670 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	7efbf70f45	fix(server): make concurrent unstars idempotent ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-21 14:00:31 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	bcea9310b2	fix(server): harden document star idempotency ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-21 13:53:17 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	891c33f48c	feat(server): add per-user document stars ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-21 13:43:16 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	59eee4829c	fix(inbox): stop archived items from resurfacing (#9931) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to coordinate AI-agent companies and review work needing attention. > - The Inbox is the operator-facing surface that aggregates tasks requiring attention across server state and shared client polling. > - Archiving a task optimistically removed it, but ordinary background activity and stale polling responses could make it reappear seconds later. > - The server therefore needs to distinguish genuine user-attention events from routine agent/system activity. > - The client also needs a bounded local archive guard across every Inbox query path while the server mutation and in-flight polls settle. > - This pull request fixes both resurrection paths and adds race-focused regression coverage. > - The benefit is stable archive behavior without hiding a genuine archive failure after reconciliation or reload. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] Searched existing open and closed issues and pull requests; no duplicate implementation was found. - [x] Reproduced on `master` before this branch. - [x] Confirmed this is a Paperclip core bug, not adapter or provider behavior. ### What happened? Archiving an Inbox task hid it optimistically, then background refresh activity could insert it back into the list seconds later. ### Expected behavior A successfully archived task remains hidden during normal polling. A genuine failed archive may become visible again after reconciliation or reload. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open Inbox with a visible task. 2. Archive the task. 3. Wait for shared polling or routine agent activity to refresh task data. 4. Observe the archived task reappear without a hard page refresh. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` before this branch. ### Deployment mode Built from source using the local development application. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core Inbox bug. ### Database mode Not database-mode-specific. ### Access context Board (human operator). ### Additional context The failure had independent server and client causes: routine activity could resurface archived rows server-side, while stale shared-poll responses could bypass optimistic client removal. ## What Changed - Restrict server-side Inbox resurfacing to explicit user-attention events rather than any issue activity write. - Add a bounded client-side archive guard with confirmation, failure restoration, and cache reconciliation behavior. - Apply the guard to Inbox rendering, badge counts, optimistic cache updates, and shared-poll result application. - Classify the generic compact Inbox query so stale shared-poll data cannot bypass the guard. - Add server visibility-matrix tests and UI race-condition regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts src/lib/inboxArchiveCache.test.ts src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 25 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — 107 passed. - Branch rebased cleanly onto current `origin/master` before push. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: resurfacing is intentionally narrower, so the server tests cover human comments, mentions, interactions, and status transitions that must still regain attention. - The client guard is bounded and cleared on mutation failure, limiting the risk of hiding a task whose archive did not persist. - No schema, migration, public API, workflow, dependency-lock, or visual-token changes. > 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 - Anthropic Claude via Claude Code (`claude_local`; prior implementation/review run, exact underlying model ID and context window were not retained in the handoff metadata), with repository tool use and test execution. - OpenAI `gpt-5.5` via Codex CLI for final review repair and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository editing, GitHub tooling, 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/described the result 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 task identifier - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation where needed; no documentation change is required for this bug fix - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip-authored commits include the required co-author trailer --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-21 08:13:14 -05:00
3 people	a59aa128a3	fix(api): sanitize createdByRunId on comment insert to prevent 500s (#9489) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue-comments API (`POST /api/issues/:id/comments`) attributes each comment to the run that created it via `created_by_run_id`, a foreign key into `heartbeat_runs` > - In multi-agent local control-plane usage, board/session clients sometimes forward an `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` that is not a real run row — a non-UUID client request id, a synthetic string, or a since-deleted run > - That value was written straight to the FK column, so the insert died with a Postgres FK violation and the endpoint returned HTTP 500, breaking agent coordination > - This PR resolves the run id defensively before insert: reject non-UUID shapes, verify the row exists for the company, and null out anything unresolvable while logging a warning > - The benefit is that a bad run-id header degrades gracefully to an unattributed comment (201) instead of a 500, so comment creation stays up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists; describing inline (bug): **What happened:** `POST /api/issues/:id/comments` returns HTTP 500 when the request carries an `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` that does not correspond to a row in `heartbeat_runs` (non-UUID value, synthetic client id, or deleted run). The value is written to the `created_by_run_id` FK, and Postgres rejects the insert with a foreign-key violation (SQLSTATE 23503). **Expected:** the comment is created (HTTP 201); an unresolvable run id is dropped to `null` rather than failing the request. **Impact:** in multi-agent usage, comment creation — and the agent coordination that depends on it — fails whenever a client forwards a run id that isn't a live run. ## What Changed - Add `resolveCommentCreatedByRunId(dbOrTx, companyId, runId)` — trims and validates UUID shape, then checks existence in `heartbeat_runs` scoped to the company; returns `null` for missing/invalid ids. - `addComment` now resolves the run id through that helper before insert and logs a warning when a supplied run id is dropped. - Add embedded-Postgres regression tests for the three cases (non-UUID header, unknown UUID, valid run id). ## Verification - `pnpm --filter server test issues-service` — the new `issueService.addComment createdByRunId` block passes. - Cases covered: non-UUID header → 201, `createdByRunId: null`; UUID absent from `heartbeat_runs` → 201, `null`; valid run id present for the company → preserved. ## Risks Low. Purely defensive — valid run ids are still preserved, only unresolvable ones are nulled. Adds one indexed, tenant-scoped `SELECT` per comment insert. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (extended thinking), via the Paperclip PR-triage cockpit, produced the added regression tests and this description. The original implementation is by @digitalflanker-ux; the author's model is unspecified. ## 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) - [ ] 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 (related: #4795 same fix; #8065 sibling FK-guard on the activity-log path) - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [ ] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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: Claude Haiku 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>	2026-07-20 17:31:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	051ae4d102	feat: restore decision training library and inspector (#9779) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and supervise governed work. > - Decisions capture high-value operator judgment, and the decision-training foundation merged in #9702 freezes that evidence for later evaluation and learning. > - Operators still need the UI from the closed stacked PR #9718 to intentionally capture examples and inspect the resulting dataset. > - GitHub automatically closed #9718 when its stacked base branch was deleted after #9702 merged, leaving the server foundation on `master` without the corresponding UI. > - This pull request restores the final UI and its still-required supporting API fields directly on current `master`, while excluding the obsolete migration and duplicated server-foundation diffs. > - The benefit is a reviewable replacement PR that preserves the completed decision-training workflow without replaying stale stack history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #9718 - Refs #9702 ## What Changed - Restored the top-level `/training` library and record inspector with search, filters, JSONL export, notes editing, and evidence tabs. - Restored the Decisions-row training affordance and capture drawer, including preview, provenance, deletion, cache refresh, and approval consistency behavior. - Restored the shared types and focused server support needed by the UI without reintroducing decision-training migrations or the already-merged server foundation. - Restored focused UI and attention-service tests from the final #9718 state. - Credit to the authors and reviewers of #9718; this recovery transplants their final reviewed delta after the stacked base deletion. