PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-11-07 07:55:47 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	d6df12cef6	fix(ui): add icons to chat connection choices (#15574 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connectors let people chat with agents and let agents use external tools. > - Slack setup asks the user to choose between those two uses. > - Both choices currently use text alone. > - This pull request adds an agent avatar and a hammer to the shared chooser. > - The icons help users identify each choice at a glance. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The chat-or-tools choice in connector setup. Related setup work: Refs #15413. Subsystem affected ui/ — React board UI and Storybook. Current behavior Both choice cards show a title and description with no identity icon. Proposed behavior Show the existing agent avatar beside chat. Show a hammer beside tools. Align both icons and keep the existing navigation. Reason and benefit Users can tell the two choices apart with less reading. Breaking changes None. The shared chooser applies the icons wherever that choice appears. Only Slack currently offers both paths in the catalog. Other chat-only providers keep their direct setup path. ## What Changed - Add the shared agent avatar to the chat choice. - Add a decorative hammer icon to the tools choice. - Add desktop and mobile Storybook stories that render the production page. ## Verification - Token gates pass. - Focused catalog, routing, and UI contract tests pass, including the new chooser accessibility and navigation test. - Checked the production chooser in Storybook at desktop and mobile widths. - Local repository typecheck, build, and Storybook build pass. - All 56 checks pass on commit `0f0673f1bb5cd340084f3a5229983da049f1c8db`, including the full CI test suite and browser shards. Greptile reports 5/5 with no findings. - Started the full local test command. Stopped that duplicate run after the full CI suite passed. The focused local tests completed successfully. - In Storybook, open Connections → Slack → Automatic setup → 00 · Choose connection. The mobile variant is in the same group. ## Risks Low risk. This changes card layout and decorative images. Existing button text, click handlers, credentials, and permissions stay the same. The avatar is generic because the user has not selected an agent yet. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used code inspection, edits, shell tools, and browser tools. The session does not expose the exact 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>	2026-10-08 09:41:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	33f2b3a159	fix: separate GitHub tools and code review bot connections (#14750 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Connectors catalog lets people give agents tools or connect agents to conversations. > - GitHub put these two uses behind one card and an extra choice. > - People should choose the connection they need from the catalog. > - This pull request keeps GitHub for tools and adds GitHub Code Review Bot as a separate card. > - Each card opens its setup directly. Both use the existing connection code. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? GitHub connector discovery and setup. Current behavior With chat connectors enabled, GitHub opens a menu that asks whether to use tools or create a bot. Saved tools and bots share the same catalog entry. Proposed behavior GitHub opens tool account access. GitHub Code Review Bot opens agent selection. Saved bots and drafts appear under the bot card. Chat-disabled instances show only GitHub tools. Reason and benefit The catalog names the two uses and removes an extra setup choice. The bot keeps the existing GitHub provider, credentials, endpoint IDs, setup steps, and runtime. Additional context Related work: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12843 and https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/14594 established GitHub account identity. This change preserves that tool flow. No duplicate catalog split was found. ## What Changed - Split the generated app definitions into GitHub tools and GitHub Code Review Bot. Reuse the existing GitHub logo and channel method. - Open bot setup directly, including old resume and reconnect links. - Put existing bot endpoints and drafts under the bot card. Hide duplicate internal chat applications. - Keep pasted GitHub URLs mapped to the tool connection. - Add seven Storybook states for the catalog, saved connections, disabled chat, both setup paths, mobile, and light mode. - Fix narrow-screen bot rows so the label cannot overlap status and setup actions. - Update catalog, route, browser, and API tests, plus the GitHub connector guide. ## Verification - [Hosted Storybook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/storybook/branches/codex~2Fgithub-review-connection/?path=/story/connections-github-and-code-review-bot--catalog): seven states built from this branch. The deployment passed its public-file verification. - All GitHub checks pass on `d13a2cd53561645bb2a15c6f8e75a61a936d6459`. Two optional Storybook jobs skip under their normal trigger rules; the manual Storybook deployment passes. The branch has no merge conflicts. - Greptile: 5/5 on the current head, with no review comments or unresolved threads. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, and `pnpm build-storybook` passed. The final Storybook fixture also passed UI typecheck and the hosted build. - Targeted catalog, URL matching, routing, grouping, brand, and chat UI contract tests passed. - GitHub provider browser tests: 2 passed. These cover direct tool setup and the bot setup and management lifecycle with provider responses mocked. - Embedded-browser test on an isolated local instance: opened both cards, selected an agent, saved a bot draft, and resumed the same endpoint under the bot card after a reload. - Storybook Tool Setup and Bot Setup assertions pass in the published preview. Chat Disabled assertions pass locally. Inspected mobile and light mode, including the draft-row layout and official GitHub marks. - Local full-suite limitation: `pnpm test:run` was not clean. A cross-company route assertion failed in the aggregate run and passed in isolation; a workspace-runtime test reached its 30-second hook timeout. Some isolated database reruns skipped when the embedded-PostgreSQL availability probe failed. The local aggregate was stopped after CI completed. The corresponding full CI suites pass all 360 tool-access tests and all 162 workspace-runtime tests. - No live GitHub authorization or installation was performed. The isolated instance correctly stopped at the cloud enrollment or public HTTPS prerequisites. ## Risks - Low scope: catalog presentation and routing change. There is no database migration or provider credential change. - Existing GitHub bot URLs now open bot setup directly. The tool route remains `/apps/connect?source=github`. - The bot remains behind the existing chat-connectors feature flag. Existing endpoints retain `provider: github`. - Channel applications are represented by endpoint rows. Regression tests cover legacy bot applications, tools, active bots, and drafts together. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and embedded-browser tools. The exact deployed model ID, context window size, and reasoning setting 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 17:15:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8813a50105	feat: run GitHub review bots through Paperclip agents (#13717 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work as tasks and runs. > - GitHub chat brings repository conversations into those tasks. > - A review bot needs the assigned agent, its authority, and governed provider tools. > - The existing channel connection did not supply that review workflow or a complete setup journey. > - This pull request adds GitHub App setup, account access, event prompts, task-bound review tools, and exact-commit checks. > - Operators can inspect each review through the same task, run, and activity systems. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected GitHub chat, governed connection tools, task execution, shared/database contracts, and connector setup UI. Problem or motivation Operators need a GitHub review bot that runs their assigned Paperclip agent. Mentions and PR events must preserve task ownership and requester authority. Provider publication must use the bot App identity and enforce the configured permissions. Proposed solution Extend the existing GitHub chat connector with resumable App onboarding, linked-member and sponsored-guest access, editable event prompts, and governed review operations. Validate structured assessments on the server and compute a stable Paperclip Review check for the exact head commit. Alternatives considered A separate review scheduler would duplicate Paperclip execution and permissions. Reusing personal GitHub credentials would change the bot identity and credential boundary. Roadmap alignment This extends the existing Connected Apps and governed-tool infrastructure. The project owner requested and approved this design. Related PR #8645 imports external Codex review feedback; this change runs an assigned Paperclip agent and publishes its results through the existing chat connector. ## What Changed - Include the current Paperclip instance origin in the copied setup prompt. Storybook uses its configured Paperclip origin; callback parameters and URL credentials are excluded. - Add a Claude/Codex copy button in the real setup and Storybook opening step. Its detailed prompt asks four setup questions and guides embedded-browser setup, verification, and optional required checks. Clipboard failure exposes selectable instructions. - Add a tutorial that explains why App installation, review scheduling, and required checks are separate choices. - Add manifest registration, an existing-App path, separate installation and repository selection, repository refresh, and explicit account confirmation. - Add low-trust agent guidance, effective capability verification, member selection, and explicit restricted guests with a sponsor. - Add configurable PR events, prompts, repository overrides, rating thresholds, and separate