a protected assignment policy without a grant) also stay standalone. The server runs the same `tasks:assign` decision with the defaulted parent in scope before it accepts the default. No request that succeeded before now fails. An explicit `parentId` is still checked as before. - `GET /api/issues/:id` returns `createdFrom` with the source task, the run, and the agent. The server resolves it from `origin_run_id`, or from the recorded creation activity for historical rows. It returns `null` when the viewer may not read the source task or the run, when the run is from another company, or when provenance is missing. - The task page shows "Created from <task> by <agent>" in the classic breadcrumb area and in the streamlined Tasks tab. The note is not a blocker and it is shown with or without a parent. - The CLI `issue create` command gets `--standalone`, which sends `parentId: null`. **Reason and benefit** Operators see why a task exists on the task itself. Delegated follow-ups stay inside the parent task tree, so parent completion and child wake-ups keep working. Private and cross-company sources stay hidden. **Breaking changes** None for the API schema. Agents that create tasks from a run and relied on the omitted `parentId` to mean "top-level" must now send `parentId: null` (CLI: `--standalone`). The skill and the spec document this. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issue-creation-source.ts` (new): resolves a task's creation source from the origin run or the creation activity, scoped to the company, and loads the run-bound task by UUID or identifier. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `POST /companies/:companyId/issues` defaults `parentId` to the run's task when the body omits it (with the exclusions above) and records the default in the activity log. `GET /issues/:id` adds the access-checked `createdFrom` field. - `packages/shared/src/types/issue.ts` and index exports: new `IssueCreationSource` type and the optional `createdFrom` field on `Issue`. - `ui/src/components/task-detail/IssueCreatedFromNote.tsx` (new), `TaskDetailTasksPanel.tsx`, and `IssueDetail.tsx`: show the creation source in both task page layouts and count it in the Tasks tab badge. - `cli/src/commands/client/issue.ts`: `issue create --standalone`. - Docs: `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, `doc/CLI.md`, `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`. - Tests: `server/src/__tests__/issue-creation-source-routes.test.ts` (new), `TaskDetailTasksPanel.test.tsx`, `IssueDetail.test.tsx`. ## Verification Run the new server route test (embedded Postgres): ```sh cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-creation-source-routes.test.ts ``` It covers: ordinary delegation gets the parent and `createdFrom`; explicit `parentId: null` stays standalone but still shows the source; conversation handoff and board create stay standalone; a would-be delegation cycle falls back to standalone; a protected source task without a grant falls back to standalone while an explicit parent still returns 403; an explicit cycle still returns 409; historical provenance from the creation activity; missing provenance, a private source for an outsider, and a cross-company run all return `null`. Related existing suites that passed locally (11 files, 313 tests): `issue-created-from-routes`, `issue-create-deduplication-routes`, `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes`, `chat-project-tools`, `issue-assignee-invokability-routes`, `issue-watchdogs-routes`, `issue-dependency-wakeups-routes`, `public-mcp`, `native-runtime/task-creation-backlog`, `issue-access-grants-routes`, `issue-list-assignee-filter-routes`. UI: ```sh cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/task-detail/TaskDetailTasksPanel.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx pnpm check:token-gates ``` Manual check: as an agent run bound to a task, `POST /api/companies/:companyId/issues` with only a title. The response has `parentId` set to the run's task. Open the new task; the page shows "Created from <task> by <agent>". The related server suites pass locally (`issue-created-from`, `issue-create-deduplication`, `issue-agent-mutation-ownership`, `chat-project-tools`, `issue-watchdogs`, `public-mcp`, `task-creation-backlog`, `issue-access-grants`, `permissions-upgrade-boundary`). The full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were not run locally because the sandbox has a 4 GB memory limit and the TypeScript compiler is killed on the server project; the CI gates on this PR cover them. ## Risks - Behavior shift for agent clients: a run-created task without `parentId` now becomes a child of the run's task. Clients that want a top-level task must send `parentId: null`. The watchdog, conversation, and board paths are excluded, and the default never adds a blocker. - The default parent inherits the parent's execution workspace, which run-created tasks already inherited from the run's task. - `createdFrom` adds one run lookup, one issue lookup, one access decision, and one agent lookup to the task detail request. It is skipped when the task has no origin run and no creation activity with a run. - Privacy: the field returns `null` unless the viewer can read the source task and the run, so a private source is indistinguishable from missing provenance. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5.1 (`claude-fable-5-1`), Anthropic, run through Claude Code in a Paperclip-managed execution workspace with tool use, shell execution, and a local embedded Postgres for tests. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-10 00:40:08 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	5cf90417d6	fix(ui): confirm cancellation from monitor cards (#15735) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their tasks. > - A task monitor schedules a later agent check. > - The monitor card shows when that check will run. > - The card has no direct control to cancel the monitor. > - This change adds an X button and a confirmation dialog. > - The operator can stop the scheduled check from the card. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The monitor card on the task page. **Current behavior** The operator must open task properties to clear a monitor. **Proposed behavior** Select the X in the top right of the card. Select Keep monitor to leave the schedule in place. Select Cancel monitor to remove the scheduled check. **Reason and benefit** The operator can cancel the monitor where its schedule is shown. Confirmation helps prevent an accidental cancellation. **Breaking changes** None. The change uses the existing task update API. ## What Changed - Add an accessible X button at the top right of the monitor card. - Confirm cancellation before the task update. - Keep the dialog open with an error if the update fails. - Preserve the other execution policy settings and refresh the task after success. - Reject stale policy writes under the task row lock with an optional expectedExecutionPolicy snapshot. - Document the snapshot field and add a database test for stale cancellation. - Restrict snapshot requests to policy-only edits before execution-control actions. - Add seven route tests for rejected mixed requests and absent policy updates. - Keep automatic retry waits separate from monitor cancellation. - Add component and task page tests. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Monitor banner and task page tests passed: 199 tests. A targeted database test and seven route tests also passed. - UI typecheck and production build passed. - Open a task with a scheduled monitor. Select X, then Keep monitor. The schedule must remain. - Select X, then Cancel monitor. The card must disappear after the update. - Local full build reached the Rust runner build but could not complete because Cargo is absent. CI must verify the full build. - Full repository typecheck, build, test suites, and E2E checks passed in CI for the final commit. Local full checks were limited by missing Cargo and workspace memory. ## Risks - Low risk. Cancellation uses the existing company access checks and activity log. - A cancelled monitor no longer wakes the agent. The dialog explains this effect. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. Used code editing, shell commands, and tests. ## 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>	2026-10-09 16:38:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b6b3cb3761	Fix unavailable workspace branches with an inline repair and retry (#15726) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Isolated workspaces must resolve a starting Git ref before an agent starts. > - A task can explicitly select a branch that the repository does not have. > - The current recovery notice calls this a missing secret and offers no branch repair. > - This pull request explains the branch failure and adds a task-scoped repair action. > - Operators can correct the branch and request a guarded retry from the task thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #11892 added unresolved-ref recovery. Refs #15719 added bounded failure diagnostics. This change uses that recovery path and adds its operator repair UI. **What happened?** A task that selects `main` in a repository with only `master` stops before the adapter starts. The task shows a missing-secret message and a generic retry. Repeating the run cannot fix the stored branch setting. **Expected behavior** Explain that the starting ref could not be resolved. Offer a verified repository default, or let the operator enter a branch. Save only the task's starting branch and retry its recorded owner through the existing admission gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an isolated-workspace task in a repository with `master` and no `main`. 2. Set the task's base ref to `main` and assign an agent. 3. Wait for the configuration failure. 4. Use the inline branch repair and confirm the agent completes in a worktree based on `master`. ## What Changed - Replace the missing-secret diagnosis for unresolved workspace refs. Keep uncertain fetch/access failures described as uncertain. - Read the remote's advertised default branch with the existing Git credentials and a bounded timeout. Do not guess or silently change the branch. - Add an atomic branch repair to the existing recovery resolution endpoint. Check company access, board runtime permission, incident identity, current owner, task/project state, dependencies, interactions, approvals, budget, and active execution before requesting a retry. - Preserve the effective inherited workspace setup when saving the task branch override, and attach one repair notice per failed run even when the incident is reused. - Bind the shared repair card to the exact recovery notice and failed run in both task-thread renderers. Validate branch syntax and prevent duplicate submissions. - Add Storybook examples, regression tests, and a documented local acceptance fixture with a real Git repository and process adapter. ## Verification - Red/green regressions cover the repair endpoint and preservation of inherited agent setup. The regression failed before each fix and passed afterward. - Focused integration suite: 162 tests passed; task-thread/card suite: 230 passed. After review refinements, all 13 repair-route tests, 10 card tests, 77 recovery-action tests, and the repeated-failure heartbeat regression passed locally. - Real browser acceptance passed for suggested-branch and custom-entry repairs. Invalid syntax left the task blocked. Both valid repairs ran the authenticated worker in a real isolated worktree and reached Done; reload preserved the result. - Repeated failures reused the recovery incident and retained an actionable notice on the latest run. The inherited-setup journey verified the provisioned file, agent branch template, worktree parent directory, and actual Git commit before completing. [Before/after screenshots](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15726#issuecomment-6088734666). - Full local typecheck and build passed; server typecheck passed again after review fixes. Token gates passed. - The monolithic local Vitest run was stopped after resource-contention timeouts and stale assertions. Targeted regressions were rerun; the full CI matrix passed on final revision `26c543ff490bec29ddc77a49ee532c7f84fb96dc`. One signoff E2E worker-cancellation failure passed on a rerun without code changes. The two opt-in Storybook workflow jobs were skipped; the Storybook journey was checked manually. - Repeat the live journey with `tests/e2e/workspace-base-ref/README.md`. Storybook examples use simulated callbacks and are not the live acceptance proof. ## Risks - Default-branch discovery can add up to 10 seconds to an unresolved-ref failure. Lookup failure leaves manual entry available. - A valid branch name can still be absent or inaccessible. The retried workspace preparation remains authoritative and can block again with new evidence. - Retry remains subject to normal admission gates. The repair changes only the task override; it does not alter project or agent defaults. - No database migration or new dependency. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution, repository analysis, and browser testing. The exact 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 - [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>	2026-10-09 15:56:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	835a022936	perf(server): wake delivery queues from transaction-aware work signals (#15625) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI-agent work and its delivery to users and agents. > - Five delivery queues scan the database even when empty. > - Each queue already has durable rows; empty polling wastes idle hosting capacity. > - Producers can register intent inside their existing database transaction. > - Central transaction tracking can wake consumers after the outer commit without extra caller wrappers. > - A lost response needs reconciliation against PostgreSQL before an empty queue is safe to leave idle. > - This change uses one scheduler for outstanding work and lets settled, empty queues go quiet. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Supersedes the closed #15614. Related idle-safety work: #15522 and #15599. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Delivery scheduling for feedback exports, chat completions, connection continuations, question answers, and tool-action receipts. **Current behavior** Feedback scans every five seconds. Four delivery queues scan on the heartbeat interval, normally 30 seconds. Startup and some event paths also scan them. **Proposed behavior** Each producer awaits one intent registration before its queue write. The existing `createDb` transaction boundary tracks nested savepoints and wakes the consumer after outer settlement. Startup scans restore durable work. Pending rows, failures, and unresolved transactions retain retry deadlines. Empty, settled queues have no timer or recurring scan. **Reason and benefit** Normal delivery starts after commit. Central tracking removes caller-specific post-commit plumbing. PostgreSQL transaction status resolves lost responses without new tables or a permanent uncertainty latch. **Breaking changes** No API or schema changes. The notification scope is one DB owner and its dedicated child pools. Direct SQL, separate roots, and other processes require an explicit wake/recovery integration. This path requires PostgreSQL 14+ transaction-information functions; embedded PostgreSQL uses 18. ## What Changed - Add one named-deadline scheduler and app-owned coordinator for five existing queues. - Instrument `createDb().transaction()` centrally, including nested savepoints. Dedicated child connections share their owner's signal scope. - Register work before the five queue insert paths. The first registration obtains the outer XID; unrelated transactions issue no extra SQL. Tool receipt insertion gains a small transaction around its existing insert. - Query `pg_xact_status` only for rejected, tracked transactions. Probe before scanning the queue. Retain the idle hold while PostgreSQL still reports an in-progress transaction or the probe fails. Release it after settlement and reconciliation. - Remove unconditional delivery recovery scans and caller-specific completion post-commit actions. Retain the existing task-scoped completion activity fast path and durable claims. - Coalesce wakes without postponing an earlier deadline. Retry outstanding rows and failures; suppress dispatch during idle drain while allowing transaction and queue reconciliation; suppress both during warm standby. Cancel deadlines and await active delivery sweeps on shutdown. - Serialize feedback flushes. Vote routes return after saving. Uploads have a 30-second deadline and shutdown cancellation; unfinished exports remain recoverable. - Document the writer contract and update the dated sleep inventory. ## Verification - Final head: `a4609956841107ad60c4cb50fe2acb05636b1363`. - Passed: all final-head hosted checks, with 54 successes and two intentional skips. The full test matrix, typecheck, build, canary, and aggregate verification passed in [run 37940948440](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37940948440). - Passed: Greptile 5/5 on the same head, with a successful check run and zero unresolved review threads. The branch is mergeable. - Passed locally after the final rebase: 50 coordinator, scheduler, and startup tests; server typecheck; server build. - Passed locally before the final import-only rebase: repo-wide typecheck and build; 237 PostgreSQL producer/delivery and database signal tests; feedback, native-question, and idle-safety regression tests. - Real PostgreSQL tests hold transactions open after an injected client response loss, then commit or abort. They verify that an empty scan cannot clear an in-progress transaction. Another test terminates a real backend and verifies recovery without replay. - Coordinator tests cover an hour with no empty-queue timers, pending/error retries, worker replacement, concurrent writes, earliest-deadline preservation, rollback during idle drain, committed work during drain, standby, and shutdown. - Local `pnpm test:run` was started and stopped after embedded PostgreSQL startup failures appeared. It did not finish and is not reported as a pass. Later local database reruns had skipped suites; those skips are not claimed as verification. The earlier PostgreSQL tests did execute and pass, and the final hosted full matrix passed. ## Risks - One XID query is added per transaction that registers delivery work. Nested transactions share that ID. Registration must be awaited before writing; new enqueue paths must follow this contract. - Work signals are local to a DB owner and its dedicated child pools. Independent roots, direct SQL, or other processes are not observed. Startup scans recover already committed rows, but do not fence late transactions from a previous process. Cross-process ownership and database failover require separate work. - A database outage or genuinely unresolved transaction keeps an idle hold until status can be reconciled. No timer clears uncertainty by assumption. - These changes remove five empty polling loops. They do not implement whole-instance sleep, database teardown, or an external waker. The earliest deadline covers only the registered queues. - Waiting tool reviews retain their existing retry cadence until their receipts can be delivered. - Feedback vote responses no longer wait for the remote upload. Sharing consent and the saved vote response are unchanged. - Real hosting-provider sleep and cost savings have not been measured. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and command execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model revision or context window. ## 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>	2026-10-09 10:01:26 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	f1c44b7b56	Preserve remote work when required workspace restore fails (#15479) ... Persist exact source-retention obligations before run finalization and protect them across cancellation, restart and task changes. Require board-authorized repair evidence without replaying old work or changing current task ownership, state or locks. Hide an unavailable retry action and document operator recovery and retention costs. Validated with 674 scoped regressions, 224 combined integration tests, full typecheck/build, independent safety reviews and green CI with Greptile 5/5. No historical file recovery is claimed. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-07 13:29:44 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	8cfedd7df8	fix(runner): restore task monitors and durable timed waits (#15446) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their task execution. > - Agents need a durable way to return to work after a delayed check. > - The issue monitor scheduler already provides a one-shot wake for an assignee. > - Native runners reject generic execution-policy writes and had no bound monitor tool. > - Scheduling alone is insufficient because native completion also needs to accept a timed wait. > - This pull request adds an authorized monitor tool and connects it to completion and the existing scheduler. > - An agent can now schedule its next check, end the run, and resume on the same task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native runner could not set its own task monitor. `call_api` correctly rejected execution-policy writes, while `schedule_wake` had no production binding. `paperclip_finish` also rejected monitor waits. **Expected behavior** A standard native run can set a one-shot monitor on its current task or another accessible task assigned to the same agent. After a confirmed schedule on the current task, it can yield. The scheduler later delivers `issue_monitor_due`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a standard native task. 2. Ask the agent to check the task again later and end its current run. 3. Inspect available tools and try the generic issue execution-policy update. 4. Observe the missing native tool and the lifecycle-write denial. Related PRs: #14680 concerns monitor notes in the shared wake prompt. #11919 changes attempt-limit scope. This PR adds native scheduling and completion authority and retains the existing cumulative attempt bounds. It does not depend on either PR. ## What Changed - Add provider-neutral `set_task_monitor` with a default current-task target, future timestamp, required notes, existing bounds, and explicit clearing. - Check company, task visibility, ownership, runtime permissions, work mode, and active-run authority. Preserve review-only restrictions. Reject the reserved server-owned quota-recovery name before saving or accepting a native wait. - Commit the monitor, audit event, and retry receipt together. Retry receipts survive a successor run without re-arming cleared or consumed timers. - Permit `paperclip_finish` to yield to a persisted monitor. Recheck ownership and the schedule when committing final disposition. Release execution without an immediate continuation. - Preserve due monitors during native execution. Fence wake admission and consumption against replacement, clearing, reassignment, and completion. Preserve unrelated review policy. - Expose scheduled and consumed monitor instructions in task context. Update provider schemas, Rust validation, generated contracts, and execution documentation. - Add an opt-in live Codex smoke script with isolated data and explicit run/session/runner/process evidence. ## Verification - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after rebase. Server typecheck passed again after review fixes. All CI test shards pass on `3def77b1b`, including runner TypeScript/Rust, server, serialized server, workspace, and browser tests. All CI gates are green, including the canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on the same commit with zero unresolved threads. - The local monolithic `pnpm test:run`, started before the rebase, was interrupted after current-head CI test coverage passed. It is not counted as a standalone full-suite pass; the focused local regression suites passed. - Targeted server tests cover scheduling, replacement, clearing, policy preservation, cumulative bounds, cross-run retries, permissions, provider-neutral discovery, review restrictions, completion authority, and scheduler/finalizer races. - Runner contract/catalog/semantic tests and Rust terminal-tool tests cover the new operation and monitor completion. - Live Codex test passed twice (latest live run on `e0bcd63e6`) in a temporary database and workspace, with a 300,000 ms warm window. First run `67bd7709-c089-4d4a-9d2b-0d6b618a34b0` yielded at `2026-10-07T13:15:03.274Z`. Second run `97c323f9-595a-4cc5-a007-db5a2fbb937c` started at `13:15:30.952Z`, received `issue_monitor_due`, and completed the same task. Exactly one monitor wake was recorded. - Both live runs used native session `7b1dd753-1c9b-4e7a-b22f-a125dbc3748c`, runner `e90d9a1b-3502-4ee3-b15e-edc024c555d4`, provider session `01a11680-6d01-70c0-9a55-db7246ed66c3`, and PID `64218` with the same process start time. This proves warm reuse for that local Codex test, not only successful scheduling. - Reproduce the paid live test with `node --import ./server/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs server/scripts/smoke-native-task-monitor.ts --run`, with the installed Codex binary on `PATH` and a valid local login. ## Risks - The scheduler now defers monitor dispatch while the task has an active native run. A stuck run still depends on the existing recovery lifecycle. - Idempotency uses the existing run ledger; no table or migration is added. - Other providers share the tested tool and completion contracts. Only Codex received a live model test. - Existing `call_api` lifecycle restrictions remain enforced. Monitor waits do not bypass task blockers, reviews, or approvals. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and TypeScript/Rust editing. The session does not expose the exact deployed 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>	2026-10-07 08:41:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3a726e676f	feat: enforce private task permissions across execution and data (#10633) ... Enforce private task and project access across direct reads, search, execution, files, plugins, live delivery, and sharing mutations. Preserve downward-only sharing, current responsible-user authorization, and audited emergency access. Bind historical draft assets with migration 0314. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-07 07:06:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	faa8e452c7	fix(tasks): stop repeated reminders for historical questions (#15392) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task questions remain saved so a person can answer them later. > - The composer moves an old question into history after a newer human message. > - Native completion still treated every pending question as a required response. > - This caused agents to demand an old answer after the person moved work forward. > - This pull request shares the historical-question rule across context and task execution. > - Agents can finish verified work while the original question remains answerable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15229, Refs #14613, Refs #13130. **What happened?** An agent repeatedly asked a person to answer a question that had moved into feed history. Completion feedback explicitly told the agent to request a response. The saved pending row also blocked task completion. **Expected behavior** A question before newer human direction remains answerable in the feed. Its pending state alone must not require another reminder or stop completed work. A new input blocker, an approval, or a configured review stage must keep its gate. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task agent create an ordinary question. 2. Dismiss the question and send a newer task message. 3. Let the agent finish the requested work and submit its completion report. 4. Observe a demand to answer the old question and a retained completion gate. ## What Changed - Add one company-scoped predicate for historical questions. Only later human comments count. Exclude agent attribution, run attribution, system notices, and untrusted source data. - Apply the predicate to completion feedback, native waits, finalization, commit validation, retry validation, blocked routing, and successful-run handoff. - Include question classification and guidance in heartbeat context and both native task-context tools. Add the guidance to fresh and resumed task prompts. - Replace automatic reminders for current ordinary questions with instructions to assess the real blocker, continue independent work, and withdraw obsolete questions through the existing API. - Preserve historical question rows during completion while cancelling their live native source runs through the existing post-commit and recovery paths. Let an authorized human answer them after completion without reopening work or creating a response wake. Preserve cancellation, current-input, approval, permission, credential, connection, and review gates. Add no dismissal storage or migration. - Document the rule in the execution contract and agent skill. Refresh generated capability source anchors. Add database-backed status, context, attribution, and governance regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm build` passed. The server rebuild also passed after the lifecycle fix. Generated capability contract and inventory checks passed after the agent documentation update. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Final `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passed after the last test additions. - Lifecycle and interaction regressions passed: 224 tests in 3 suites. Context and prompt tests also passed. Final historical-question cases passed (33 tests), native cancellation/recovery cases passed (6 tests), and the existing interaction/confirmation suites passed (72 tests). The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after more than two hours with unrelated fixture/hook timeout failures; it did not pass. All 52 successful GitHub checks are green on the latest commit, including the complete test matrix; no checks are pending or failing. Greptile is 5/5 and both review threads are resolved. - Regression cases cover the old-question/new-human-message sequence, final task status, answering after completion with no wake, live-run cancellation and crash recovery, current input blockers, both task-context tools, API context, timestamp precision, attribution boundaries, and protected gates. ## Risks - A later human task message makes an earlier ordinary question historical even if its input is still missing. The agent must identify the current blocker and ask only for information that still prevents work. - Browser dismissal remains a local preference. Dismissal without a later human message is not recorded by this change. - No schema change or data migration. Completion retains ordinary historical questions; cancellation still expires them. A completed task accepts historical answers only from an authorized human and creates no response-delivery outbox row. Governed requests retain their gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository editing, code execution, and browser diagnostics. The exact deployment model 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>	2026-10-06 20:33:13 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2d0c138122	Expand direct assistant MCP tools for work and configuration (#15380) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People also use assistants in Codex, Claude, and other MCP clients. > - The existing assistant connection can read work and create tasks or comments. > - It cannot edit tasks, exchange files, or manage normal agent and project settings. > - These operations must retain the person's permissions and Paperclip's execution rules. > - This pull request adds an explicit operation registry and separately consented configuration access. > - Assistants can manage work without receiving credentials or runner authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: assistant MCP, domain routes, consent UI, storage, and Product E2E. **Problem or motivation** A connected assistant cannot update tasks, maintain documents, attach files, or configure existing agents, projects, and skills. Users must leave the assistant for these routine actions. **Proposed solution** Add named tools and a restricted API registry to direct connections. Require separate configuration consent. Reuse domain routes and retry receipts. File uploads save the attachment when the byte transfer succeeds. **Alternatives considered** Arbitrary REST forwarding would expose administration and credential operations. Runner impersonation would bypass execution ownership. Separate upload completion calls add unnecessary client state. **Roadmap alignment** Checked ROADMAP.md and related MCP pull requests. This extends the human-authorized connection from #14933. It does not replace the runner or introduce agent impersonation. Companion Cloud routing and directory isolation: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/pull/678. ## What Changed - Add task editing, finish/block, documents/revisions, deliverables, agent settings/instructions, projects/repositories, and skills/files. - Add an allowlisted API search/call registry with identical field restrictions, scopes, and retry identities. - Add unchecked configuration consent. Existing write grants retain their current authority. - Add hashed, expiring file transfer tickets and atomic upload receipts. No completion call is required. - Preserve company boundaries, human attribution, active native execution ownership, and execution review gates. - Add protocol/domain tests, consent stories, and eight paid Product E2E workflows. - Repair two CI fixture races: await cold route setup before assertions, and wait for asynchronously loaded connection copy. Both fixture suites pass (24 + 48 tests). ## Verification - Consent revision: one write-access checkbox controls requested work and configuration permissions in browser and device flows. All 16 consent tests, UI typecheck/build and token gates pass. Updated interactive stories cover default approval, opt-out and viewer restrictions. The paid browser helper uses the new exact label. Real GPT-5.4 Mini Product E2E passes 2/2 at `64f96373118eb190f8cba1c2ab17cb979555f3ad` (configuration + permission denial), campaign `local-2026-10-07T00-51-14-337Z`, no automatic retries, cleanup passed; $0.04149375 estimated assistant cost plus unpriced worker usage. Raw results, usage and source fingerprints are retained in the worktree. UI and Product E2E typechecks pass. - Prior head `2f246d4b74f1f98c75ebcb37ae6753a748237fac`: all 52 checks pass; two optional Storybook checks skip. Greptile 5/5 on that head, no unresolved review threads. Final consent head `64f96373118eb190f8cba1c2ab17cb979555f3ad` also has all checks passing and Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. The unchanged Cursor sandbox test had one 10-second timeout, passed in local isolation, and passed its single CI rerun; the failed attempt remains in [the CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37554106934). The existing chat retry-denial browser test had one visibility failure; its single rerun passes, and the failed attempt remains in [the CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37542735691). - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass at final runtime source `b2196fae1`. UI token gates pass. - 139 MCP/OAuth/transfer/privacy tests and 76 grader calibration tests pass, including one-connection PostgreSQL OAuth and concurrent upload retries. - Paid Product E2E: all eight expanded cases qualified across Mini, Haiku and Sonnet. A merged-source repeat passed 23/24; one Haiku cell timed out before application startup. Final affected-case qualification passes 9/9 on all three models with grader v16, including the failed cell. Automatic retries disabled; failures, costs, source hashes and independent durable-state/file assertions are retained in [the verification record](doc/plans/2026-10-06-expanded-assistant-mcp-verification.md). - Actual Codex CLI, Claude Code and OpenCode clients completed local reads/mutations. Codex wrote a report, Claude updated it in a later conversation, and OpenCode uploaded/downloaded a file with matching SHA-256 and registered the attachment. Revoking the CLI grant rejects subsequent bridge initialization. - Butter staging is verified on final runtime `b2196fae1` ([deployment](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/actions/runs/37538432138)). A fresh OpenCode workspace fetched the copied invitation, configured remote MCP, started OAuth and reached real consent with configuration unchecked. Invalid transfer tickets return 403 through Cloud. Human approval for the new persistent staging grant is pending; hosted task/file success is not yet claimed. The final transaction fix is deployed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` passed 15,614 general-server tests but stopped on two macOS timeouts. The heartbeat test passed in isolation; the existing 40,000-file Git stress fixture timed out again. Its Linux CI lane passes. Later local full-suite phases did not run after the timeout; this is not an all-green local full-suite claim. - Instructions and security limits are in `doc/public-mcp.md`; the saved plan is `doc/plans/2026-10-06-expanded-assistant-mcp-tools.md`. ## Risks - This expands the experimental direct MCP surface. Explicit schemas and domain permissions must stay synchronized. - Migration 0311 adds transfer tickets and upload receipts. Expired orphan cleanup must not remove committed attachments. - Configuration requires a new consent request containing that scope; the single write-access choice controls it alongside work mutations. Refreshing an old grant does not add it. - The public directory keeps its original ten tools through the companion Cloud change. - Hosted consent/work proof remains the final delivery gate. The PR stays draft while approval of the new staging grant is pending; code checks and review are green. Merging is a separate action. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6, tool use and code execution). The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Paid evaluation models: gpt-5.4-mini, claude-haiku-4-5-20251001; claude-sonnet-4-6. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused suites; full-suite macOS limitation disclosed above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 20:29:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e34abee670	feat(mcp): connect assistants to a team with user OAuth (#14846) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip gives teams durable tasks, agent execution, budgets, and approvals. > - People also use assistants in Codex, Claude, and other MCP clients. > - Those assistants need a scoped connection that preserves the person’s permissions and attribution. > - Delegating a task must not turn the assistant into the assigned agent. > - This PR adds opt-in user OAuth, ten first-party tools, browser consent, and workflow packages. > - Paid product evals verify the resulting tasks, documents, attribution, retries, and access boundaries. > - The team keeps working after the assistant conversation ends. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A person cannot connect an external assistant to an existing team through browser consent and safely delegate durable work as themselves. **Proposed solution** Expose an opt-in `/mcp/paperclip` endpoint with individually described first-party operations. Bind every connection to a person, client, company, resource, and scopes. Reuse domain authorization and scheduling. Package shared team-review, delegation, and follow-up workflows for OpenAI/Codex and Claude. **Alternatives considered** Related PRs #9393 and #12549 cover earlier remote MCP and board-operator approaches. This change uses user OAuth and a bounded public catalog. It does not expose a generic executor, operator administration, static shared board credentials, or external agent execution. Registry listing work in #9851 is a separate distribution step. **Roadmap alignment** This maintainer-requested implementation extends the governed MCP gateway, activity attribution, durable work products, and hosted deployment direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It implements the first release of the saved design plan; external agent participation and granted third-party tools remain later releases. ## What Changed - Add MCP 2.0 discovery and task status/comment/document Events on the same authenticated endpoint. Persist subscriptions and delivery receipts, verify HTTPS callbacks, sign Standard Webhooks, encrypt callback material, recheck permissions/Cloud membership, and bound retries/expiry. Older MCP clients keep their existing tools. - Add discovery, dynamic client registration, S256 PKCE, resource validation, rotating refresh tokens, revocation, and company consent. Store credentials as hashes and recheck membership at execution. - Add tools for connection identity, agents/projects, task search/read/create, human comments, documents/deliverables, and pending-approval links. Preserve current domain permissions and scheduling. - Add durable mutation receipts across reconnects. Matching retries replay results; uncertain outcomes keep the same request ID and require inspection. - Add consent and connection-management pages, OAuth log redaction, shared plugin workflows, and separate OpenAI/Codex and Claude package outputs. - Add eight paid Product E2E cases across three models, independent durable-state grading, usage evidence, cleanup, and report integration. Add task-document guidance and regenerate the runner capability inventories. - Add migrations 0301 and 0302, the dated implementation plan, result notes, and direct-client setup instructions in `doc/public-mcp.md`. ## Verification - Merge integration `e180b1948`: resolved conflicts with current master, preserved both eval registries, regenerated capability catalogs, and regenerated migrations as 0301/0302 while keeping the original replay-safe SQL byte-identical. Local migration safety/snapshot tests (26), MCP/OAuth tests (38), redaction/OpenAPI tests (71), and eval catalog/grading tests (198) pass. Token and capability gates pass. Full recursive typecheck passed. Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. CI is green on this exact head (55 successes, two intentional skips, one neutral result): one unchanged Cursor sandbox test timed out at 10 seconds, then passed locally in 856 ms. A single retry of that failed shard and the aggregate workflow passed. Merge remains blocked on the repository code-owner approval rule. Earlier checks passed at `6aa0962d4fb715f2190bb7bb22efacab2e58495d`: 55 successes, two intentional skips and one neutral result. [The earlier CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36901592350) includes all test shards, browser tests, typecheck, build and canary dry run. Greptile was 5/5 on that commit with no unresolved review threads. GitHub still requires code-owner review under the repository merge rules; passing checks do not bypass that approval. Paid source fingerprints remain separate below and in the dated result note. - Paid Events qualification passes **3/3**: GPT-5.4 Mini, Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Sonnet 4.6. Each uses a real public HTTPS callback, signature verification and report retrieval in a fresh conversation. A final Mini regression passes after the quota/status fixes. All evidence validates. Bounded tunnel startup retries occur before provider calls and remain visible; failed earlier attempts retain their original grades. - The earlier complete seven-case matrix passes **21/21**, with a separate **3/3** delegation regression. Two preceding matrices also passed 21/21 each. A complete 24-cell matrix including Events has not been run. [The dated results](doc/plans/2026-10-01-public-mcp-paid-eval-results.md) retain exact source fingerprints, failures, model IDs and partial costs. - Node 24: repository-wide `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass after merging master. Server typecheck passes after the final quota/status changes. Eval typecheck and all 892 eval-support tests pass. - All 33 real MCP/OAuth tests pass. The preceding combined MCP, redaction, private-address and DNS-rebinding run passed 129 tests; two later MCP regressions cover quota reuse and unchanged-status suppression. All 28 adjacent issue-tree/stale-lock route tests pass. CI then found a null checkout result in the existing concurrent-workspace path; logging now uses optional status access. All 12 closed-workspace tests and all 33 MCP tests pass after that correction. The exact-start event calibration exposed a timestamp gap; scanning now includes the subscription start, with all 33 MCP tests and server typecheck passing. These two narrow corrections follow the paid regression. - A real Core → Cloud → Core authority round trip passes OAuth, MCP 2.0 subscription/delivery, current membership loss, unsubscribe, legacy SDK tools, refresh and revocation. Its callback transport is a fixture with independent HMAC verification. The paid Events campaigns separately prove public HTTPS delivery. - Earlier component qualification passed UI 7,117 tests, CLI 502, shared 832, skills catalog 20, database 160 and OpenAPI 10. Token gates, module boundaries, migration order and plugin regeneration passed. CI covers general/serialized suites, eight browser shards, runner checks, typecheck, build and canary dry run. - **Local full-suite limitation:** the earlier monolithic run was not clean. It encountered overlapping schema rebuilding, Mac database shared-memory limits and isolated CLI/fixture failures. Targeted reruns passed. The existing >32 MiB Git filename stress test still hit its 300-second Mac timeout. The additional serialized sweep stopped after 62 passing suites once CI passed. Original failures and partial logs remain; this PR does not claim a wholly green local monolithic run. - Local Codex CLI and Claude Code OAuth login and MCP SDK interoperability were verified. Public-store installation, actual ChatGPT Work Cloud Events UI, staging HTTPS client behavior and hosted newcomer provisioning remain release gates. Enablement is moving to **Settings → Experimental → Assistant connections (MCP)** in the stacked follow-up [#14933](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/14933). Merge both for the intended setup experience. This foundation branch alone still uses `PAPERCLIP_PUBLIC_MCP_ENABLED=true`. After deployment, set `PAPERCLIP_PUBLIC_URL` to the authenticated instance's HTTPS origin, and connect to `/mcp/paperclip`. Select a team and allow writes in browser consent. Configure an available agent and budget, then delegate and retrieve results later. For Events, rescan the deployed plugin catalog in ChatGPT Work Cloud; the host supplies its webhook credentials when the user asks to watch a task. See [the setup runbook](doc/public-mcp.md). ## Risks - Events are at-least-once and may arrive out of order. No replay cursor is advertised. Clients must refresh finite subscriptions, read current state and avoid comment feedback loops. Callback material uses the instance secrets master key; hosted subscriptions require the updated Cloud broker and are bounded to five minutes/the access proof expiry. - ChatGPT Work Cloud/dot event UI, plugin rescan and a hosted staging subscription remain deployment gates. Local signed-webhook and paid model evidence does not claim those surfaces have been exercised. - Disabled by default. Merging adds schema and opt-in code; it does not deploy a public endpoint, publish a store listing, create a team, or start paid agents. - Migrations 0301 and 0302 are additive and idempotent. Their SQL is unchanged from the earlier preview numbers, so hash-aware upgrade reconciliation preserves prior staging applications. Normal instance upgrades must apply it before enabling MCP. - Task creation and comments can schedule paid agent work. Consent and tool descriptions disclose that effect. Revocation blocks future calls but does not undo delegated work. - Public deployments need edge rate limits and credential-safe logging. Internal dispatch is restricted to the closed catalog and carries a request-local verified actor. - Hosted onboarding requires the companion Cloud broker, encryption-key configuration, and tenant rollout. Self-hosted direct connections can use this PR alone. - Store acceptance and agent-mode participation are not claimed. Checked-in plugin endpoints are development defaults; rebuild packages for a real deployment before installation. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. A more specific serving version and context-window size were not exposed by the session. Paid eval models: `gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17`, `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001`, and `claude-sonnet-4-6`. ## 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 (targeted/component checks; full local-run limitations are recorded above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 11:48:53 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cc67d4e1d8	fix: preserve steering and recover stopped task conversations (#15015) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task conversation must let a user guide a running agent and resume stopped work. > - The active run owns its input protocol, even when the user changes the next model or effort. > - Queue delivery waits for a provider receipt, which must be able to persist during the request. > - A stopped startup also needs a clear user action that passes normal task admission. > - This pull request fixes steering delivery, makes queue actions immediate, and restores explicit continuation. > - The benefit is a responsive conversation that can recover without losing saved input. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A queued message could change from Steer to Interrupt while a native run prepared. A steer request could wait on its own database lock and fail to deliver. A stopped startup could then leave the conversation without a working Retry or message continuation. Interrupt also waited for the server and showed a toast. **Expected behavior** The active run keeps its input protocol. Steer delivers input to that run. Steer and Interrupt clear the submitted queue rows and show the input in the conversation immediately. Failed delivery restores the latest queue with an inline error. An eligible stopped run offers Retry, and authenticated user input can start a fresh turn through normal task admission. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task with a native Paperclip Runner. 2. Change the selected model or effort while that run prepares. 3. Queue a message and press Steer. 4. Observe the provider receipt and queue state during the request. 5. Stop a startup before its provider process begins, then try Retry or send a new message. 6. Repeat queued delivery with a legacy runner and press Interrupt. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the parent of this branch, `59c07ede7`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private deployment. The fixes also cover local task conversations. Related work: Refs #12834, Refs #13354, Refs #13275. The open refactor in #13160 moves the same queue route; it does not fix the receipt lock or stopped-run continuation addressed here. ## What Changed - Select queue behavior from the active run's immutable dispatch and runtime resolution. - Leave the run row unlocked during provider acknowledgement, then lock and read it before merging the receipt. - Retain queued input if the target run stops during that wait. Keep inline delivery errors visible after empty queue updates. - Permit exact Retry and authenticated continuation after verified native startup cancellation. Preserve pause, approval, budget, ownership, and process-stop gates. - Carry undelivered native queue input into a fresh turn once the old execution is confirmed stopped. - Show Steer and Interrupt input in the conversation and clear submitted composer rows immediately. Restore the latest queue inline on failure. Remove delivery toasts. - Keep optimistic delivery stable across stale polls, empty queues, and paginated history. Preserve classic Interrupt error handling. - Document recovery and optimistic delivery behavior. Add regression tests across server, shared queue projection, and UI boundaries. ## Verification - Red-green regression tests reproduced the queue protocol, receipt lock, stopped-startup continuation, and optimistic delivery failures. - The focused server route, continuation, queue, and runner boundary suites passed during implementation. - The queue-route suite passes with 78 tests. The three complete conversation UI suites pass with 347 tests. - UI typecheck, production build, and `pnpm check:token-gates` pass. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` is still running; remote CI verifies the complete suite on the latest commit. - All CI gates pass on `bd9031ad56abfcde13d13a13488c1b9217c2fd3a`, including the full test shards, runner verification, browser E2E, typecheck, release registry, and canary dry run. - Greptile reports 5/5 for that commit. Both review threads are resolved. ## Risks This changes queue display and explicit continuation admission. The UI must restore rejected delivery without losing other-session edits. The server must preserve concurrent provider result updates and must not resume a process whose stop is uncertain. Focused tests cover these boundaries. This change has no database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-02 22:07:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d034ba7491	fix(interactions): derive question storage from canonical forms (#14946) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents request human input through durable issue interactions. > - A question form has a canonical presentation and a compatibility storage format. > - The creation API required agents to write both formats. > - Tool guidance told agents to split text and choice questions across those formats. > - This pull request accepts one complete canonical form and derives storage fields on the server. > - The benefit is a complete question card with stable answer and retry behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13630 and #14430. PR #13630 addresses the display of historical partial forms. This change fixes creation and keeps the check that rejects conflicting new forms. **What happened?** A question save supplied three compatibility questions and one canonical text question. The API correctly rejected the incomplete canonical form. The Runner's tool description encouraged this split. Sending only a complete canonical form also failed because the API required compatibility questions. **Expected behavior** An agent sends one complete `payload.questionSet` with every text and choice question. Paperclip derives `payload.questions` for storage and answer compatibility. Existing legacy requests remain valid. Explicitly conflicting dual forms remain invalid. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `paperclip_request_human_input` with `interactionKind: "questions"`. 2. Send `payload: { version: 1, questionSet: ... }` with a required text question and a required choice question. 