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Training.test.tsx ui/src/components/DecisionTrainingDrawer.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 5 files, 48 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3 tests passed; confirms exact route/OpenAPI parity for the restored preview endpoint. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — the restored files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports five pre-existing false positives where comments reference GitHub issue `#9627` as if it were a color literal. ## Risks - Low migration risk: this PR contains no database migrations and is based directly on current `master`. - The main behavioral risk is cache invalidation across Decisions and Training views; focused tests cover capture, update, deletion, row state, and approval refresh behavior. - The token-gate baseline remains red on unrelated `#9627` comment references; this PR does not modify those files. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.3-Codex, reasoning with repository/tool access and code execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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>	2026-07-17 13:27:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a090c09ee5	feat: add decision training snapshot foundation (#9702) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - Human approvals, issue interactions, and execution decisions already capture high-value decision moments > - Those moments are currently transient and cannot be reused as stable evaluation or training examples > - Reusable examples need a server-owned, immutable snapshot so later comments or runs cannot leak into the recorded state > - Human notes need to remain editable and auditable without changing the captured state > - This pull request adds the database model, snapshot capture service, API, export format, and attention-feed enrichment for decision training > - The benefit is a durable, inspectable foundation for evaluating whether agents can reproduce good human decisions from only the context available at decision time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`). ### Problem or motivation Paperclip has no durable dataset for converting human decisions into evaluation-ready examples. Teams need to capture pending or resolved decisions with the exact issue context, comments, runs, and repository evidence available at a cutoff, while preventing future context from leaking into the example. ### Proposed solution Store immutable, schema-versioned snapshots anchored to durable interaction, approval, or execution-decision records; keep notes separately editable with history; expose human-only CRUD, list, and JSONL export APIs. ### Alternatives considered Client-generated snapshots were rejected because they duplicate cutoff logic and cannot reliably enforce no-leakage boundaries. Automatic outcome backfill was deferred so captured examples remain faithful to what was known at capture time. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the roadmap direction of turning completed work and decision patterns into reusable organizational knowledge. ### Additional context The implementation records explicit commit-resolution confidence (`exact`, `nearest_run`, `workspace`, or `none`) so downstream evaluation can distinguish evidence quality. ## What Changed - Added the `decision_training_examples` schema and idempotent migration with company, issue, and source/author indexes. - Added shared types for decision-training records, notes history, and versioned snapshots. - Added a single server-side snapshot capture path with inclusive comment cutoffs, pre-cutoff run capture, durable decision payloads, and explicit commit-resolution confidence. - Added create, list, detail, notes-only update, delete, and JSONL export routes with human-only write authorization and activity logging that skips no-op note submissions. - Added per-user `trainingExampleId` enrichment to attention items. - Added focused embedded-Postgres tests for cutoff boundaries, post-cutoff leakage, immutable snapshots, human-only writes, duplicate prevention, notes history, attention enrichment, and export shape. - Updated UI test and Storybook attention-item factories for the new required `trainingExampleId` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 10 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - The migration adds a new table and indexes only; it does not rewrite existing rows or install resolve-time hooks. - Snapshot JSON can grow with long comment threads and run histories; v1 intentionally favors complete, inspectable examples over aggressive truncation. - Commit SHA resolution is evidence-based and records `exact`, `nearest_run`, or `none` so downstream consumers can account for confidence. - The API is additive, but future UI work must continue to treat the snapshot as immutable and use notes-only updates. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use, terminal execution, and code-editing capabilities; context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-17 12:17:34 -05:00
3 people	1f1f545238	feat: add built-in summarizer and summary slots (#9713) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize, govern, and understand AI-agent work > - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run > - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents, routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow connecting those systems > - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned destinations for that output > - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress, failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators already work > - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent, orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting > - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. **Problem** Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth watching. **Proposed capability** Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent, governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards. **Expected behavior** - Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable. - Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and deduplicates active requests. - Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot revision. - Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft progress from project and workspace views. - The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by default. ## What Changed - Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts, validators, API paths, and service tests. - Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions, requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity logging. - Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment wakeups, and orchestration integration. - Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine. - Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states, live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace integrations. - Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, and passed when those host credentials were removed - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff ## Risks - Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent migrations and migration safety checks. - Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent configuration entry points. - Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol; final persisted revisions remain the source of truth. - The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is paused with no background token spend by default. > 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-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-17 11:03:07 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b07b2994cc	feat: stamp responsible users on activity logs (#9731) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The activity log is the generic audit spine for mutations across the control plane > - Activity rows identify agents and runs, but they do not persist the responsible human upstream > - Relying only on run joins loses attribution after run pruning and misses agent API-key actions outside a run > - This pull request resolves responsible-user attribution when each activity row is written and stores it directly > - The benefit is durable, queryable agent audit feeds without rewriting historical provenance ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Problem or motivation Agent activity records do not persist the responsible user, so attribution can disappear when runs are pruned and no-run API-key mutations cannot be attributed correctly. ### Proposed solution Resolve attribution for each new activity row from the run, related issue, active agent API key, or company default, in that order, and persist the result directly. ### Alternatives considered Read-time joins alone were rejected because pruned runs lose durable attribution and out-of-run agent-key actions have no run to join. Historical backfill was rejected because it would invent provenance. ### Roadmap alignment This strengthens the durable audit-trail direction described in `ROADMAP.md` without adding a new product surface. ## What Changed - Added nullable `activity_log.responsible_user_id` plus company/agent/time and company/responsible-user/time indexes. - Added an idempotent forward-only migration with no historical backfill. - Added centralized write-time resolution: heartbeat run → issue attribution → active agent API key → company default. - Propagated authenticated API-key IDs through existing request-backed `logActivity()` calls. - Added unit coverage for every fallback and an embedded-Postgres assertion for the no-run API-key stamping path. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/activity-log-responsible-user.test.ts src/__tests__/authz-company-access.test.ts` - Initial focused verification: 25 tests passed; migration safety passed. - Follow-up regression verification: 54 focused attribution/company-skill/environment/issue-tree/tool-gateway tests passed; server typecheck passed. - GitHub: full build, typecheck, server shards, serialized suites, e2e, security, and policy checks passed. ## Risks - Adding two indexes to an existing large table can hold a write lock while the transactional migration runs. The migration safety suppressions document why `CONCURRENTLY` is unavailable under the current Drizzle migration runner. - Historical rows remain nullable by design; this avoids inventing provenance and keeps the migration forward-only. - API-key attribution requires request-backed activity call sites to pass the authenticated key ID; this PR mechanically updates the existing actor-based activity calls and covers the no-run path with integration testing. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.4`; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. Medium reasoning with repository editing, terminal execution, and test execution capabilities was used. ## 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>	2026-07-16 20:54:55 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	53f09cb818	fix: prevent duplicate task creation and recovery loops (#9648) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Agents, routines, productivity review, and recovery services can all create or re-trigger work > - Repeated heartbeats or catch-up cycles can produce duplicate tasks or repeat recovery actions before prior work is visible > - The base duplicate-create and routine catch-up coalescing work has now landed on `master` via related PRs while this PR was being prepared > - This pull request carries the remaining hardening: bounded idempotency retention, recovery cooldown/throttle fixes, productivity-review query batching and ordering fixes, and regression coverage > - The benefit is fewer duplicate tasks, safer retries, and enough provenance to diagnose any future recurrence ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Agents can retry issue creation after ambiguous responses or independently recreate the same child title, while recovery and short-interval routine catch-up paths can repeat before prior work settles. This can produce visible duplicate tasks and makes the originating heartbeat difficult to identify. Related work: Refs #8356 for caller-supplied issue-create idempotency and Refs #9224 for plugin-scoped issue-create idempotency. Prior related PR: #6936. The base issue-create deduplication and routine catch-up coalescing pieces have since landed on `master` via #9650 and #9649; this PR remains as the follow-up hardening stack on top of those changes. ## What Changed - Add 7-day retention for issue-create idempotency claims with indexed, batch-limited cleanup so the claim table does not grow forever. - Preserve recovery cooldown intent after terminal recovery actions are closed, and throttle repeated source-scoped recovery work. - Batch productivity-review source-activity checks to avoid repeated per-source queries while keeping the no-action suppression behavior. - Order productivity-review no-action streak windows by review creation time, matching the window semantics even when completion timestamps are out of order. - Preserve generated issue IDs in route mocks used by backlog/assignment contract tests. - Document PR-gardening task deduplication expectations in the company skill. - Add focused regression tests for idempotency retention, liveness recovery cooldowns, and productivity-review batching/suppression/ordering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed on latest head. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts --reporter verbose` — 2 files, 23 tests passed on latest head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils build && pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils --reporter dot` — 30 files passed, 476 tests passed, 8 skipped. - `pnpm build` — passed on latest head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the rebased head before the final productivity-review ordering commit; the latest touched server code is covered by the server typecheck above. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — progressed through server, UI, CLI, shared, skills-catalog, and DB sections, then exposed an adapter-utils compiled-test fingerprint mismatch before rebuilding adapter-utils; the adapter-utils project passed after rebuild, and the GitHub split PR checks passed on the pushed head. ## Risks - Caller-supplied idempotency replay is now bounded to 7 days; reusing an old key after retention can create new work, which matches retry-oriented idempotency semantics. - Recovery and productivity-review timing changes may suppress redundant follow-up work; focused tests cover the intended boundaries. - Advisory locking and idempotency cleanup rely on PostgreSQL-compatible transaction semantics already used by the production data layer. - The migration extends the private claim table indexes without rewriting existing issue rows. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with reasoning, repository editing, shell/tool execution, and test execution. Exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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>	2026-07-16 17:00:53 -05:00
3 people	59fb27ff79	feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status > - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully attributable > - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and #9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together > - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior harder to review and land as one coherent capability > - This pull request consolidates the remaining server, shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current master > - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI. ### Problem or motivation Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed for safe agent-managed cleanup. ### Proposed solution Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening. ### Alternatives considered - Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization. - Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because completion signals can still require human review or a decision. - Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed and verified together. ### Related work - Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658. - Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661. - `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization initiative. ## What Changed - Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage. - Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency, and detailed activity auditing. - Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and Paperclip skill. - Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human action. - Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane handling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed. - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing `#9627` literals outside this PR's diff. ## Risks - Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths. - Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or visibility. - The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist and disabled modes can reduce agent access. - This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new migration number or modification to an already-applied migration. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, code review, 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 (`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-16 16:49:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	52aea90263	feat: organize skills with nested folders and My Skills (#9633) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize and govern AI-agent companies > - Company skills are durable resources that users browse, import, assign, and maintain over time > - A flat skill list plus tags does not provide a stable location or hierarchy for personal, company, project-imported, and bundled skills > - Folder paths need to be canonical, company-scoped, safe to move, and preserved across re-imports without changing skill IDs > - The `/skills` UI also needs traversal, breadcrumbs, move/create flows, and a dedicated My Skills namespace that work on desktop and mobile > - This pull request adds the folder data model and APIs, reserved-root lifecycle, project import behavior, and the folder-first skills experience > - The benefit is a predictable filesystem-like organization model while tags remain available for cross-cutting classification ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9619 — the reviewed folder foundation was intentionally closed and folded into this combined feature PR. Refs #9026 — earlier flat-folder attempt superseded by this integrated implementation. Refs #3281 — related skill organization proposal; this PR uses canonical persisted folders rather than deriving groups from skill keys, and does not add hidden-skill behavior. **Feature request** - **Problem:** Skills currently lack a canonical hierarchical location, making personal skills, project imports, bundled skills, and company-authored skills difficult to traverse and manage at scale. - **Proposed behavior:** Add nested company-scoped folders with stable paths, reserved My/Projects/Bundled roots, subtree queries, safe move/create operations, and a folder-first `/skills` library UI. - **Import behavior:** New project scans file skills under `projects/<project-slug>`; later imports update content without overriding a user-selected folder. - **Alternatives considered:** Tags alone remain useful for cross-cutting