formal-review permissions. - Give the assigned agent governed App tools to read PRs, comment, begin an assessment, submit findings, and optionally submit a formal review. - Bind review history, root PR events, and inline replies to ordinary tasks. Deduplicate deliveries/findings and reject stale publication. - Link check Details to the underlying task on the current trusted hostname, or to Reviews before task creation. - Add schema migration 0283, API contracts, production UI, and 49 interactive Storybook states. - Repair local lease recovery. Keep the Cloud Dockerfile identical to master; no provider-pack layer or runtime-default environment variable is added. - Retry only rolled-back wake-admission transactions after transient endpoint-lock contention. A deterministic held-lock regression proves one accepted wake. ## Verification - Current head: `7ba761fe007bb798400d3e62346fa964f607f0f8`, rebased on master `d9b3a5653e41f2ee5a1345b97c86a238f7a5c8e9`. Dockerfile has zero diff against master. Final workspace typecheck and build passed. The new PostgreSQL migration regression passed and preserves existing relation and constraint identities after replay. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. There are zero unresolved review threads and no merge conflicts. - All current-head checks are green: 54 passed and two conditional Storybook jobs skipped. This includes complete server/workspace test suites, build, typechecks, policy checks, Runner suites, browser suites, and security status. One timing-sensitive callback-ordering test passed in isolation and its CI shard passed one retry. The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after CI completed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - Before the final Slack rebase and migration renumbering, 186 focused GitHub tests, 14 native bootstrap cases, token gates, and Storybook build passed. The final rebase retained the new Slack communication guidance. - The embedded-browser setup test copied the full detailed prompt, including the configured Paperclip instance URL. Desktop and narrow layouts were checked. Component tests cover successful copying and clipboard failure with selectable text and retry. - Live local and hosted GitHub acceptance evidence refers to application revision `cb703ac959876a07ebf3d7a295847f9f351eb6fc`. Real agent tasks exercised issue mentions, automatic PR reviews, inline findings, repeated mentions, task continuation, and failing-to-passing checks after a push. The Storybook agent generated, built, and browser-rendered pages; missing acceptance text failed, matching text passed, and broken JSX produced an incomplete result. - Live cases also covered independently disabled push events, prompt injection, duplicate signed deliveries, rapid pushes, stale-result rejection, finding deduplication, and restart recovery. Formal reviews were denied while disabled and published only after explicit enablement. Check Details links pointed to the underlying task on the trusted hostname. - Those hosted native Claude runs used the provider-pack layer now removed from this PR. They do not prove native Claude works on the standard Cloud image. A replacement hosted native Codex run is not yet verified: the disposable QA tenant has only an Anthropic AI connection. No new staging or production deployment was made for the packaging removal. - Required-check merge enforcement could not be tested because the private disposable repository's GitHub plan rejected the rules configuration. Published success/failure/incomplete check states were verified directly. ## Risks - Latest master allocated migration 0282 to Slack. The GitHub migration is regenerated as 0283 with replay-safe table/index/constraint creation; a PostgreSQL regression verifies existing relations and constraints are preserved. Existing preview tenants remain subject to the fleet migration-history compatibility preflight; no bypass is introduced. - Migration 0283 adds company-scoped configuration, registration, review, and publication records. Existing connections retain their behavior until reviews/tools are enabled. - Signed webhooks and expiring registration state remain required. Hosted installations also need the companion narrow Cloud gateway exemptions. - Agent assessments can be incomplete or wrong. The server enforces coverage/result structure, current-head publication, rating policy, and separate formal-review permission; it does not replace code-review judgment. - No Cloud image packaging changes are included. Remote native ACPX/Claude and OpenCode retain their existing operator-supplied provider-pack prerequisite. Native Codex and Codex with managed MCP tools do not require that pack. Earlier staging deployment evidence refers to its stated revision, not this packaging-removal head. Production rollout and merging remain outside this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository, code execution, API, and embedded-browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed by the environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-21 14:41:19 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