3. The old API rejects the missing compatibility questions. With this change, it stores both questions and preserves the canonical form. 4. Retry with the same idempotency key. Confirm that only one interaction exists. 5. Submit both answers. Confirm that the normal resolver and continuation rules apply. **Paperclip version or commit** The branch is based on `cf8ad63c8`. The problem affects the native Runner and the interaction creation API. **Deployment mode** Server deployment with the native Paperclip Runner. Integration tests use the real interaction service and an embedded test database. ## What Changed - Add one shared canonical-to-storage projection. Reuse it for native harness question requests. - Accept canonical-only question creation at the shared validator and server boundary. - Export the input type and update the plugin SDK and its RPC contract. - Advertise a typed, complete question form in the live and scenario tool schemas. - Enforce canonical text and custom-answer constraints before ordinary or native resolution. Preserve harmless display whitespace. - Run regex matching in isolated workers with a deadline and resource limits. Both answer paths await the result before persistence. Saved native delivery uses the validated answer without taking another worker slot. - Update agent guidance and generated Runner contracts. - Test mixed forms, option-ID collisions, retries, answers, legacy requests, and conflicting forms. ## Verification - Interaction service, HTTP route, native bridge, and Runner authority suites: 221 tests passed after correcting an obsolete tool-description assertion. - Shared validator, plugin SDK, CLI, and UI compatibility suites: 67 tests passed. - Runner core tool-contract suite: 20 tests passed. AJV validates live and scenario schemas. - Final review regressions: 172 shared, service, native bridge, and authority tests passed. These cover text length, pattern, numeric limits, whitespace, custom option IDs, and historical pending cards. - Runner session suites: 67 tests passed. Published example tests: 4 tests passed. - Server typecheck and the shared/server builds passed after the compatibility fixes. - Final delivery verification: 35 response-delivery tests passed. The native delivery regression proves saved answers do not enter pattern workers; server typecheck and build passed. - Pattern security and answer-flow verification: 205 tests passed after repairing the child fixture loader. These cover pathological matching, event-loop responsiveness, worker concurrency, slot cleanup, HTTP routes, native delivery, and the full helper in a child process. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the bounded-worker revision. - `pnpm build` passed on the bounded-worker revision. - All 55 GitHub checks passed on `fe457af`; four optional jobs were skipped. An unchanged Cursor adapter test timed out once in CI, passed locally, and passed on one failed-job rerun. - Reviewers can send the canonical-only mixed form above and verify that the saved interaction contains both canonical and compatibility questions. ## Risks - The creation API accepts a new input shape. Stored rows and answer contracts keep the existing shape. - The shared projection must preserve synthetic free-text option IDs. Collision and native round-trip tests cover this behavior. - Historical partial rows remain readable. New conflicting dual forms, including written-answer mismatches, remain rejected. - Existing pending cards retain the written-answer paths offered by their stored options. Canonical text constraints still apply. - Ordinary answers now enforce declared canonical constraints before persistence. Invalid answers leave the card pending. - Regex validation has a one-second deadline and a four-worker capacity limit. A complex pattern or capacity error leaves the card pending with a validation error. - No database migration or change to company authorization is required. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The session exposes the GPT-6 model family; its exact runtime model identifier and context window size are not exposed. Used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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>	2026-10-02 14:21:11 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4039d4f06b	fix(auth): allow scoped low-trust work and owner-chat instruction edits (#14870) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust agents must work within their assigned scope. > - Task creation currently rejects these agents before checking assignment permission or scope. > - Persistent instruction saves also reject direct requests from authorized chat owners. > - This PR checks the requested action and its recorded authority instead of denying all such work. > - Agents can organize permitted work and follow their owner's instruction-edit requests while outside work stays restricted. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Low-trust agents cannot create self-assigned tasks or subtasks, even within their allowed scope. An authorized user also cannot ask an agent in their own Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`. Agent-folder collection can hide the permission rejection behind a generic save failure. **Expected behavior** Allow task creation when assignment permissions and project or root-task scope permit it. Allow instruction self-edits during authenticated owner-chat execution, subject to the user's current edit permission. Outside tasks, subtasks, connector messages, and peer agents do not inherit that instruction authority. Explain the actual denial when a save fails. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure an active agent with `low_trust_review` and a project or root-task boundary. 2. Ask it to create an in-scope task assigned to itself, or a subtask of its own task. 3. As a user with permission to configure that agent, ask it in your Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`. 4. Observe blanket permission denials rather than action-specific checks. **Paperclip version or commit** Rebased onto master at `8ec4b84e1`. This is a core authorization change, independent of adapter choice. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server. Regression coverage uses the server services, HTTP routes, native tool authority, and embedded PostgreSQL. Related work: #14775 adds human-directed task execution. #13599 concerns instruction-path configuration; this PR leaves that configuration restricted. #11988 proposes separate active-review instruction protection. #10693 reports unclear authorization denials on a different API surface. ## What Changed - Apply task-assignment checks to both HTTP creation routes and native task creation, including unassigned work. Preserve low-trust policy and source attribution on the created task and its initial plan. - Allow self-assigned decomposition within the permitted project or root-task tree. Resolve workspace-derived project scope before authorization, and reauthorize existing tasks before duplicate detection returns them. Keep cross-project and peer-assignment checks. - Derive instruction self-edit authority from the accepted run identity and authenticated owner-message wake. Recheck current permissions at save time. Bind retries to the same request and chat session. - Reject inherited instruction authority from outside tasks, subtasks, plugins, connectors, stale sessions, cancelled runs, and peer edits. - Surface permission errors in instruction and agent-folder save receipts. Tell chat agents to explain the rejected action and the specific restriction. - Update the low-trust policy and implementation documentation. ## Verification - All 297 tests in 11 focused server suites pass after the rebase. These cover owner-chat saves, private copies, warm agent directories, reset and retry boundaries, permission revocation, task creation routes, and native tool authority. - After review fixes, all 126 tests in the four affected authorization/chat suites pass. Workspace scope regressions and 146 existing creation/ownership/workspace-route tests also pass. - The final duplicate-task and CI fixes pass all 39 tests across chat-project tools, duplicate creation, environment-selection guards, and assignee-invokability routes. The duplicate-task test reproduced an unauthorized response before the fix and verifies denial plus permitted reuse afterward. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes after rebasing; `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passes after the review fixes. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes. - Final head `7e73270b86748792649e4ae6fbc6879f73b42b73`: all 54 checks passed, with two expected skips and no pending or failed checks. This includes builds, typechecking, the full test matrix, end-to-end tests, runner verification, the canary dry run, and security scans. - Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head, with no unresolved review threads. This change has not been deployed to staging. ## Risks This changes authorization behavior. The instruction exception must not become an inherited task permission. The check uses server-owned execution records, requires the agent's own chat and instructions, and keeps normal protected-change and responsible-user checks. Saves fail closed when current provenance or permission is missing. Owner chat grants a turn-scoped capability; the server does not classify the message intent or require approval of the exact new file bytes. Prompt injection within an authorized owner-chat turn remains a model-level risk. This is the requested owner-chat trust boundary, without a new per-edit confirmation flow. No database migration or broad trust-preset change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and test execution. The exact runtime model 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>	2026-10-01 15:42:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0829d94af2	fix(auth): derive low-trust human direction from existing execution records (#14775) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust review contains work that may include hostile input. > - Its default intake boundary currently blocks direct human chat and tasks outside that boundary. > - Human direction should authorize the assigned work while preserving containment. > - Existing conversations and execution requests already identify direct human instructions. > - This pull request derives exact-task authority from those records and the current assignee. > - The agent can perform that work without gaining access to unrelated tasks or privileged tools. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A low-trust agent with a project boundary rejects its owner's direct Agent Chat before provider execution. Human-assigned tasks outside that project fail the same check. **Expected behavior** An authorized human can talk to the agent or assign it a task. The exact task runs with its existing sandbox, credential, and tool restrictions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Agent Chat and isolated workspaces. Configure a sandbox agent with low-trust review scoped to an intake project. 2. Send the agent a direct board chat message, or assign it a projectless task. 3. Observe `low_trust_boundary_mismatch` before execution. Related: #14766 adds private task directories for repo-free low-trust execution. It is now merged into master and included in the branch base, so CI and staging verify the combined behavior. ## What Changed - Derive owner-chat access from existing conversation identity. - Derive exact-task access from the existing human requester and server-owned request origin, including coalesced requests. Plugin and external sender attribution do not authorize work. - Follow existing `retryOfRunId` database links for automatic continuations, checking company, agent, and task throughout; cancelled ancestors cannot grant authority. - Require a live run and current assignment. Preserve sandbox, credential, privileged-tool, responsible-user, and quarantined-output checks. - Retain board backlog assignments in existing request records without starting execution. Reassignment cancels old human requests in the common service transaction, including plugin writes; late settlement cannot revive them. - Add real database and HTTP coverage for request provenance, retry ancestry, cancelled runs, concurrent reassignment, spoofing, and containment. Document the rule. - Preserve legacy board assignment requests through their existing source, reason, and human requester. - Use the existing wrapped-error helper for concurrent chat-question idempotency; a deterministic race test reproduces the CI failure before the fix and passes after it. - No new schema, migrations, or user-identity fields. Existing requester columns hold attribution. ## Verification - Passed the focused database, policy-retention, HTTP, and reassignment tests locally. The HTTP test creates a task through the real board route and checks the resulting persisted wakeup before exercising agent reads, comments, mutations, and review handoff. - Database tests hold a reassignment transaction open to verify coherent authorization before and after commit, with a two-connection pool. They cover retries, coalesced requests, cancelled ancestry, invalid cross-company/agent/task links, cycles, and forged attribution. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final commit (`d107c26df`). [Latest-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36815589542) passed: 54 successful checks, two expected skips, including all eight browser-test shards. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved threads. Local tests were targeted; the full test suite ran through CI’s test matrix. - The revised HTTP suite passed all 13 tests; database authorization tests passed all 11, including legacy compatibility and late watchdog settlement; the backlog route contract passed all 3 tests. Another 102 tests covering durable chat admission, wake queues, and Cursor execution passed. - All 90 interaction-service tests passed with both create calls deliberately held until their optimistic reads complete, forcing duplicate-key recovery. That forced race failed before switching to the shared wrapped-error helper. - Previous staging proof covered owner chat and projectless task persistence. The simplified revision has not been redeployed; that earlier proof is not claimed for the new implementation. ## Risks - This is an authorization change: only the live run's exact task qualifies, and normal responsible-user restrictions still apply. - Existing request and retry records are authoritative. Merely naming a responsible/originating user or an external connector sender does not qualify. - Reassignment invalidates existing human request records transactionally. A cancelled run or request cannot regain authority when the task is assigned back. - Ordinary task exceptions require server-owned origin or the legacy board assignment source/reason/actor combination. Existing owner chats use conversation identity. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. 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>	2026-10-01 09:45:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	018993140f	feat: let agents name prompt-only tasks (#14761) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Users create tasks with a title and a description. > - A required title adds work when the prompt already explains the request. > - An agent can name the task once it reads that request. > - This pull request accepts prompt-only tasks and starts them with a short prompt slice. > - A scoped title tool lets the assigned agent replace that slice early without changing execution state. > - A live browser eval checks the real agent call, saved title, audit entry, and preservation of user titles. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: task creation, shared contracts, database, server, runner tools, and board UI. **Problem or motivation** Users must currently write a title before they can submit a detailed task prompt. The agent has enough context to write a useful title itself. **Proposed solution** Make the title optional when a description is present. Save the first 120 characters of the normalized prompt as a provisional title. Ask the assigned agent to call `set_task_title` early. Use an atomic provisional-title guard to preserve titles supplied or edited by users. Keep explicit titles supported. Related: #14543 and #14556 concern empty-title submission. This change intentionally enables that submission when a prompt is present, instead of requiring a title. ## What Changed - Add the `titleNeedsGeneration` field with an idempotent migration. Keep existing titles unchanged. - Add `PUT /api/issues/:id/title` and the native and legacy `set_task_title` tool. Enforce company access, active-run ownership, shared, bounded retry receipts across native/HTTP calls, and transactional audit logging. Refresh external-object links after commit, with the same feature gate and plugin detectors as ordinary title edits. - Add early naming guidance in Standard, Ask, and Plan task context. Preserve the description, status, and assignment. - Allow prompt-only root and child task creation, plus draft restoration in the New Task dialog. Keep user titles supported. - Add an opt-in Product E2E suite for prompt-only Standard and Ask tasks, plus an explicit-title control. It checks actual provider calls within the first five tools, persisted state, audit attribution, and the reloaded UI. - Preserve a closed vocabulary of API key maintenance phrases in declared prose while rejecting opaque credential suffixes. Add one bounded naming retry after wording is rejected, without treating the rejected call as a saved title. - Repair the native cleanup receipt check exposed during full verification: accept matching input digests, retain legacy input checks, and reject conflicting receipts. ## Verification - Live Product E2E on `f43478473800e3a46b85c5ee79677efdb15108e7`: **3/3 passed** with native Codex `gpt-5.4-mini`, first attempts only, automatic retries disabled. Standard and Ask each saved “Rotate expired API key” on their first tool call, with matching persisted state and a single same-run audit entry. The explicit-title control retained its user title with zero title writes. All three verified the reloaded browser UI. - Campaign: `local-2026-09-30T21-30-11-021Z`. Earlier failed campaigns are retained separately; they exposed credential-prose handling and prompted the naming recovery fix. No failed result was regraded or deleted. - Reproduce with `pnpm test:e2e:runner -- --id task-titles.runner-codex-mini.local.prompt-title-standard --id task-titles.runner-codex-mini.local.prompt-title-ask --id task-titles.runner-codex-mini.local.preserve-explicit-title --max-automatic-retries 0` and an authorized provider key. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the latest commit. The runner build used the configured external eval source tree. - Product E2E unit suite: **61 files, 818 tests passed**; E2E typecheck and UI token gates passed. - Title API/native regressions cover prompt-only and explicit child creation, user edits, ownership/company isolation, external reference refresh, cross-surface retry replay, and the 64-key limit without receipt eviction. All passed. Prompt-context coverage: **44 tests passed**. - Rust credential regressions: **35 tests passed**, including benign maintenance qualifiers and opaque credential rejection in every declared prose field. Catalog/report reconciliation: **28 tests passed**. Native recovery: **560 tests passed**. - Broad local `pnpm test:run`: **14,555 tests passed** in the general server group; two suites failed to initialize embedded PostgreSQL and the existing 40,000-file Git streaming stress test exceeded its 300-second macOS timeout. All three suites then passed in isolation (**5 tests passed**) without code or timeout changes. The original full local command exited nonzero and is not being represented as a clean full run. - Latest-head GitHub checks are green: **53 passed, 4 skipped, zero failed or pending**, including all test shards and the canary packaging dry run. Greptile reviewed the same commit at **5/5**, with zero unresolved review threads. ## Risks - The additive database field must reach the server and UI together. The migration uses `IF NOT EXISTS` and defaults existing tasks to a final title. - Title generation depends on the assigned agent running. Tasks without a run keep their provisional title. - Live qualification covers the native Codex path in Standard and Ask modes. API/legacy and Plan behavior have deterministic coverage. - The credential-prose exception validates the entire suffix against a closed maintenance vocabulary. Unknown suffixes, assignments, quoted values, credential prefixes, and diagnostics retain strict checks. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The live eval uses the native Codex `gpt-5.4-mini` profile. ## 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>	2026-09-30 16:48:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3c561642b4	fix(chat): resolve approvals and preserve unanswered questions (#14613) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents ask for decisions and optional details through cards in chat. > - A clear approval in a message can leave the matching card pending. > - An unanswered question can also block an unrelated later reply. > - Decisions need a saved source message, while optional questions need to remain answerable in history. > - This pull request records conversational decisions and lets users move on from questions and answer them later. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Native Claude and Codex could act on approval in chat while the original approval card stayed pending. Pending question forms stayed above the composer, were absent from history, and could suppress later chat replies. A late native question answer could wait for a finished run to reconnect. **Expected behavior** The active agent records a clear approval or refusal against the exact card and user message. Ambiguous replies do not grant consent. Users can send another message without answering a question. The question remains pending in history and can be reopened and answered later. The saved answer reaches the agent. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Ask an agent to propose work with a confirmation card, then approve it in chat. 2. Check that the original card records that approval before work starts. 3. Ask an interactive question, send an unrelated message, and reload. 4. Open the unanswered question from history and submit an answer. Related work: #14408 added completion delivery. #14607 tests completion reporting turns. Neither records conversational answers on approval cards. ## What Changed - Add a confirmation endpoint backed by a user comment, with schema validation, OpenAPI discovery, and native Plan-mode access. Ask mode remains read-only. - Check company, active run, actor, current session, message provenance, revision, and resolver policy. Save the decision and audit in one transaction. Retries do not repeat effects. Emit resolution telemetry after commit. - Give fresh and resumed chat turns the actual pending confirmation identities. Teach agents to save clear conversational decisions before acting and to clarify ambiguity. - Keep unanswered Agent Chat questions as compact history entries. A newer user message closes the old form. Question cards never contribute to composer pending counts or navigation, including after dismissing a fresh form. The history card is the sole reminder; clicking it restores that exact form and draft. - Preserve Agent Chat questions when later messages or questions arrive. Historical ordinary inputs no longer gate later chat replies. Current-run requests, task execution, and governed approvals keep their gates. Remove the special acknowledgement-publication proof helpers that this rule replaces. - Route answers to finished native runs through durable fresh-wake delivery, with existing idempotency and source-question context. Settle late replies against contiguous completed conversation turns and freeze their history replay; failed, unhandled, and newly arriving messages remain actionable. - Add real-component Storybook scenarios, database and UI regressions, and a three-turn native Claude/Codex E2E case. Capture distinct, UI-ready screenshots and report the individual assertions. ## Verification - Focused decision/publication/UI regressions after merging master: 288 passed; subsequent UI draft, failed-send, and conversation checks: 199 passed. - Native question and durable delivery regressions: 106 passed, including all four terminal run states and exactly-once late delivery. Seven targeted regressions fail against the original implementation and pass with the fix. - Latest conversation/decision/native-delivery regressions after the master merge: 121 passed. Covers completed progress, missing or failed intervening turns, new messages during a late reply, stale sessions, and frozen retry/replay boundaries. Four new assertions fail before the ordering fix. - E2E support suite after the master merge: 792 passed. Negative controls reject expired cards, wrong questions/answers, stale or missing replies, unrelated clarification forms, and unexpected tasks. - The embedded-browser walkthrough caught one additional defect: dismissing a fresh question still showed a composer badge. Both Cancel and close-button regressions failed before the fix. The fix at `65f2ade12` passes 170 chat-thread tests and 792 E2E support tests. After merging master, 232 chat-thread/confirmation tests, server/UI typechecks, and token gates pass. The preview and two-provider live E2E pass at `e5512a206`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads at that commit. All 55 checks are now successful at `e5512a206` (four conditional checks skipped), including the aggregate verification gate and clean-install canary test. The first attempt was interrupted by simultaneous CI worker shutdowns; one failed-job rerun passed without code changes. - [Published Storybook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/storybook/branches/codex~2Fchat-approval-resolution/?path=/story/chat-comments-agent-chat-unanswered-questions--moved-on): nine real-component scenarios. Manually exercised move on, reopen, preserve draft, answer later, answer one of multiple questions, and a custom mobile answer in the embedded browser. Retested fresh Cancel and close-button dismissal in the updated build, then reopened and submitted the preserved Green selection and inspected its answered receipt. Static preview has no live model/backend; its callbacks are fixture responses. - [First live campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36714504406-1/) reproduced the late-answer completion-state defect on both providers despite correct saved answers and acknowledgements. It also exposed a valid imperative clarification rejected by the old oracle. Both issues are fixed with regression controls; this failing run is retained as evidence. - [Four-cell qualification](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36717804064-1/) passed 4/4 at `2bf8a1009`: unanswered-question return and ambiguous confirmation, each on native Claude and Codex. Inspected saved state, source-message decisions, visible cards, and agent replies. Both late-answer chats settled to waiting; no unrequested tasks were created. [Final branch rerun](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36719666238-1/) passed 2/2 at `142630720`: the same unanswered-question journey after merging master, plus an additional screenshot and browser assertion for the actual late-answer acknowledgement. - [Composer-reminder E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36727006818-1/) passed 2/2 at `5b62c52d9`: native Claude and Codex, three turns each, with explicit no-badge assertions before and after reload. Inspected saved pending/answered state, both screenshots with a clear composer, and actual Blue acknowledgements; all five behavioral matchers passed per provider and neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial; this is bounded workflow qualification. - [Fresh-dismissal E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36742773318-1/) passed 2/2 at `e5512a206`: native Claude and Codex, including fresh Cancel, clear composer, reopen, unrelated message, reload, late Blue answer, and actual agent acknowledgement. All five behavioral matchers pass per provider. Inspected the fresh-dismissal screenshots and saved pending/answered identity; neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial (4/6 runs). - Prior evidence remains available in [the earlier campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36642252725-1/). Its early loading screenshot and overwritten final capture prompted the UI-ready, distinct screenshot fixes. ## Risks - The model interprets intent. The server verifies permission and provenance; it does not infer consent from text. Ambiguous and unrelated replies are not approvals. - Historical questions can accumulate. They remain visible, pending, and answerable; no automatic answer or expiry is invented. - The change to completion gates is scoped to Agent Chat and ordinary historical inputs. Current-turn and governed approvals retain their existing controls. - Live qualification is limited to the selected stories. Broader native onboarding finalization remains separate work. - No database migration. Telemetry adds no fields or values; the contract and README document the commit boundary. Privacy review was requested on the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser-test orchestration. The exact model ID and context-window size are 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 - [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>	2026-09-30 11:46:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0e5830887b	perf: reveal task content sooner and parallelize issue reads (#14727) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - A task page must show saved replies quickly so a person can read the work. > - The title could appear while the conversation waited for unrelated metadata and transcripts. > - Thread requests also waited for enriched task details, while the server read several independent fields in sequence. > - This change shows saved content as soon as it is ready, starts thread reads earlier, and runs independent server reads together. > - Native event history takes priority over legacy log fallback, and mentioned tasks load on intent. > - Content-free timing spans make the remaining server delays visible without recording task content. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Task titles and properties appeared quickly, but saved conversation content stayed hidden for several more seconds while metadata and run transcripts loaded. **Expected behavior** Saved replies and the task description should be readable without waiting for supporting history. Returning to a cached task should show content within a frame or two. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task with saved comments and completed runs. 2. Delay the task activity and runs responses by five seconds in the browser. 3. Observe whether saved content remains hidden until those responses finish. 4. Navigate away and return to the task to check cached navigation. **Paperclip version or commit** The change was developed from `1b48e73e0` and rebased onto `44736c9c7`. **Deployment mode** Built from source, tested in an authenticated staging deployment and with local response replay. Related: #14667 overlaps the transcript reveal behavior and adds separate retry UX. This PR also changes navigation prefetch, parent metadata gates, native log fallback, server read scheduling, and timing spans. #12647 proposes a separate SQL predicate optimization in the runs service. #13597 and #13095 are earlier loading fixes. ## What Changed - Start activity and runs when the task page mounts, alongside task details and comments, using the route reference for shared query keys. Hover/focus prefetch does not start full history reads. - Reveal saved comments and descriptions while metadata and transcripts load. Preserve strict waits for linked-comment navigation and tasks with only runtime content. - For settled native runs, fetch legacy logs only when event history is empty or fails. Preserve live-log subscriptions for queued and running native runs. Fetch mentioned-task details on hover or focus. - Run independent issue-detail enrichment and run metadata reads in parallel while preserving recovery dependencies. - Add `Server-Timing` phases and opt-in OpenTelemetry spans, plus regression tests and observability documentation. ## Verification - **313 tests passed** across the initial seven focused component, cache, timing, and scroll suites. After review fixes, **313 tests passed** across five task-page, cache, prefetch, and live-transcript suites (`pnpm exec vitest run` with `--maxWorkers=1`; these sets overlap). - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally before the final UI-only review fixes. UI typecheck/build and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed after those fixes. The final commit also passes full typecheck and build in CI. - The full local Vitest run was attempted. Several unrelated embedded PostgreSQL fixtures failed to start, and parallel test workers hit timeouts. Focused reruns passed. A later local full-suite rerun was stopped after the complete CI suite passed; it is not claimed as a local full-suite pass. - Final commit `d1e147145`: **54 checks passed, 2 skipped**, including all server/workspace test shards, all eight browser E2E shards, full build/typecheck, Runner checks, release registry, and canary clean-install verification. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36734642034). Greptile **5/5** after two reviews; both findings fixed and all review threads resolved. No merge conflicts. - Live browser tests on an existing task with two saved replies: median full reload to visible content fell from **1.92 s** (3 samples) to **1.40 s** (5 samples). Cached return fell from **421 ms** (1 sample) to **29 ms** (3 samples). These are observed samples, not a performance guarantee. - With activity and runs delayed by five seconds, saved content appeared in **1.38 s** on desktop and **1.33 s** on mobile. The inspected comment did not move when metadata arrived. Verified history expansion, task properties, pending-input navigation, dashboard return, and mobile layout. - A separate local replay with fixed responses reduced visible-content time from **5.12 s** to **2.15 s**. This isolates frontend behavior and is not a live-server benchmark. ## Risks Progressive history can change the thread after first paint. Existing anchor behavior is retained and covered by tests and delayed-response browser checks. Query aliases must stay aligned for invalidation. Parallel reads can increase short bursts of database work; dependent recovery operations remain ordered. Full reloads still depend on network and task-detail latency. No schema or authorization change. OpenTelemetry remains disabled without an operator endpoint. The added spans use a closed set of phase names and carry no task IDs, task content, or exception text. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a performance fix within the existing task page. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, code editing, terminal tools, and Chrome performance profiling. ## 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>	2026-09-30 10:26:28 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1b48e73e0b	feat(ui): add secondary navigation for agent chat (#14706) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat already provides a persistent conversation with each agent. > - Its shortcuts share the primary navigation and do not give chats a dedicated place. > - People need to find agents, start a chat, and switch conversations without moving the page layout. > - This pull request adds a secondary chat sidebar and a landing page around the existing chat surface. > - The same conversation, composer, history, and context panel remain in use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13283 and #13420. This extends the existing experimental Agent Chat navigation after review of the component and page stories. It supports the CEO Chat roadmap item through the existing task-backed conversation model. **Subsystem affected** The board UI and the company-scoped conversation list API. **Current behavior** Chat shortcuts sit inside the primary navigation. There is no dedicated landing page with a searchable conversation list. A separate landing header also moves the sidebar when an agent is selected. **Proposed behavior** Show a Chat entry in primary navigation. Keep a searchable agent sidebar beside the chat content. The plus button starts or reopens the current user's single conversation with that agent. Keep the header and sidebar in the same positions before and after selection. **Reason and benefit** People can find agents and return to persistent conversations without leaving the chat area or creating duplicate chats. **Breaking changes** The experimental chat navigation changes. Explicitly adding a chat now resolves its conversation immediately. Direct visits to unused agent chat URLs remain read-only. The existing per-agent routes and message contracts remain compatible. No database migration is required. ## What Changed - Add an account- and company-scoped conversation list endpoint with the existing access checks, feature gate, and OpenAPI entry. - Add the live secondary sidebar, landing page, avatars, search, loading states, errors, and retry controls. - Make the agent picker wait for chat creation and display failures. Existing agents reopen the same conversation. A dismissed selection cannot close a reopened picker or navigate over a newer choice. - Preserve recent-activity ordering and terminated agents’ chat history. Scope live list refreshes to the current user’s conversation events. A failed historical-agent lookup leaves healthy chats usable and offers a focused retry. - Keep the sidebar and header stable across chat routes. Keep mobile selection in the navigation drawer. - Use the production components in Storybook. Prepare the theme and mobile viewport before mounting the page to avoid the startup flash. - Update product documentation, the design guide, and navigation tests. Replace old browser expectations for stars and recent shortcuts with persistent conversation and layout coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates` pass after rebasing onto master. - Focused UI tests pass, including 105 sidebar, picker, and live-update checks after review fixes. The 33 conversation service and route tests and 10 OpenAPI checks pass, including ownership, feature gating, and concurrent creation. - The full local test run passed 14,163 server tests before three environment or timeout failures. The embedded Postgres startup, connector socket, and native runner failures all passed direct reruns. - Browser test-drive verification covers a real provider reply, add and reopen, persisted history after reload, no-match search recovery, mobile drawer dismissal, and top-aligned context panels. - Browser measurements confirm that the sidebar has the same position and dimensions on the landing page and an agent conversation. - Storybook builds and its add-and-reopen interaction passes. - The revised browser regression passes locally against a freshly built throwaway instance. It covers stable sidebar geometry, add/reopen uniqueness, drafts, search, history, and terminated-agent history after reload. The full CI browser suite also passes. - Latest commit `b323577d9523180104df4000eaceedea2772608c`: all 54 completed checks pass, including the complete server/workspace/browser suites, aggregate verification, build/typecheck, security scans, and canary packaging. The two Storybook jobs are skipped by their workflow conditions. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36714052050). - Greptile reviewed this same commit at 5/5 with no remaining actionable findings; all review threads are resolved. - Reviewer path: enable Agent Chat, click Chat, use plus to choose an agent, send a message, switch away, and reopen that agent. One conversation must remain, with its history intact. ## Risks - The new sidebar lists persistent conversations instead of starred and recent shortcuts. - Chat creation is asynchronous. Errors stay visible in the picker, and delayed responses cannot navigate into a previous company or account. - The shell adjustment is limited to chat routes and preserves the existing conversation implementation. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The session does not expose the exact API 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 #123` / `Refs #123` 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>	2026-09-30 07:35:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2de43fc909	fix(issues): keep agent mentions as context and defer personal app authorization (#14577) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each task has one assignee. Explicit assignment and review requests select who should act. > - An agent mention started another agent on a task it did not own. Native attachment staging then rejected that run. > - Allowing that run through startup could also let two agents work on the same task. > - Mentions should identify relevant context. They should not start work or forward comments to other tasks. > - A personal app installed on a shared agent must also wait until tool use to resolve the current user's grant. > - This pull request removes mention dispatch and keeps missing personal app credentials from blocking startup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native agent mentioned on another agent's task failed with `paperclip_runner_attachment_staging_not_authorized`. The source task could already be complete. A nearby optional-app warning was a separate problem: personal app tools were excluded when their shared health state required attention. **Expected behavior** An agent mention is context only. It does not wake the agent, take ownership, or copy a comment onto another task. Normal feedback still reaches the assignee. Assignment and explicit review requests still dispatch work. An unavailable personal app does not block startup or produce a startup warning. Tool use requests the current user's authorization and never uses another user's grant. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a task to agent A. Post a comment that mentions agent B, including a comment that closes A's task or references B's child task. 2. Confirm the comment retains its agent link and B receives no run or deferred wake. A can still receive normal feedback. 3. Install an active personal MCP connection on B. Give only Alice a grant and leave shared health at `error`. 4. Explicitly assign work to B for another user. Confirm it can finish without using the app. 5. Ask B to use the app. Confirm its tool call shows an inline connection request for the current user. Related work: Refs #11144. This change uses the existing execution-time personal grant resolution. ## What Changed - Remove mention dispatch from standalone comments and issue updates. Remove implicit forwarding of parent comments to a mentioned worker's child task. - Ignore new requests with the legacy mention wake reason before creating a run or deferred request. Preserve already accepted queue entries, which can combine assignments and feedback with a later mention. - Remove the native mention admission, staging, and finalization exceptions from this PR. Native task ownership checks remain intact. - Keep active, installed personal app tools available despite shared health errors. Remove optional-app startup warnings. Tool execution retains the current user's grant and policy checks. - Update agent instructions and product/API docs. Refresh generated capability source anchors. ## Verification - Red: comment-route regressions reproduced extra agent wakes and child comment forwarding. A separate regression proved that cancelling by the last coalesced reason could drop an accepted assignment. - Green: the targeted route, wake queue, heartbeat, workspace, responsible-user, MCP discovery, and HTTP gateway suites passed. The final queue and heartbeat rerun passed 104 tests, the restored queue adapter passed 56, and both comment-route suites passed 135. These include accepted assignment preservation, rejection of new mention requests, and normal assignee feedback. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted for review/CI fixes, so it is not claimed as a completed local pass. It exposed a cleanup timing race in the concurrent-mention assertion, now fixed and verified across 10 repetitions. CI also exposed an obsolete test waiting for the removed mention lookup; it was reproduced and fixed, then both comment suites passed. Final full-suite verification is through CI. - Final head `bd9ea4cb05a8f081c54e017760a8999f9ea6ef44`: 54 checks passed, 2 Storybook checks intentionally skipped; no pending or failing checks. Full CI includes general and serialized suites, all 8 browser shards, runner verification, typecheck, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit, with no unresolved findings. - One unchanged Cursor adapter test hit its 10-second CI timeout. All 5 tests in that file passed locally; one retry of its CI shard passed all 674 tests (3 skipped). The aggregate verification gate then passed. No code or timeout was changed for that retry. - Live browser check: inserted a structured mention with the picker on a human-owned task. The saved link remained visible. Database checks found zero new runs and zero wake requests. - Live Codex runner check: explicitly assigned that task with the unavailable personal app attached. The run succeeded and committed completion without using the app or creating a connection card. - Live browser follow-up: asked the assignee to call PostHog and mentioned another enabled agent as context. Only the assignee ran. It succeeded and displayed the existing inline connection card. Only Alice's grant existed; the run belonged to a different user. - The HTTP regression covers tool discovery with no provider calls or connection cards, first use returning the current user's authorization request, and successful retry after that user's grant exists. - App checks use an isolated local fixture and a fake MCP provider. They do not use production app credentials. ## Risks - Intentional behavior change: workflows that used mentions to wake agents must use assignment, a bounded child task, or an explicit review request. - Already accepted queue entries retain their prior rules. An old entry can combine assignment or feedback with a later mention; its last reason cannot safely identify mention-only work. New mention requests create no run or deferred wake. - Personal apps with a shared health error remain discoverable. Actual tool use still requires the responsible user's grant and existing policy gates. - No database migration or public API schema change. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. - Live native-run verification used `gpt-6-astra` through the Codex provider. ## 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>	2026-09-29 12:49:01 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	83076d7e7c	feat: return completed handoffs to Agent Chat (#14408) ... Return completed Agent Chat handoffs through a durable outbox and scope each generated update to its supplied tasks. Add recovery, browser delivery, result access, and calibrated quality coverage. Validated with two consecutive ten-case Claude/Codex campaigns, all CI checks, and a 5/5 review. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-29 10:25:52 -05:00
3 people	0be2afcca6	feat(ui): improve task composer controls and pending input (#14322) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets operators assign tasks to AI agents and review their work. > - The task composer controls the next message and its assigned agent. > - Operators needed a way to choose that agent's model and effort without leaving the composer. > - The old mode selector, upload button, and input cards made the mobile composer crowded and hid normal messaging during a pending decision. > - Harnesses publish different model and effort capabilities, so the picker must follow the selected agent. > - This pull request adds one responsive composer flow, keeps pending cards visible above it, and protects Codex ACP authentication in the local test path. > - Operators can choose run settings, send a message, and answer a pending card as separate actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task composer UI, issue thread interactions, Codex ACP credential handling, and Storybook. **Problem or motivation** The composer did not expose model or effort for the selected agent. Mobile actions wrapped poorly. Pending questions and confirmations replaced the composer. A local Codex ACP test could also reuse host authentication after the managed key was removed. **Proposed solution** Put assignee search, model search, exact model IDs, effort, and fast mode in one picker. Use a mobile dialog. Replace the direct-upload plus action and separate mode selector with an Add menu and removable Plan or Ask chips. Place pending interaction cards above the usable composer. Keep these cards pending after an ordinary message unless their creator asks for comment superseding. Replace managed ACP auth files atomically and isolate the test key from host credentials. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list an overlapping composer milestone. This change improves the existing task and review flows. ## What Changed - Added the combined assignee, model, and effort picker to both task composers. Search matches agent name, role, and harness. The server uses a curated Codex list by default and honors instance-declared models. Manual IDs remain available. - Added an effort slider for known model capabilities, a conditional Codex fast control, and reset. The picker opens in a modal on mobile. - Added the Add menu for files, supported goals, Plan mode, and Ask mode. Plan and Ask are exclusive removable chips. Keyboard mode cycling remains available. - Adjusted mobile spacing, avatars, wrapping, and Send placement. Removed the composer divider. - Moved pending question, confirmation, review, and related cards above the composer. Ordinary comments now leave question and confirmation cards pending by default. The onboarding prompt retains explicit comment superseding. - Updated the Storybook composer group with responsive states and the production picker. Added UI, service, route, and browser regression coverage. - Isolated Codex ACP API-key authentication, skipped subscription auth merge and shared-home copy-back for remote API-key runs, and replaced the managed auth file atomically. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the final local head. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed on the final local head. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts ui/src/components/task-chat/ComposerRunSettingsPicker.test.tsx` — 31 tests passed, including role and harness search, declared Codex models, and filtering general OpenAI models. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` — 74 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts` — 42 tests passed, including remote API-key copy-back isolation. - `pnpm test:run` — attempted locally; the embedded PostgreSQL test database could not initialize on macOS. The isolated `heartbeat-run-event-sequencing` suite reproduced that environment failure. GitHub CI runs the full test matrix for this head. - `pnpm build` — passed on the final head. `pnpm build-storybook` passed after the last UI change; only server code, tests, and docs changed afterward. - Live local test drive — Codex ACP ran a task with a managed API key. The test agent was restored to its default ACP configuration afterward. - Review the interactive stories under the top-level Composer group with `pnpm storybook`. Check a narrow desktop width and mobile Plan, Ask, picker, and pending-question states. ## Risks - A pending card stays open when an ordinary comment changes the discussion. Its creator can set `supersedeOnUserComment: true` when a new comment should replace it. - Model and effort overrides persist on the task until reset or changed. An unlisted manual model ID may fail when the provider runs it. - Some harness catalogs do not report effort support. The picker hides effort for those models. - No database migration is required. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. This runtime does not expose the exact model ID or context window to the task. The model used code execution and browser tools. ## 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> Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <codex@openai.com>	2026-09-28 23:02:39 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	14795136f5	fix(runtime): finalize and recover sandbox workspace exports safely (#14402) ... Serialize native workspace finalization, validate streamed archives within bounded limits, and quietly recover unsafe exports from saved results. Preserve exact allocations for exhausted transient failures and provide export-only retry without rerunning the provider. Consolidates #14314, #14315, #14329, and #14334 while preserving the already-merged finalization label changes. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-28 10:57:32 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	b2e9e82f05	fix: stop remote Grok runs before continuing queued messages (#14100) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The execution service owns each run and saves messages sent while it runs. > - Interrupt must stop the current executor before it delivers those messages. > - Remote Grok commands did not register the host cancellation control. > - A cancelled task run could still write Done and prevent queue recovery. > - This pull request connects remote cancellation and revokes cancelled run writes. > - Saved input can use the existing queue admission rules after verified cleanup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Interrupting a queued message marked a remote Grok run cancelled before its sandbox stopped. The old run could still post a reply and mark the task Done. Its saved follow-up remained deferred behind execution recovery. **Expected behavior** Stop revokes run write authority and waits for verified termination. Saved messages remain durable and enter one successor through normal admission after cleanup. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a task with `grok_local` in a remote sandbox. 2. Send a follow-up and use Interrupt while the command runs. 3. Let the old command attempt a task status update after cancellation. 