classification, but they do not provide canonical location, nesting, reserved namespaces, or stable import placement. - **Roadmap alignment:** Extends the completed Skills Manager and Scheduled Routines capabilities without duplicating an active roadmap item. ## What Changed - Adds `folders` persistence for routine and skill folders, nested canonical paths, parent/slug/system-key fields, migration backfills, and reapply-safe migrations `0174`–`0175` after current master migrations. - Adds company-scoped folder CRUD, cycle/depth/namespace validation, reserved My/Projects/Bundled lifecycle, item moves, subtree filtering, and folder paths on skill results. - Preserves project-import placement: first import files into the project folder, while re-import keeps user-owned placement and stable skill IDs. - Adds the `/skills` folder tree rail, tags facet, breadcrumbs, subfolder browser, move/new-folder dialog, canonical detail location, inline tag editing, and folder-aware Studio creation. - Keeps bundled skills read-only even when their source metadata is incomplete by detecting the reserved Bundled folder and hiding selection/move actions. - Extends routine folder UI and OpenAPI coverage, and adds regression tests across migrations, services, routes, tree helpers, pages, and Studio creation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/nested-skill-folders-migration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/folders-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/folders-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/components/folders/FolderControls.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/skill-folder-tree.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx ui/src/lib/company-skill-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-create.test.ts` — 13 files, 192 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx` — 2 files, 20 tests passed after preserving the existing PR's bundled-skill fixes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace packages. - `pnpm test:run` — passed in an isolated CI-like environment with inherited Paperclip runtime identity and static AWS credential variables removed. - `pnpm build` — production build passed for all workspace packages. - Greptile iteration 2 — 5/5 confidence with zero unresolved threads on commit `ff2d67aa71`. - Latest-head GitHub checks — all success, neutral, or skipped; PR is mergeable with a clean merge state. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports nine existing `#9627` comment false positives already present on `master`; this PR introduces no new token violation. ## Risks - **Migration/backfill:** `0174` creates the foundation and `0175` adds nested/reserved semantics. Both are ordered after current master migration `0173`, are covered by numbering/safety checks, and are designed to be reapply-safe. - **Reserved namespaces:** My, Projects, and Bundled roots are service-managed. Regression coverage prevents namespace squatting, cross-company folder use, bundled writes, cycles, and excessive depth. - **Behavioral change:** Project scans choose a project folder only on initial creation; existing skills deliberately retain their current folder during refresh. - **UI scope:** The folder rail applies to the Installed library; Catalog retains the discovery-oriented category sidebar. > 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-5.5` in Codex CLI, medium reasoning mode; runtime did not expose a context-window value. Used repository/file tools, terminal execution, Git/GitHub operations, test execution, and code editing. ## 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>	2026-07-16 15:50:45 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	6ec059ab4e	fix(server): suppress stale handoff alarms during live continuation (#9695) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The control plane records a successful-run handoff when productive work ends without a durable next-step disposition > - That handoff state was derived only from the latest activity event, without checking whether a corrective run or wake was currently alive > - As a result, actively progressing issues could still show a high-severity missing-disposition alarm and blocked-inbox row > - The same stale required event could also remain indefinitely when a later successful run correctly skipped recovery because another valid continuation path already existed > - This pull request makes the derived state liveness-aware, suppresses attention only while the live path exists, and resolves stale required events on valid-path skips > - The benefit is that productive work stays calm while genuine stalls still resurface automatically when liveness disappears ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - **Bug:** An issue whose latest successful-run handoff event is `required` continues to report a missing disposition even while a heartbeat run, scheduled retry, or queued/deferred/claimed wake is actively targeting that issue. - **Expected behavior:** The API should expose current continuation liveness, the blocked inbox should suppress the alarm only while that path remains live, and a later successful run that skips recovery because a valid path exists should durably resolve the stale event. - **Related but distinct:** #9370 changes disposition freshness at detection time; #8748 adds an explicit policy opt-out. This PR preserves detection/escalation policy and fixes read-time/current-liveness state. ## What Changed - Extended `SuccessfulRunHandoffState` with `hasLiveContinuation` and optional `liveRunId` evidence. - Added bounded liveness hydration for required handoff states using active heartbeat-run and wake-request signals. - Suppressed `missing_disposition` blocked-inbox rows only while a run, scheduled retry, or live wake targets the issue. - Added durable `issue.successful_run_handoff_resolved` logging when handoff detection skips because another valid continuation path owns the next action. - Added focused regressions for live/absent derived state, self-healing attention suppression, valid-path skip classification, and resolved-event logging. - Updated UI normalization and fixtures for the shared contract without changing rendering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` — 56 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues one finish-handoff wake when a successful run leaves in-progress work without a next action"` — 1 passed - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk: no schema or migration changes, and detection, bounded correction attempts, and escalation behavior are unchanged. - Liveness lookups are limited to issues whose latest handoff state is `required`; blocked-inbox suppression reuses rows already loaded by that query path. - Suppression is read-time and self-healing: when the run or wake stops, the alarm returns on the next fetch. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.4`, tool-enabled software-engineering workflow with repository, shell, test, Git, GitHub, and Paperclip control-plane access. Context-window size is not exposed by this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-16 10:49:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a04a77c9d3	feat(authz): govern agent inbox archive access (#9658) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox subsystem must let agents act for a responsible user without silently granting access to every company user's tasks > - Existing authorization had no inbox-specific action, target-user scope, or per-user agent policy > - Inbox archive data also needs company-safe ownership and replay-safe schema changes before API mutations can rely on it > - This pull request adds the database policy foundation and a fail-closed `inbox:manage` authorization decision > - The benefit is a least-privilege core for later inbox archive endpoints, including explicit cross-user grants and low-trust denial ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server`). ### Problem or motivation Agents need to manage inbox state for the user responsible for their run, but the control plane lacks an inbox-specific permission model and user-targeted grant scope. A generic mutation path would risk cross-user access or inconsistent policy enforcement. ### Proposed solution Add inbox archive ownership and per-user agent policies, introduce `inbox:manage`, and evaluate responsible-user defaults, disabled/allowlist policies, active membership, low-trust presets, and scoped cross-user grants in one authorization decision. ### Alternatives considered Reusing generic issue mutation permissions was rejected because it cannot express user-targeted inbox scope. Requiring grants for all self-user access was rejected because it would make the responsible-user path closed by default instead of using the requested per-user policy model. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` contains no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization item; this is incremental control-plane authorization work. ### Additional context This PR provides the authorization and schema foundation. Route and UI behavior can build on this decision without duplicating access-control rules. ## What Changed - Builds on the merged migration `0172_inbox_archive_agent_policies` (#9654) for company/user-scoped inbox archives and per-user agent policy rows. - Added replay-safe migration `0173_inbox_policy_agent_cleanup` with a GIN allowlist index and GIN-backed database cleanup that removes deleted agent IDs from policy allowlists. - Added Drizzle schema exports for inbox agent policies and responsible-user ownership on inbox archives. - Added the shared `inbox:manage` permission key and `scope.userIds` evaluation for user-targeted grants. - Added fail-closed inbox authorization for unresolved targets, inactive memberships, low-trust agents, disabled policies, allowlist misses, and ungranted cross-user access. - Added migration replay coverage and the full inbox authorization decision matrix. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts` — 50 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - The merged `0172` migration changed inbox archive uniqueness from agent-owned to responsible-user-owned rows; `0173` is additive (index + cleanup trigger) and idempotent, and replay coverage verifies both remain safe for databases that already applied an earlier form. - `scope.userIds` uses the existing JSON grant-scope parser, so malformed privileged grant payloads continue to fail through the shared parsing behavior rather than a dedicated schema. - Cross-user grants intentionally act as board-admin overrides; responsible-user default access remains bounded by disabled and allowlist policies. - The authorization action is not yet wired to public mutation routes, limiting immediate behavioral impact while establishing the contract those routes must use. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, CLI tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Context window size is not exposed by the configured adapter. ## 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>	2026-07-16 09:51:48 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c65ab09d9f	fix(recovery): wait for provider quota resets (#9635) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and keep assigned work moving safely. > - The recovery subsystem decides whether a failed agent run should retry, wait, block for configuration, or escalate to another owner. > - Provider usage-limit failures currently arrive as generic `adapter_failed` results, so stranded-work reconciliation can create takeover recovery even when the provider states that capacity will reset later. > - Credential and model lookup failures are also configuration problems, not evidence that another agent should take over the task. > - This pull request classifies those failure families at recovery time and persists the classification on the run. > - Quota failures now schedule a monitor for the original assignee at the parsed reset time, or after a bounded default backoff when no reset time is available. > - The benefit is that transient provider capacity waits no longer wake recovery owners, while configuration failures stop with an actionable classification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this exact change. **What happened?** When an assigned issue's latest run failed with a provider usage-limit message such as "try again at 12:00 AM (UTC)," recovery treated the run as generic `adapter_failed` work and could create a takeover action. Missing credentials and `model_not_found` failures followed the same generic path. **Expected behavior:** Provider quota failures should keep the original assignee and schedule a monitor for the reset time, without creating recovery work or immediately waking another owner. Missing credentials and model lookup failures should be classified as `configuration_incomplete` and blocked with the configuration fix recorded. **Steps to reproduce:** 1. Assign and start an issue for an agent. 2. Record a failed heartbeat run with `errorCode: adapter_failed` and a provider quota/reset message. 3. Run stranded assigned-issue reconciliation. 4. Observe that the old behavior routes the issue through generic recovery instead of waiting for provider capacity. Reproduced on `master` at `9af96461d`. This is a core recovery bug, not adapter-specific, and applies to built-from-source deployments with either embedded PGlite or Postgres. Related work checked: #9288 adds adapter-side Claude provider-limit classification; #5392 suppresses some recovery creation for quota-class errors; #9634 is a broader recovery-routing change with overlapping provider-quota behavior. This PR is the narrow recovery-service fix with focused parsed-reset, fallback-backoff, zero-takeover, and configuration-failure coverage. ## What Changed - Added conservative recovery-time classification for provider quota, missing-credential, and model-not-found adapter failures. - Parsed provider reset timestamps with a default one-hour backoff when no usable reset time is present. - Persisted `provider_quota` or `configuration_incomplete` metadata on the failed heartbeat run. - Scheduled quota monitors for the active issue owner, including the current review participant, without creating recovery actions or enqueueing takeover wakes. - Routed configuration failures to blocked recovery with actionable evidence instead of a takeover. - Added unit and embedded-database regression coverage for parsed/fallback quota timing, zero CTO/recovery wake behavior, and configuration classification. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/recovery/provider-failure-classification.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` — 4 files passed, 66 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Recovery behavior changes for text-matched adapter failures; matching is intentionally conservative, and unmatched failures retain the existing generic recovery path. - Provider reset strings do not always include a date or timezone; parsing chooses the next future matching time and falls back to a one-hour wait when the timestamp is unusable. - This overlaps the provider-quota portion of broader recovery-routing PR #9634, so only one implementation should land if both remain open. - No schema, migration, API contract, or UI changes are included. No documentation update is needed because this corrects internal recovery behavior without changing operator commands or configuration. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model `gpt-5.4`, medium reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose its configured context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-16 09:24:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	85404b46c5	fix(server): throttle serial recovery repeats (#9651) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies. > - Its recovery services create productivity reviews and liveness escalations when work stops making progress. > - Existing uniqueness guards prevent concurrent duplicates, but terminal recovery tasks can still be recreated serially without enough time for conditions to change. > - That creates noisy review churn for persistently stalled issues and immediate liveness re-escalation after a recovery task closes. > - This pull request adds bounded, configurable cooldown and no-action suppression behavior to those two recovery paths. > - The benefit is quieter recovery automation that still resumes automatically after source activity or cooldown expiry. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I can reproduce this behavior on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the behavior originates in Paperclip core recovery orchestration, not an adapter, provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? Recovery reconciliation can serially recreate equivalent system-origin tasks after previous tasks become terminal. Productivity reviews allowed multiple creations for the same source issue within a rolling day, and a closed liveness escalation could be recreated immediately for the same incident or recovery leaf. ### Expected behavior Productivity review creation should be limited to once per rolling 24 hours, repeated completed reviews that produced no source action should eventually suppress further creation until activity resumes, and recently terminal liveness escalations should receive a short cooldown before recreation. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create a stalled assigned issue that meets productivity-review eligibility. 2. Complete repeated productivity-review tasks without adding source-issue activity, then reconcile again within 24 hours. 3. Create and close a liveness escalation for a blocked issue graph, then immediately reconcile the same graph. 4. Observe that equivalent system tasks can be recreated serially without a meaningful state change. ### Paperclip version or commit `5588ddf68175eea448f9d19677b97d7393c38c3d` (`master` when reproduced) ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`) ### Agent adapter(s) involved - [x] Not adapter-specific (core bug) ### Database mode Embedded PGlite (default — `DATABASE_URL` unset) ### Access context Unclear / not applicable ### Node.js version Current repository-supported Node.js runtime. ### Operating system Linux development environment. ### Relevant logs or output No error is emitted; the bug is repeated task creation visible in persisted issue history. ### Relevant config (if applicable) No special configuration is required. ### Additional context The concurrent/open-task uniqueness guards work as designed; this change targets serial repeats after matching tasks become terminal. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Tightened the productivity-review creation cap to one review per source issue in a rolling 24-hour window. - Added configurable suppression after three consecutive completed reviews with no source-issue activity, with automatic reset when source activity occurs. - Added a configurable one-hour default cooldown for matching terminal liveness escalations. - Exposed the liveness reconciliation clock/cooldown inputs for deterministic orchestration tests. - Added focused tests for daily enforcement, no-action suppression and reset, and cooldown expiry. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` — 36 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Confirm the focused tests demonstrate creation after source activity and after the liveness cooldown expires. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: recovery tasks intentionally appear less often, so overly aggressive thresholds could delay intervention for a persistently stalled issue. - Thresholds are configurable through reconciliation inputs, and source activity resets productivity-review suppression. - No database migration, public API change, telemetry contract change, or UI behavior change. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.3-Codex, with reasoning, repository/terminal tool use, code execution, and test execution. The runtime did not expose a reliable 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>	2026-07-16 09:22:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	992389480a	fix(server): restore hot-restart run adoption (#9647) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The local heartbeat/runtime subsystem starts long-running local agent processes and records their run state. > - Operators sometimes need to rebuild and restart the Paperclip server while local agent processes are still alive. > - A normal restart should remain conservative, but a guarded production hot restart needs an explicit marker, startup reconciliation, and an inspectable report. > - The broader hot-restart PR is currently merge-conflicted, so this pull request lands the minimal server-side recovery path on current `master`. > - The benefit is that deploy operators can restart from a current branch without reverting production changes and without marking adopted live runs as `process_lost`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this deploy-safety fix. Bug fix: - What happened: the current deployable `master` branch did not include the hot-restart marker CLI, startup adoption report path, or health version proof needed by guarded service restarts. - Expected behavior: a deploy operator can write a one-shot marker before restarting, the old server snapshots eligible running child processes, the new server reports adopted/finalized/lost runs, and adopted live runs are not reaped as `process_lost`. - Steps to reproduce: restart a server with running local child-process heartbeat runs without the marker/adoption path; startup orphan reaping has no adoption metadata and treats live detached children as lost. - Paperclip version/commit: fixed on top of `master` at `b606869a6`. - Deployment mode: production/local-service style deployments that rebuild and restart the primary `paperclip.service`. - Related PR: Refs #9628. This PR intentionally lands a smaller deploy-safe subset because #9628 is currently merge-conflicted. - Duplicate search: searched public PRs/issues for `hot restart` and `process_lost adoption`; #9628 is the directly related prior implementation. ## What Changed - Added `scripts/request-hot-restart.ts` to write a one-shot hot-restart intent marker under `PAPERCLIP_HOME`. - Added `server/src/services/hot-restart.ts` for intent/report path resolution, parsing, atomic writes, shutdown snapshots, and marker cleanup. - Wired server shutdown/startup so explicit hot restarts snapshot active runs, skip the normal heartbeat drain, reconcile live child processes on boot, and write `hot-restart-report.json`. - Preserved adopted run metadata so normal orphan reaping does not regress adopted live runs to `process_lost`. - Added `serverVersion` health proof alongside existing `version`, plus docs and regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 100 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `env PAPERCLIP_HOME="$PAPERCLIP_RUN_SCRATCH_DIR/hot-restart-cli-smoke" pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/request-hot-restart.ts --server-pid 12345` - Branch ancestry checked after `git fetch origin master`: `origin/master` was `b606869a6`, and `HEAD..origin/master` was empty. ## Risks - Medium risk: process adoption depends on PID/PGID metadata and the service manager leaving child processes alive for the guarded restart. - Normal restarts remain conservative, but an incorrect marker PID intentionally falls back to graceful drain instead of adoption. - The PR is server-only and does not include the broader UI/experimental-setting work from #9628. > 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-5 via Codex coding agent in a Paperclip execution workspace; tool use and shell/code execution enabled; context window not surfaced by this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-16 02:46:09 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4f9894df44	fix(server): bound accepted-interaction continuation recovery (#9656) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Heartbeat recovery keeps assigned issues moving when a run or continuation path disappears > - Accepted issue-thread interactions can create a continuation wake after an agent previously parked for review > - The recovery sweep could requeue that accepted-interaction wake while the queued-run gate cancelled it using the older pre-acceptance park summary > - That cancellation path had no bound, so recovery could repeat the same wake and cancellation indefinitely > - This pull request makes accepted-interaction evidence supersede the older park and caps repeated recovery cancellations at three attempts > - The benefit is that accepted work resumes normally, while genuine repeated failures become a visible dependency wait or escalation instead of a cancel loop ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9331 The accepted-interaction continuation recovery added by #9331 can encounter a stale continuation summary written before approval. The sweep requeues a continuation carrying the accepted interaction timestamp, but queued-run invalidation cancels it because the older summary says to wait for review. Recovery then sees the accepted interaction without a successful run and requeues again. This PR prevents that stale-summary cancellation and adds a bounded fallback if three equivalent cancellations have already occurred. ## What Changed - Let queued continuation wakes with a parseable `interactionResolvedAt` bypass a pre-acceptance waiting-for-review park summary. - Count consecutive unsuccessful continuation runs for the same issue and agent since interaction acceptance; after three review-park cancellations, convert a real dependency wait or use the existing visible escalation path. - Add focused regression coverage for the park bypass, unchanged non-interaction park behavior, below-cap requeue, cap escalation, and successful-run skip. - Document the accepted-interaction precedence and bounded requeue contract in execution semantics §9.2. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "accepted interaction continuation recovery|accepted interaction recovery after its continuation succeeds|requeues accepted interaction continuations stranded"` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts -t "pre-acceptance review park|continuation summary parks executor work"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` ## Risks - Low risk: the park bypass only applies when the queued context contains a parseable interaction resolution timestamp. - The retry bound is scoped to unsuccessful `issue_continuation_needed` runs for the same company, issue, agent, error code, and post-acceptance time window. - No schema, migration, API, or UI changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.5`, high-reasoning coding mode with repository tool use and command execution; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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>	2026-07-16 02:34:20 -05:00
3 people	3124dd0f1e	feat(server): recovery observability report and rate alert (#9644) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When a run is stranded (process lost, adapter failure, a finished run with no disposition, an over-eager inactivity kill), the harness opens a *recovery action* and wakes an owner to recover it > - Recovery volume regressed sharply in one week — 3.26% of all runs vs a ~1.2% monthly norm, 5–8x the prior volume — and nobody noticed until it was ~194 actions deep, because there was no way to *see* the recovery rate > - We also could not see which causes drive recovery, nor how often a manager ends up doing the deliverable work themselves instead of handing it back to the original owner (the product goal is that managers doing the work stays rare) > - This pull request adds a recovery-observability report + API endpoint: weekly rate normalized per run, a threshold alert, the cause taxonomy live from the ledger, and the handed-back vs owner-completed ratio and per-cause routing outcomes > - The benefit is that a recovery regression like that week is caught by a threshold instead of by a human noticing it by feel, and each recovery playbook row can be verified in production ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Feature.** **Problem or motivation** Recovery takeovers are a first-class exception path (`issue_recovery_actions`), but there is no aggregate view of them. A week where the recovery rate tripled went unnoticed until it was deep. There is no signal for (a) the per-run recovery rate over time, (b) which cause + run error code drives it, or (c) whether the recovery owner hands the task back to the original assignee or ends up doing the deliverable work themselves. **Proposed solution** A read-only report service and `GET /companies/:companyId/recovery-observability` endpoint that surfaces the weekly rate, a threshold alert, the cause taxonomy, the hand-back ratio, and per-cause routing outcomes. **Alternatives considered** Adding `handed_back` / `owner_completed` to the recovery-action outcome vocabulary and writing them at resolution time. Rejected for this change: the distinction is derivable from the recovery owner, the recorded return owner, and where the source issue actually landed, so the report works against all historical data without a backfill. **Roadmap alignment** Implements the recovery-observability line of the approved recovery-takeover plan (make regressions visible via a threshold rather than by human feel); no schema or write-path change. ## What Changed - Add `server/src/services/recovery-observability.ts`: - `recoveryObservabilityService(db).report(companyId, { weeks, thresholdPercent, now })` returns weekly rates (recovery actions / runs, Monday-anchored to match the retrospective), a `cause` + `latestRunErrorCode` breakdown, a handed-back vs owner-completed summary, and per-cause routing outcomes. - `evaluateRecoveryRateAlert(weekly, thresholdPercent)` — a pure function (default threshold 2% of runs) returning the breached weeks and whether the latest week regressed. - `classifyRecoveryHandoff(...)