d6df12cef6

fix(ui): add icons to chat connection choices (#15574 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Connectors let people chat with agents and let agents use external
tools.
> - Slack setup asks the user to choose between those two uses.
> - Both choices currently use text alone.
> - This pull request adds an agent avatar and a hammer to the shared
chooser.
> - The icons help users identify each choice at a glance.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

The chat-or-tools choice in connector setup. Related setup work: Refs
#15413.

**Subsystem affected**

ui/ — React board UI and Storybook.

**Current behavior**

Both choice cards show a title and description with no identity icon.

**Proposed behavior**

Show the existing agent avatar beside chat. Show a hammer beside tools.
Align both icons and keep the existing navigation.

**Reason and benefit**

Users can tell the two choices apart with less reading.

**Breaking changes**

None. The shared chooser applies the icons wherever that choice appears.
Only Slack currently offers both paths in the catalog. Other chat-only
providers keep their direct setup path.

## What Changed

- Add the shared agent avatar to the chat choice.
- Add a decorative hammer icon to the tools choice.
- Add desktop and mobile Storybook stories that render the production
page.

## Verification

- Token gates pass.
- Focused catalog, routing, and UI contract tests pass, including the
new chooser accessibility and navigation test.
- Checked the production chooser in Storybook at desktop and mobile
widths.
- Local repository typecheck, build, and Storybook build pass.
- All 56 checks pass on commit
`0f0673f1bb5cd340084f3a5229983da049f1c8db`, including the full CI test
suite and browser shards. Greptile reports 5/5 with no findings.
- Started the full local test command. Stopped that duplicate run after
the full CI suite passed. The focused local tests completed
successfully.
- In Storybook, open Connections → Slack → Automatic setup → 00 · Choose
connection. The mobile variant is in the same group.

## Risks

Low risk. This changes card layout and decorative images. Existing
button text, click handlers, credentials, and permissions stay the same.
The avatar is generic because the user has not selected an agent yet.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used code inspection, edits, shell tools,
and browser tools. The session does not expose the exact 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>

2026-10-08 09:41:46 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

33f2b3a159

fix: separate GitHub tools and code review bot connections (#14750 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Connectors catalog lets people give agents tools or connect
agents to conversations.
> - GitHub put these two uses behind one card and an extra choice.
> - People should choose the connection they need from the catalog.
> - This pull request keeps GitHub for tools and adds GitHub Code Review
Bot as a separate card.
> - Each card opens its setup directly. Both use the existing connection
code.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

GitHub connector discovery and setup.

**Current behavior**

With chat connectors enabled, GitHub opens a menu that asks whether to
use tools or create a bot. Saved tools and bots share the same catalog
entry.

**Proposed behavior**

GitHub opens tool account access. GitHub Code Review Bot opens agent
selection. Saved bots and drafts appear under the bot card.
Chat-disabled instances show only GitHub tools.

**Reason and benefit**

The catalog names the two uses and removes an extra setup choice. The
bot keeps the existing GitHub provider, credentials, endpoint IDs, setup
steps, and runtime.

**Additional context**

Related work: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12843 and
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/14594 established GitHub
account identity. This change preserves that tool flow. No duplicate
catalog split was found.

## What Changed

- Split the generated app definitions into GitHub tools and GitHub Code
Review Bot. Reuse the existing GitHub logo and channel method.
- Open bot setup directly, including old resume and reconnect links.
- Put existing bot endpoints and drafts under the bot card. Hide
duplicate internal chat applications.
- Keep pasted GitHub URLs mapped to the tool connection.
- Add seven Storybook states for the catalog, saved connections,
disabled chat, both setup paths, mobile, and light mode.
- Fix narrow-screen bot rows so the label cannot overlap status and
setup actions.
- Update catalog, route, browser, and API tests, plus the GitHub
connector guide.