4. Observe the task disposition and the saved message queue. **Paperclip version or commit** The gap is present in master at `d3e0f0a238`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server with a Daytona sandbox. Related work: #14028 and #14046 handle bounded continuation. #13291 covers infrastructure interruption and verified remote cleanup. #13332 addresses atomic recovery holds. This change handles direct Grok operator cancellation and stale task writes. ## What Changed - Register remote Grok cancellation before preparation. Keep command ownership until the host confirms sandbox termination. - Reuse the sandbox cancellation boundary for the direct CLI invocation. Reject fresh attempts after cancellation and preserve workspace restore failure evidence. - Reject writes from cancelled task JWTs and runs with a pending stop. Preserve diagnostic reads and existing conversation error codes. - Recheck run authority under a database lock before task updates and interaction responses commit. - Preserve authorized handoffs that stop their own run. Only the server-issued stop receipt for that request permits the final task update. - Add tests for hung commands, unverified stops, early cancellation, copy-back failures, late Done, late interaction responses, authorized handoffs, exact lease receipts, and one queue successor across concurrent restart sweeps. - Document the cancellation and write-authority contract. ## Verification - Targeted adapter, cancellation-boundary, authentication, queued-message, interaction-service, and activity-route tests passed. The expanded run passed 214 tests; one new test had an incomplete fixture. After correcting the fixture, all 8 selected follow-up cases passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed on `179c86caf1bf0d89914a503d46e24af7e4b8c557`. - `pnpm build`: passed on the same commit. - `pnpm test:run`: the general-server group completed with 13,521 passed, 99 skipped, and 18 failed tests. It then stopped, so the remaining local groups did not run. Five Slack, email, and wake-batching failures passed on focused reruns after correcting the local environment. The remaining 13 failures reproduce as `EACCES` on rename in unchanged skill-cache code on macOS. Two custom-image suite setup hooks also failed to start embedded PostgreSQL after the machine exhausted shared-memory slots; all 31 tests in that file passed on rerun after the local resource issue was resolved. CI covers all test groups. - CI: 53 checks passed and 2 were skipped on the latest commit, including the aggregate verification gate. The last server shard passed on its single rerun after a preview-server startup timeout. The affected file also passed locally with 28 passed and 3 skipped. - Greptile: 5/5 on the latest commit. Both review threads are resolved. - No live deployment or staging task mutation has been performed. ## Risks - Stopping the sandbox can prevent file copy-back. The result preserves workspace restore failure evidence; termination does not imply restored files. - If provider termination fails, the adapter keeps ownership of its outstanding command and does not acknowledge Stop. - The write restriction now applies to ordinary cancelled tasks. Reads remain allowed. Task and interaction checks add a shared run-row lock to agent mutations. An exact server-issued receipt permits the task request that stopped its own run to complete its handoff. - Existing terminal tasks are not reopened automatically. An operator must correct a historical late Done before its saved queue can continue. - No schema migration or UI change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The precise backend revision 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 #` 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>	2026-09-26 17:07:07 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	96bf004a79	fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. **What happened?** Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. **Expected behavior** Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open **Design previews / Recovery notice** to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show **Agent needs attention**, a plain-language explanation, **Retry agent**, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-25 15:28:11 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	b0155a681a	feat(slack): connect Paperclip conversations and scheduled messages (#13920) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack conversations use the same tasks and agents as the Paperclip board. > - A board reply must reach that Slack conversation and let the agent continue the work. > - An assigned agent also needs its Slack tools during normal tasks and scheduled routines. > - Both paths must keep the linked user's authority, delivery rules, and conversation history. > - This pull request adds those paths and reduces setup friction for Slack bots. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server orchestration, Slack connector tools, shared contracts, and chat setup UI. **Problem or motivation** Replies entered in Paperclip did not provide a complete round trip to the linked Slack thread. Slack and board wakeups could select different model sessions for the same task. Agents also lacked their assigned Slack tools outside Slack-origin work, which prevented a routine from sending its responsible user a briefing. Inviting a bot could leave the new channel disabled. **Proposed solution** Mirror human board messages with author attribution and route the agent result to the same thread. Use the same session key across both entry points. Supply Slack tools to the connection's assigned agent in normal tasks and routines, using the current responsible user's verified link. Enable newly invited channels while preserving explicit disabled choices. Add a browser-agent setup prompt to the Slack wizard. **Alternatives considered** A separate Slack scheduler or task dispatcher would duplicate existing Paperclip workflows. Reusing the connection owner's identity would grant the wrong authority. Replaying old channel history could start unintended work. This change uses ordinary task wakeups, routine dispatch, and Slack's original invitation mention event instead. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the shipped Scheduled Routines and governed Apps capabilities. It does not add a separate task lifecycle. Related work: #13828 and #13809. Related test stabilization: #13877. The existing plugin Slack-control proposals are separate from this built-in connector change. ## What Changed - Queue human Paperclip messages for the original Slack thread with display-name attribution and stable delivery identities. Require the author’s current linked Slack identity and recheck access before delivering messages or agent replies. - Apply pause, dependency, cancellation, and closed-workspace guards before explicit Board sends request work and again when the durable outbox dispatches it. - Route agent results back to Slack and preserve model-session continuity, including replies that reopen completed tasks. - Resolve assigned Slack connections for normal agent tasks and routines. Recheck the responsible user's link, membership, and permissions at execution. - Add `slack_open_dm` for the responsible user's bot DM and request the `im:write` scope. - Enable newly discovered invited channels. Keep explicit OFF choices and normal admission and deduplication rules. - Add a copyable Slack setup prompt for a computer-use agent, with Storybook coverage. Share the prompt-button component with GitHub. - Update Slack tool documentation and runtime instructions. - Stabilize the mobile project browser test by waiting for the final canonical route before editing, preserving all persistence assertions. ## Verification - Live staging: invited the bot after the first mention. The channel became enabled and the bot answered that original mention. - Live staging: a normal Paperclip reply appeared in Slack with author attribution. The agent completed the calculation and replied once in the original thread and in Paperclip. - Live staging: a codeword entered in Slack was recalled from Paperclip. A following Slack calculation used the result from the Paperclip turn. Run metadata confirmed the same model session for both entry points. - Live staging: a scheduled routine used `slack_open_dm` and `slack_post_message` to deliver one DM. The existing app was reinstalled with `im:write`. The test routine was paused after verification. - Before the master merge: 397 focused feature tests passed. The continuity fix passed all 76 issue comment/update route tests and six focused route/integration cases. Typecheck, build, and token gates passed. - Review fixes: 47 focused integration cases passed, covering link revocation/replacement, private membership removal, guarded outbox dispatch, concurrent workers, lost scheduler responses, a real one-connection pool, exact reply provenance, and attachment retries. All 99 issue-comment route tests and the Slack catalog browser test passed. - Full local typecheck, production build, token gates, and module-boundary checks passed. The full local test command passed 25,915 tests before a 15-second timeout in `issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts`; that entire suite passed on isolated rerun (81 tests). Remaining serialized coverage is provided by the current-head CI shards. - An unchanged Cursor adapter test hit its 10-second limit in CI; all five tests in that file passed on a local rerun in 3.11 seconds, and the failed CI shard passed on its single retry. - The preview-server readiness test passed a local rerun (28 tests). The mobile-project readiness fix passed three repetitions of both browser tests (6/6). - Final commit `64ac0d9897f4353375996f1b1b38e5040bdeb0a0`: all CI gates passed, including all eight browser shards, all server/chat suites, typecheck, build, runner checks, and security checks. Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Human messages on a Slack-linked task now publish to its Slack thread. The task banner states this behavior. Incoming Slack messages and internal agent bookkeeping must not echo back. - Normal tasks and routines can now use the assigned bot. Authority remains bound to the current responsible user's link; it does not fall back to the connection owner. Revocation, private-context limits, and queued-write checks still apply. - Existing Slack apps need `im:write` and a reinstall to open DMs. Other existing capabilities remain available without that scope. - New invited channels default to enabled. Explicit disabled choices remain disabled. Channels created by bot tools still require a person to enable responses. - No database migration or new provider credentials are required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, GitHub CLI, and browser tools. The runtime does not expose a more specific model build identifier 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>	2026-09-24 10:51:45 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8725d6ce09	fix: make answered Slack conversations idle (#13809) ... Settle published, successful Slack turns as Idle; resume the same conversation on an admitted message. Preserve unfinished work, delivery errors, and explicit dispositions. Verified through focused lifecycle/API/UI tests, full CI, and a real staging Slack conversation in the embedded browser. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-22 10:35:33 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0f5fafe16b	fix(runner): preserve task replies and warm process continuity (#13738) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - The Runner connects provider sessions to task state, replies, and delegated work. > - Full-stack tests found lost final replies, rejected helper calls that stopped the parent, and unnecessary process restarts. > - A completed child could also receive a new assignment wake that the scheduler then cancelled. > - This change fixes those boundaries and gives agents clearer teammate instructions. > - The tests retain strict completion and process-continuity requirements. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A generated attachment comment could suppress an agent's final reply. A known Codex helper could stop its parent when it requested a Paperclip tool. Native Daytona processes restarted between turns because Paperclip minted an unused GitHub broker token. Reassigning a completed child queued a run that immediately cancelled. Revision instructions also allowed agents to do work assigned to a named teammate themselves. **Expected behavior** Keep the final reply. Reject helper tool requests without borrowing parent authority or stopping the parent. Keep an unconfigured sandbox process alive between turns. Treat assignment-only changes to completed tasks as metadata changes. Preserve explicit teammate assignments during revisions. **Steps to reproduce** Run the retained Runner E2E cases for file handoff, teammate reuse, Daytona warm continuity, and Legacy Claude interview/plan acceptance. The focused regression tests reproduce the reply, helper, process-lifetime, and assignment-wake defects without provider calls. **Paperclip version or commit** The live lifetime and completion campaign used `db3857807`. This PR replays the changes on master `c65fc9e3c`. See Verification for the limits of that evidence. **Deployment mode** Isolated local instances and native Runner sessions in Daytona sandboxes. Related work: #13546 handles a different queued-run issue after an issue-lock compare-and-set failure. This PR prevents the unnecessary assignment wake earlier. #13410 covers retained user services; this PR covers the provider process. No duplicate fix was found. ## What Changed - Exclude generated deliverable-binding comments from final-reply deduplication. Preserve the attachment and explicit user-facing replies. - Reject Paperclip tool and input requests from known Codex helper threads without terminating the parent. Keep unknown-thread rejection intact. - Explain how to hire or reuse a persistent teammate and preserve named delegation on revisions. Update generated protocol fixtures. - Use stable, token-free GitHub wrappers for unconfigured native sandboxes. Preserve credential isolation, configured-account rotation, and cleanup after partial staging failures. - Do not queue assignment-only wakes for done or cancelled tasks. Keep explicit reopening behavior. - Make warm-continuity fixtures create real review cards. Read the persisted final response selected by production presentation logic. Missing selected evidence still fails. ## Verification - Before rebase: 560 focused route, native-executor, and launcher tests passed. The new regressions were reproduced before their fixes. - Live E2E: Legacy Claude interview/plan acceptance passed 3/3 repetitions. Daytona warm continuity passed 2/3 full repetitions. Each successful run retained one process and provider session for all three turns. - The remaining Daytona repetition stopped after a same-URL browser reload left the page blank. Both completed turns retained the same process. Its failed verdict remains unchanged; this PR does not claim the blank-page cause is fixed. - Reports: https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-lifetime-race-20260920/investigation.html and https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-behavior-followups-20260919-results/investigation.html - Post-rebase `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. All 414 Runner E2E harness unit tests and its typecheck passed. Codex protocol tests: 88 passed, 2 ignored. - Latest-head CI: 55 successful checks and 2 intentional skips. Greptile: 5/5 with no review threads. The unchanged workspace exposure tests hit a fixed-port collision on the first CI attempt; their local suite passed (25 tests, 3 platform skips), and the CI shard passed on one retry. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the full hosted general and serialized test shards passed. It did not finish locally and is not counted as a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Configured GitHub accounts retain run-scoped credential rotation and can still restart warm processes. That limitation requires a separate design. Known provider helpers cannot use Paperclip coordination tools directly; they must return findings to the parent. The delegation prompt is an instruction, not an enforced guarantee; Codex Mini hiring/reuse failures remain open. No schema or workflow changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel coding agents. The exact deployment suffix 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 issues and shared reports) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass; full hosted test shards also 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>	2026-09-21 08:56:35 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d0b67bfe71	feat: queue approvals and answers during active runs (#13539) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Users guide running agents through messages, questions, and approval cards. > - Messages already wait in a queue when an agent is running. > - Card responses did not appear in that queue. Some question answers also steered a later run without a user click. > - A fast approval could invalidate the agent's review handoff and cause it to stop its own run. > - This pull request gives card responses the same queue controls and preserves the exact response during delivery. > - Users can wait for completion or explicitly send the response with Interrupt or Steer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13517, which is merged. This PR targets master and adds queued interaction responses on top of the onboarding changes. Related continuation work: #10519 and #12866. **What happened?** Accepting a proposal while its source run was active left a saved response outside the message queue. The agent could then lose its review path, reassign the task, and cancel itself. Answers to older questions could also steer another active turn without a click. **Expected behavior** Save the response immediately. Queue its continuation behind the active run. Deliver it after completion, or when the user explicitly chooses Interrupt or Steer. Preserve approval revisions and answer choices. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let an agent publish a confirmation card while its run is still active. 2. Accept the card before the agent finishes its review handoff. 3. Inspect the message queue and the task's next run. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on da8a3876c with the onboarding changes from #13517. **Deployment mode** Local development from source. The fix covers legacy adapters and native Runner turns. ## What Changed - Project resolved cards into the existing queue as immutable responses. Keep answers and exact approval revisions. - Require an explicit click to steer a response into a compatible native turn. Use Interrupt when a fresh session is required. - Preserve typed response context through interruption, cleanup waits, and normal queue promotion. Keep the direct answer channel for a provider blocked on its original question request. - Accept the source run's review handoff after its card resolves. Reject stale agent reassignment that would orphan a queued response. - Add deterministic regression tests and an `accept-while-running` case to the first-task suite. Require recorded timestamp overlap before that case can pass. - Keep the first-task skill name out of user-facing messages. ## Verification - Red-green: the original route failed the queue regression; the changed route passes it. - Focused server/UI tests: 139 passed, including 64 queue-route tests. - Runner harness unit tests: 314 passed. - Server, UI, and Runner E2E typechecks passed. UI token gates passed. - Full repository typecheck and build passed. Server typecheck passed again after review fixes. - Review regressions: 165 queue/reopen route tests, 53 wake admission tests, and 18 run identity tests passed. Approval acknowledgement recovery and both message/approval arrival orders are covered. - Full local test run: 12,401 passed; three new admission regressions ran against a cached pre-fix module. A fresh run of that entire suite passed (53 tests). The complete CI suite passed on the final commit. - Previous-head CI at `c28e2ef12`: 32 checks passed and 2 optional Storybook checks skipped. Every server/workspace/browser shard, Runner verification, build, typecheck/release registry, canary, policy, and security check passed. Greptile: 5/5, no unresolved threads. Earlier interrupted CI workers were replaced by this fresh complete run. - After integrating the updated parent: 314 harness tests, 119 queue/admission tests, 44 onboarding/question-delivery tests, and 13 native recovery tests passed locally. Full repository typecheck and build passed. - Clarified the skill wording preference: routine replies describe the action without announcing the internal skill; direct questions and permission/security/execution disclosures remain truthful. - The paid `accept-while-running` scenario is registered for all four local first-task profiles. It has not been run against a model in this change. - Rebased onto the merged parent at `11921075a`; the resulting tree exactly matches the locally verified integration tree. Final-head CI on `b53054807` passed: 54 successful checks, 2 optional Storybook checks skipped, no failed checks. Every new server/browser shard, aggregate verify/e2e gate, Runner, typecheck, build, canary, and security check passed on the first attempt. Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. ## Risks - Responses now wait instead of implicitly steering another active turn. A provider blocked on the original question still receives its answer directly. - Approval receipts cannot be edited, discarded, or reordered as comments. This preserves the recorded decision. - Interruption must still prove that the prior execution stopped. The tests cover cleanup waits and duplicate delivery. - The new paid overlap case can be unexercised if the model finishes before the click lands. It cannot pass without evidence of overlap. - No database migration is required. This repairs the existing approvals and execution controls; it does not implement the roadmap's work-stream queues. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact deployed model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: agentic reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, terminal commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-16 14:44:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	11921075a4	Add first-task onboarding skill and Runner E2E coverage (#13517) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The first task helps a new user define and approve useful work. > - That workflow needs reusable instructions and tests against the production experience. > - Native Codex and Claude must load the assigned skill, including after resume. > - Maintainers need recorded conversations and precise failed checks to judge regressions. > - This pull request adds the first-task skill and a suite in the shared Runner E2E harness. > - It keeps behavior results separate from informational quality scores and incomplete recordings. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The first onboarding task and the Runner E2E report used to review it. **Current behavior** Onboarding embeds its policy in a hidden brief. Native Codex drops the skill-instructions setting at the Rust boundary. The shared E2E harness has no onboarding suite or full conversation view. **Proposed behavior** Assign and invoke `/first-task` for the onboarding task. Send selected Codex skills as structured protocol inputs. Run twelve scenarios across legacy Codex, legacy Claude, native Codex, and native ACPX Claude. Include all 48 cells in full campaigns. Show recorded chat, question and approval cards, exact checks, instructions, and billing in the shared dashboard. **Reason and benefit** Measure the real onboarding experience before changing prompts. Distinguish infrastructure failures, behavior failures, and unexercised journey steps. **Breaking changes** No database migration or production API change. First-task instructions now live in an assigned skill. The user-edited persona is preserved; the skill includes the maintainer-approved proposal-mode mapping and saved-plan requirement. Related: #11043 is earlier onboarding work. #13422 already fixes native Claude model pinning, context delivery, and read permissions on master; this branch includes those fixes through its base. The new Claude recovery test supplements them. ## What Changed - Extract and assign the first-task skill while retaining the production greeting and opening question. - Carry the Codex skill-instructions flag through thread start and resume. Resolve explicit task skill references only against assigned skills and send native skill inputs. - Invoke an unambiguously selected assigned skill through Claude ACPX’s native slash-command parser on initial and resumed turns, retaining the entire task/wake envelope as its argument. Do not carry that invocation into ordinary tasks. - Restore the saved single-task proposal modes: confirmation card, or saved plan with revision-targeted checkbox approval. Explicit plan requests also require a saved plan. - Add first-response and complete-journey cases with fixed user facts, acceptance checkpoints, durable outcome checks, and accounting for child runs. - Fail the eval when choice questions have fewer than two real options. Recognize planning documents without treating them as completed work. - Add optional, bounded quality judging as explicit post-processing. - Render full conversations and static interaction cards in the shared report. Conversations start folded. Show original and regraded results and incomplete journeys distinctly. - Keep credential-persistence scanning outside the first-task behavioral suite; retain public evidence redaction. - Refresh generated capability references after the API-reference edits. - Correct shared native question guidance and tool schemas: choices need at least two meaningful options; open-ended questions use canonical text fields with the required compatibility payload. Verify both formats through real tool-authority persistence. - Disable announcements automatically for every isolated Runner E2E process and label the gallery environment/provider/target explicitly. - Remove CI races in the GitHub connection browser test and native session recovery test by waiting for the actual async work before asserting its results. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/onboarding-first-task-assets.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-onboarding-first-task-routes.test.ts`: 19 passed. - `pnpm --dir packages/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/drivers/acpx/runtime-host.test.ts src/drivers/acpx/native-skill-prompt.test.ts src/cli/acpx-runtime-sidecar.test.ts`: 70 passed. Native command forwarding and the 1 MiB input boundary both failed before their fixes and passed afterward. Coverage includes changed skills on reopen, approval context, and an ordinary subsequent task. - Runner E2E unit suite: 306 passed. Harness typecheck passed. The 64 first-task fixture and grader tests also pass. - Full repository typecheck and build passed locally. Server typecheck and Runner build passed again after the native-command change. - Full GitHub Actions CI passed on `23e56447b`: all server/workspace/browser shards, Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, build, canary, policy, and Docker checks. Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. The earlier broad local run had database startup/timing failures that passed isolated retries; the complete remote suite is green. - Merge verification against current master: 312 harness tests and 13 native recovery tests passed. Regenerated semantic contracts and fixture hashes pass their consistency check. Full local typecheck and build also passed on the stacked queue branch. After merging the latest master and preserving the GitHub setup timing regression in the split browser suite, both focused GitHub browser tests passed. Three CI timing/startup flakes passed local verification and one remote retry; all latest-head checks are green. - Real pinned Claude SDK and Claude ACP JSON-RPC probes against a local mock API confirmed that `/skill-name` expands the assigned skill body before the model request and retains the task arguments. A prose mention does not. The probes made no paid model calls. The ACP probe used the current first-task skill body and retained the wake arguments. - [Full 48-case campaign and report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-first-task-35053063880/): 44 passed after three interrupted Codex cases completed in targeted reruns. Original results, regrades, and all 51 executions remain in the report provenance. - [Claude campaign after the shared-question fix](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-first-task-claude-35099525201/): 10/12 passed with zero single-option failures. All 12 recorded the current assigned skill and corrected guidance. The failures exposed skipped skill invocation and a missing saved plan. This PR adds native command invocation and explicit saved-plan instructions; the subsequent report below still shows behavior failures. - [Fresh 12-case Claude report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-first-task-claude-35102737804/) at `78452129e`: 10/12 pass after correcting two false proposal-matcher failures. The recordings said “Here is the task I will create and run/complete” in approval cards; the old matcher missed that word order. Regression tests failed before the fix and pass after it. Original results and offline regrade provenance remain linked. No agent rerun was needed. Zero single-option-question failures; two behavior failures remain: direct work before acceptance on a plain first message, and an explicit plan request without a saved plan. Neither check was relaxed. The follow-up `82087ac7e` fixes command-prefix size accounting; `94aefb1f3` fixes only that proposal matcher. - Report browser checks confirm folded conversations, rendered cards, explicit Local/Daytona labels, and no page errors. The published-object audit scanned 1,306 text files across 2,154 objects with no credential-format findings or prohibited files. Image pixels and unknown token formats are outside that scan. ## Risks - Model behavior is nondeterministic. One campaign is evidence, not a guarantee. The two remaining Claude behavior failures are visible in the report and require further product work; this PR does not claim all onboarding scenarios pass. - The suite checks persisted Paperclip effects. It cannot prove the absence of arbitrary external effects. - Historical recordings can miss later journey steps. These remain incomplete, never passes. - Native profiles switch runtime after the production onboarding wizard because it does not yet expose a native option. - Quality scores are informational and cannot override behavioral failures. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact deployed model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-16 14:24:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d49f168381	fix: publish sandbox files on legacy and native runners (#13493) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents must publish generated files so users can inspect their results after a sandbox stops. > - Legacy sandbox bridges blocked attachment listing and could not carry multipart binary uploads through the queue transport. > - The native runner has a separate verified file registration path that needs the same durable result. > - This pull request repairs legacy binary transport, makes native download receipts explicit, and reveals new outputs in the task Artifacts tab. > - Users can open generated files from either runner without a transport flag change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13355 for the existing native file publication path. Related filename fixes: #2615 and #4788. Related sandbox persistence work: #13376. This change repairs attachment delivery through the existing API; it does not add workspace persistence. **What happened?** The upload helper first lists task attachments to avoid duplicates. Both legacy bridge allowlists rejected that GET request with 403. A direct multipart upload also failed: the queue bridge accepted only JSON, excluded attachment uploads, and converted bytes to UTF-8 text. Enabling HTTP/2 alone did not fix the missing listing route. These failures occurred before attachment storage. **Expected behavior** Both runners can publish a workspace file, register its work product, bind it to a response, and return a working download. The file stays accessible after sandbox deletion. A new output opens the task Artifacts tab. The agent receives accurate errors and decides how to retry or report a failure. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a legacy agent in Daytona with the duplex bridge disabled. 2. Invoke the bundled upload helper with Bash on a PNG or PDF. 3. Repeat with the duplex bridge enabled. 4. Register the same file through the native runner with generic API tools disabled. 5. Retry registration, delete the sandbox, and compare the downloaded bytes with the original file. **Paperclip version or commit** The failing baseline was `f2c5e54dc`. This branch is rebased onto `6cfe4acff`. **Deployment mode** Source checkout with a local API and real isolated Daytona sandboxes. ## What Changed - Allow authenticated attachment listing, upload, and content download through both legacy bridge transports. - Add optional base64 body encoding to queue envelopes. Preserve the existing UTF-8 contract when the encoding field is absent. Decode binary bodies before forwarding them. - Preserve multipart headers. Bound raw bytes, encoded envelopes, and in-flight reservations. Retain timeout and uncertain-write behavior. - Preserve helper deduplication and return structured uncertain-write failures. Document explicit Bash invocation in live skills. - Add attachment IDs and content/download paths to native registration receipts. Reuse verified local and remote file reads, attachment storage, work-product registration, and response binding. - Preserve Unicode upload filenames and provide a valid Content-Disposition header. - Open the task Artifacts tab when new stored outputs arrive, including a closed desktop panel or mobile drawer. Deduplicate upload and registration events by object ID. Preserve manual selection on refetches, edits, and panel remounts. - Remove task artifact filters, the company Artifacts footer link, and the unassigned group heading and timestamp. ### Screenshot  This is the local display fixture. The image was generated separately and published through the attachment and work-product APIs. ## Verification - Post-rebase `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - The post-rebase local `pnpm test:run` passed 12,369 tests before one existing conversation reset test timed out; all 33 tests in that suite pass when rerun with isolated test configuration. The aggregate command stopped before its remaining groups. GitHub runs the complete suite in separate shards. - All [GitHub verification checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35017893350) pass on `b66ac276dd3d5fc738a22ecea783400106a494d4`: 32 successful checks and two configured skips. The native-session recovery assertion initially raced its fire-and-forget Sentry report; all 13 tests pass locally, and the same-commit CI rerun passes all 170 suites (3,079 tests). - Live post-rebase Daytona: all three file-delivery tests pass. They cover the real Bash helper with the queue bridge, the helper with HTTP/2, and native `register_deliverable` with generic API tools disabled. - Daytona cases cover PNG/PDF bytes, spaced and Unicode names, duplicate registration, response binding, authorization controls, and byte-for-byte downloads after sandbox deletion. - Local focused coverage includes transfer bounds, malformed encoding, interrupted transfers, remote path containment, and native file verification. The attachment route suite passes all 32 tests, including an eight-case filename-header matrix for Unicode and special characters, inline and forced downloads, and full and partial responses. - Browser verification confirms image previews, persisted downloads, automatic Artifacts selection, and preserved manual selection after edits and reloads. Desktop/mobile component coverage passes. The latest UI cleanup passes its 10 affected tests and token gates. - Coverage limit: the Daytona tests call the real helper and native registration path directly. They do not replay a complete model-led image-generation task through the browser. Live command (requires a configured Daytona credential): ```sh PAPERCLIP_FILE_DELIVERY_DAYTONA=1 pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-delivery-bridges.test.ts ``` ## Risks - Binary queue bodies use more memory because base64 adds encoding overhead. Transfer and process limits must remain aligned. - An interrupted write can have an unknown result. The bridge reports this state and preserves stable retry identities. - New artifacts intentionally change the active task tab. Existing history and repeated updates must not take focus again. - Transport flag defaults, server authorization, frozen skill snapshots, and completion policies remain unchanged. No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. 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>	2026-09-15 15:46:57 -05:00