## Verification

- [Hosted
Storybook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/storybook/branches/codex~2Fgithub-review-connection/?path=/story/connections-github-and-code-review-bot--catalog):
seven states built from this branch. The deployment passed its
public-file verification.
- All GitHub checks pass on `d13a2cd53561645bb2a15c6f8e75a61a936d6459`.
Two optional Storybook jobs skip under their normal trigger rules; the
manual Storybook deployment passes. The branch has no merge conflicts.
- Greptile: 5/5 on the current head, with no review comments or
unresolved threads.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, and `pnpm
build-storybook` passed. The final Storybook fixture also passed UI
typecheck and the hosted build.
- Targeted catalog, URL matching, routing, grouping, brand, and chat UI
contract tests passed.
- GitHub provider browser tests: 2 passed. These cover direct tool setup
and the bot setup and management lifecycle with provider responses
mocked.
- Embedded-browser test on an isolated local instance: opened both
cards, selected an agent, saved a bot draft, and resumed the same
endpoint under the bot card after a reload.
- Storybook Tool Setup and Bot Setup assertions pass in the published
preview. Chat Disabled assertions pass locally. Inspected mobile and
light mode, including the draft-row layout and official GitHub marks.
- Local full-suite limitation: `pnpm test:run` was not clean. A
cross-company route assertion failed in the aggregate run and passed in
isolation; a workspace-runtime test reached its 30-second hook timeout.
Some isolated database reruns skipped when the embedded-PostgreSQL
availability probe failed. The local aggregate was stopped after CI
completed. The corresponding full CI suites pass all 360 tool-access
tests and all 162 workspace-runtime tests.
- No live GitHub authorization or installation was performed. The
isolated instance correctly stopped at the cloud enrollment or public
HTTPS prerequisites.

## Risks

- Low scope: catalog presentation and routing change. There is no
database migration or provider credential change.
- Existing GitHub bot URLs now open bot setup directly. The tool route
remains `/apps/connect?source=github`.
- The bot remains behind the existing chat-connectors feature flag.
Existing endpoints retain `provider: github`.
- Channel applications are represented by endpoint rows. Regression
tests cover legacy bot applications, tools, active bots, and drafts
together.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and
embedded-browser tools. The exact deployed model ID, context window
size, and reasoning setting 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 17:15:02 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

8813a50105

feat: run GitHub review bots through Paperclip agents (#13717 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages agent work as tasks and runs.
> - GitHub chat brings repository conversations into those tasks.
> - A review bot needs the assigned agent, its authority, and governed
provider tools.
> - The existing channel connection did not supply that review workflow
or a complete setup journey.
> - This pull request adds GitHub App setup, account access, event
prompts, task-bound review tools, and exact-commit checks.
> - Operators can inspect each review through the same task, run, and
activity systems.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

GitHub chat, governed connection tools, task execution, shared/database
contracts, and connector setup UI.

**Problem or motivation**

Operators need a GitHub review bot that runs their assigned Paperclip
agent. Mentions and PR events must preserve task ownership and requester
authority. Provider publication must use the bot App identity and
enforce the configured permissions.

**Proposed solution**

Extend the existing GitHub chat connector with resumable App onboarding,
linked-member and sponsored-guest access, editable event prompts, and
governed review operations. Validate structured assessments on the
server and compute a stable Paperclip Review check for the exact head
commit.

**Alternatives considered**

A separate review scheduler would duplicate Paperclip execution and
permissions. Reusing personal GitHub credentials would change the bot
identity and credential boundary.

**Roadmap alignment**

This extends the existing Connected Apps and governed-tool
infrastructure. The project owner requested and approved this design.
Related PR #8645 imports external Codex review feedback; this change
runs an assigned Paperclip agent and publishes its results through the
existing chat connector.

## What Changed

- Include the current Paperclip instance origin in the copied setup
prompt. Storybook uses its configured Paperclip origin; callback
parameters and URL credentials are excluded.

- Add a Claude/Codex copy button in the real setup and Storybook opening
step. Its detailed prompt asks four setup questions and guides
embedded-browser setup, verification, and optional required checks.
Clipboard failure exposes selectable instructions.
- Add a tutorial that explains why App installation, review scheduling,
and required checks are separate choices.

- Add manifest registration, an existing-App path, separate installation
and repository selection, repository refresh, and explicit account
confirmation.
- Add low-trust agent guidance, effective capability verification,
member selection, and explicit restricted guests with a sponsor.
- Add configurable PR events, prompts, repository overrides, rating
thresholds, and separate formal-review permissions.
- Give the assigned agent governed App tools to read PRs, comment, begin
an assessment, submit findings, and optionally submit a formal review.
- Bind review history, root PR events, and inline replies to ordinary
tasks. Deduplicate deliveries/findings and reject stale publication.
- Link check Details to the underlying task on the current trusted
hostname, or to Reviews before task creation.
- Add schema migration 0283, API contracts, production UI, and 49
interactive Storybook states.
- Repair local lease recovery. Keep the Cloud Dockerfile identical to
master; no provider-pack layer or runtime-default environment variable
is added.
- Retry only rolled-back wake-admission transactions after transient
endpoint-lock contention. A deterministic held-lock regression proves
one accepted wake.

## Verification

- Current head: `7ba761fe007bb798400d3e62346fa964f607f0f8`, rebased on
master `d9b3a5653e41f2ee5a1345b97c86a238f7a5c8e9`. Dockerfile has zero
diff against master. Final workspace typecheck and build passed. The new
PostgreSQL migration regression passed and preserves existing relation
and constraint identities after replay.
- Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. There are zero unresolved
review threads and no merge conflicts.
- All current-head checks are green: 54 passed and two conditional
Storybook jobs skipped. This includes complete server/workspace test
suites, build, typechecks, policy checks, Runner suites, browser suites,
and security status. One timing-sensitive callback-ordering test passed
in isolation and its CI shard passed one retry. The duplicate local
full-suite run was stopped after CI completed; it is not counted as a
local full-suite pass.
- Before the final Slack rebase and migration renumbering, 186 focused
GitHub tests, 14 native bootstrap cases, token gates, and Storybook
build passed. The final rebase retained the new Slack communication
guidance.
- The embedded-browser setup test copied the full detailed prompt,
including the configured Paperclip instance URL. Desktop and narrow
layouts were checked. Component tests cover successful copying and
clipboard failure with selectable text and retry.
- Live local and hosted GitHub acceptance evidence refers to application
revision `cb703ac959876a07ebf3d7a295847f9f351eb6fc`. Real agent tasks
exercised issue mentions, automatic PR reviews, inline findings,
repeated mentions, task continuation, and failing-to-passing checks
after a push. The Storybook agent generated, built, and browser-rendered
pages; missing acceptance text failed, matching text passed, and broken
JSX produced an incomplete result.
- Live cases also covered independently disabled push events, prompt
injection, duplicate signed deliveries, rapid pushes, stale-result
rejection, finding deduplication, and restart recovery. Formal reviews
were denied while disabled and published only after explicit enablement.
Check Details links pointed to the underlying task on the trusted
hostname.
- Those hosted native Claude runs used the provider-pack layer now
removed from this PR. They do not prove native Claude works on the
standard Cloud image. A replacement hosted native Codex run is not yet
verified: the disposable QA tenant has only an Anthropic AI connection.
No new staging or production deployment was made for the packaging
removal.
- Required-check merge enforcement could not be tested because the
private disposable repository's GitHub plan rejected the rules
configuration. Published success/failure/incomplete check states were
verified directly.

## Risks

- Latest master allocated migration 0282 to Slack. The GitHub migration
is regenerated as 0283 with replay-safe table/index/constraint creation;
a PostgreSQL regression verifies existing relations and constraints are
preserved. Existing preview tenants remain subject to the fleet
migration-history compatibility preflight; no bypass is introduced.

- Migration 0283 adds company-scoped configuration, registration,
review, and publication records. Existing connections retain their
behavior until reviews/tools are enabled.
- Signed webhooks and expiring registration state remain required.
Hosted installations also need the companion narrow Cloud gateway
exemptions.
- Agent assessments can be incomplete or wrong. The server enforces
coverage/result structure, current-head publication, rating policy, and
separate formal-review permission; it does not replace code-review
judgment.
- No Cloud image packaging changes are included. Remote native
ACPX/Claude and OpenCode retain their existing operator-supplied
provider-pack prerequisite. Native Codex and Codex with managed MCP
tools do not require that pack. Earlier staging deployment evidence
refers to its stated revision, not this packaging-removal head.
Production rollout and merging remain outside this change.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository, code execution, API, and
embedded-browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context-window
size were not exposed by the environment.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-09-21 14:41:19 -05:00