` — a pure classifier deriving `self_recovery` / `handed_back` / `owner_completed` from the recovery owner, return owner, and final issue landing. - Add `GET /companies/:companyId/recovery-observability` (optional `weeks` and `threshold` query params) to the existing dashboard router. - The `weeks` window is bounded (`MAX_WINDOW_WEEKS = 104`, service-authoritative and re-clamped at the route) so a large query value can't over-allocate the per-week array. - Add tests: unit coverage for the alert and the classifier, plus an embedded-Postgres integration test that seeds synthetic runs and recovery actions crossing 2% and asserts the alert fires and the hand-back ratio is computed. ## Verification - `CI=1 NODE_ENV=development npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/recovery-observability.test.ts` — 10/10 pass (includes the synthetic 2%-crossing alert case and the hand-back ratio case). - Rendered against a live database of 300+ recovery actions: the weekly rates reproduce the retrospective (e.g. 1.37% / 1.53% / 0.65% / 0.86% / 1.37% for early-June weeks), the alert fires on the two most recent weeks (3.15% and 3.05%, both over 2%), and the hand-back summary shows owner-completed ≈ 73% vs handed-back ≈ 27% — matching the observed "managers keep ~80% of takeovers". ## Risks - Low risk. Read-only: adds one GET endpoint and a service; no schema, migration, or write-path changes. The hand-back classification reads the source issue's current assignee/status, so a much-later reassignment could reclassify a historical action — acceptable for an aggregate trend view. ## Model Used - Claude, `claude-opus-4-8` (Opus 4.8), extended thinking, tool use / 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 - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-16 02:34:00 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8368fb30b0	fix(routines): coalesce sub-hourly catch-up runs (#9649) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to run AI-agent companies. > - Scheduled routines support catch-up policies when the server resumes after missed cron ticks. > - The existing capped replay policy dispatched once per missed tick, which can flood the board after downtime for frequent schedules. > - Sub-hourly routines usually need one prompt catch-up execution rather than historical per-tick replay, while hourly-or-slower schedules may rely on the existing behavior. > - This pull request coalesces missed sub-hourly ticks into one execution and keeps the slower-schedule behavior unchanged. > - The benefit is bounded recovery work without changing the semantics of lower-frequency scheduled routines. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? When a scheduled routine using `enqueue_missed_with_cap` resumes after several missed sub-hourly cron ticks, Paperclip dispatches one catch-up execution for every missed tick. Those executions arrive in a same-second burst and can flood the board with duplicate-looking work. ### Expected behavior Sub-hourly schedules should advance past all missed ticks but dispatch exactly one catch-up execution. Hourly-or-slower schedules should retain capped per-tick replay. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Build Paperclip from `master` and create a routine with a sub-hourly cron schedule and `catchUpPolicy: enqueue_missed_with_cap`. 2. Set its persisted `nextRunAt` far enough in the past to cover several scheduled occurrences. 3. Run routine catch-up processing. 4. Observe multiple catch-up dispatches instead of one coalesced execution. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` before this PR. ### Deployment mode Built from source in local development with embedded PGlite. ## What Changed - Classify sub-hourly cadence from timezone-aware scheduled occurrences, avoiding daily multi-minute false positives while supporting schedules restricted to active days. - Coalesce all missed sub-hourly ticks into one catch-up dispatch while advancing `nextRunAt` to the next future occurrence. - Preserve capped per-tick replay for hourly-or-slower schedules. - Clarify the catch-up policy labels in both routine editing surfaces. - Add regression coverage for both the coalesced and preserved behaviors. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --testNamePattern='coalesces multiple missed sub-hourly ticks|continues replaying each missed hourly tick|continues replaying missed ticks for daily schedules with multiple minute values|coalesces sub-hourly schedules restricted to weekdays'` — 4 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — clean. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: sub-hourly routines using `enqueue_missed_with_cap` now intentionally receive one recovery execution instead of one per missed tick. - Hourly-or-slower schedules retain their previous capped replay behavior, limiting the compatibility surface. - No schema, migration, workflow, or lockfile changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI with GPT-5.5, medium reasoning, code execution and repository tool use; the runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [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>	2026-07-15 21:46:10 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	bd7c0d5f83	fix(issues): deduplicate repeated creates (#9650) ... ## Thinking Path > Paperclip already treats issue creation as a company-scoped mutation, but retries and parallel agent heartbeats can submit the same create more than once. Client instructions cannot provide at-most-once behavior under concurrency, so the guard belongs in the server transaction. This change adds an explicit company-scoped idempotency contract, a conservative fallback for recent open same-parent titles, and run attribution for auditability. Advisory transaction locks serialize competing requests before lookup/insert, avoiding the race that affected the prior attempt. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #6529. This is a clean replacement for #6936, which was closed because it mixed unrelated changes and its check-then-insert implementation was not concurrency-safe. Unlike that attempt, this PR is scoped to eight files, uses a dedicated idempotency-key table, and serializes duplicate candidates inside the create transaction. ## What Changed - Accept optional `idempotencyKey` and `allowDuplicate` fields on issue creation. - Replay the existing issue with HTTP 200 and deduplication metadata for a repeated company/key pair. - Deduplicate recent open issues with the same company, parent, and normalized title for 48 hours unless `allowDuplicate: true` is supplied. - Persist idempotency mappings in a company-scoped table and serialize competing creates with transaction advisory locks. - Populate `originRunId` from `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` for agent/manual creates when the body does not provide an origin run. - Add route integration coverage for key replay, title fallback, bypass, closed/old recreation, company scoping, and run attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 7 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 10 tests passed after the service-contract compatibility fix. ## Risks - The title fallback intentionally treats normalized same-parent titles as duplicates for 48 hours; callers creating intentionally repeated titles must send `allowDuplicate: true`. - Advisory locks use hashed duplicate keys, so an extremely unlikely hash collision can serialize unrelated creates but cannot merge their lookup results. - Deleting an issue cascades its idempotency mapping, allowing the same key to create a replacement later. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, Codex CLI with repository, shell, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API tool access. ## 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>	2026-07-15 21:45:11 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ea0e899905	fix(search): honor extract match limits + harden pr-gardening candidate discovery (#9652) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The `/pr-gardening` skill drives a bundled agent that scans a company's issues for those linked to open GitHub PRs, then reports on their state; it relies on the server's company-search **extract** endpoint to pull PR references out of issue bodies > - Two gaps surfaced during end-to-end QA of the gardening workflow: the extract service silently ignored a per-issue match cap, so callers could not bound how many matches came back per issue, and the skill's candidate-discovery scripts fell over on large repos and on issues that referenced deleted PRs > - Left unaddressed, the gardener either truncated its scan unpredictably or aborted outright, so it could not reliably enumerate PR candidates > - This pull request honors an explicit `matchesPerIssue` limit in the extract search API and hardens the skill's candidate discovery against missing/unavailable PRs and oversized `gh` output > - The benefit is a PR-gardening workflow that scans deterministically and finishes cleanly on real-world companies ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No pre-existing public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR following the bug report template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`). ### What happened? The company-search extract endpoint accepted a per-issue match limit but did not apply it, returning matches capped only by the old hardcoded constant regardless of the caller's request. Separately, the `/pr-gardening` skill's candidate-discovery scripts crashed when a scanned issue referenced a deleted PR (GitHub `Not Found (HTTP 404)` / GraphQL `Could not resolve to a PullRequest`) and could exceed the default `gh` output buffer on large result sets, aborting the whole scan. ### Expected behavior The extract API bounds matches per issue when a caller passes `matchesPerIssue` (default 20, max 200), and omitting it preserves the previous default. The gardening scripts skip PRs that are deleted/unavailable and tolerate large `gh` responses without aborting the scan. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Call the company-search extract endpoint with a `matchesPerIssue` value against an issue containing many PR references — previously the value was ignored. 2. Run the pr-gardening candidate scan against a company whose issues reference a since-deleted PR — previously the scan threw instead of skipping that PR. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` at the base of this PR (branch cut from current `origin/master`). ### Deployment mode Local Paperclip instance / self-hosted. ## What Changed - **Extract search honors `matchesPerIssue`**: added the `matchesPerIssue` field to the shared search validator/types and applied the cap in `company-search-extract` so results are bounded per issue (`packages/shared`, `server/src/services/company-search-extract.ts`, `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`). - **Hardened pr-gardening candidate discovery**: `find-candidates.mjs` / `lib.mjs` now request `matchesPerIssue=200`, treat missing/unavailable PRs (deleted PR → `isMissingPullRequestError` / `unavailable`) as skips instead of fatal errors, and raise the `gh` `maxBuffer` to 50 MB for large repos. - **Tests**: expanded `company-search-extract-{routes,service}.test.ts` for the new limit and added coverage in `pr-gardening.test.mjs`. ## Verification Re-run on a fresh worktree cherry-picked onto current `master`: - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` → 8/8 pass - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts` → 10/10 pass ## Risks Low risk. `matchesPerIssue` is optional and backward-compatible (omitting it preserves prior behavior). The skill changes only add skip/tolerance paths and a larger buffer; no schema or migration changes. ## Model Used Claude — Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use / code execution via the Claude Agent SDK. ## 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>	2026-07-15 21:44:21 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d32ed88443	fix(recovery): route recovery by failure cause (#9634) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies and their work. > - Its recovery subsystem detects stranded issue execution and decides whether to retry, escalate, or request operator intervention. > - The existing recovery path used a mostly generic owner ladder and generic execution contract, so transient failures could wake a manager who then performed the deliverable instead of repairing and returning the task. > - Provider quota failures also entered the same takeover path even when the correct action was to wait for capacity and retry the original assignee. > - Recovery actions already retain the source owner and evidence needed to choose a cause-specific route, render a scoped contract, and measure whether work was handed back. > - This pull request adds a cause-keyed recovery playbook, propagates its contract through every built-in adapter, and makes resolved recovery actions return work to the original owner by default. > - The benefit is bounded self-recovery that preserves task ownership, avoids needless management takeover, and makes recovery outcomes observable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. Related recovery work was reviewed but is not duplicated here: #9630 restores bounded recovery continuations, #8807 changes one assignee-ranking case, and #9404 records runtime-failure transition evidence. This change instead introduces cause-specific routing and recovery contracts across the recovery lifecycle. ### What happened? When an issue became stranded, recovery generally selected an owner through the same fallback ladder and rendered the normal execution contract. That made the recovery wake look like ordinary deliverable work, even when the correct action was to retry the original agent, repair its runtime, or wait for a provider quota reset. ### Expected behavior Recovery should select a response by failure cause, tell the recipient to recover rather than complete the deliverable, suppress takeover wakes for provider quota waits, and return repaired work to its original assignee unless the recovery owner explicitly completes it. ### Actual behavior Recovery could escalate transient failures to management, omit the cause-specific next action from the wake, and leave the recovery owner assigned after the runtime problem was resolved. ### Impact The generic path creates avoidable management work, ownership churn, and budget consumption while obscuring whether recovery successfully returned work to the responsible agent. ## What Changed - Added cause-keyed routing for process loss, missing disposition, provider quota limits, Codex output inactivity, workspace validation failures, and fallback recovery causes. - Added recovery-scoped wake rendering that replaces the generic execution contract with the failure summary, original assignee, attempt count, next action, and cause-specific playbook instruction. - Propagated the structured recovery contract through all built-in adapter execution paths, including Hermes local and gateway adapters. - Added provider-quota wait monitoring so capacity failures schedule the original assignee instead of enqueueing a takeover wake. - Added hand-back behavior and `handed_back` / `owner_completed` outcome accounting when recovery actions are resolved. - Added focused routing, renderer, quota-monitor, and hand-back regression coverage plus implementation-spec documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` - 4 test files passed; 194 tests passed. - Targeted `pnpm --filter ... typecheck` across `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`, `@paperclipai/shared`, `@paperclipai/server`, `@paperclipai/ui`, and all nine changed adapter packages. - 13 affected workspace packages passed typecheck. - `pnpm check:token-gates` - All UI token gates passed. ## Risks - Recovery routing behavior changes for stranded work, so an incorrectly classified cause could select a different recipient than before; fallback causes retain the existing management ladder. - Provider quota detection depends on structured failure evidence and conservative text matching; unmatched failures continue through fallback recovery. - Adapter prompt plumbing changes across built-ins, covered by shared renderer tests and compile-time call signatures. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, using reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose its configured 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>	2026-07-15 20:04:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ae77908618	feat(search): add bulk extract endpoint (#9507) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Agents and operators need company-scoped search to discover relevant issue history safely > - The interactive search endpoint intentionally returns compact excerpts and low pagination caps for UI use > - Automation that inventories repeated references, such as pull-request URLs, needs exhaustive distinct matches without loading full issue objects into an LLM context > - Client-provided regular expressions would create an unsafe and expensive query surface, so extraction must remain literal with server-owned expansion modes > - This pull request adds a bounded agent-oriented extraction endpoint with explicit truncation > - The benefit is deterministic, compact bulk discovery across issues, comments, and documents while preserving company authorization and rate limits ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected `server/` REST API and `packages/shared/` contracts. ### Problem or motivation The existing interactive company search caps issue pagination and snippets, so automation cannot reliably enumerate every distinct literal or pull-request URL across issue descriptions, comments, and linked documents without fetching large full issue payloads. ### Proposed solution Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/search/extract` with escaped literal matching, optional server-owned URL token expansion, issue/comment/document scopes, status/date filters, higher issue-level pagination caps, compact source references, and explicit pagination/match truncation flags. ### Alternatives considered Reusing `GET /issues?q=` would return unnecessarily large issue objects; increasing interactive-search snippet limits would make the UI API heavier; accepting arbitrary client regex would expose avoidable database cost and ReDoS risk. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` does not currently list a conflicting company-search or bulk-extraction initiative. GitHub searches found no directly duplicative open issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added shared query validation and response contracts for literal and URL extraction. - Added a company-scoped extraction service that pages issues, gathers matching issue/comment/document sources, expands URL tokens, deduplicates values, and reports truncation explicitly. - Added the authenticated route using the existing company-search authorization decision and rate limiter. - Added targeted Vitest coverage for URL extraction, multi-source dedupe, date/status filters, match caps, cross-company denial, and rate limiting. - Documented the extraction surface in the implementation specification. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts` — 30 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks - Bulk substring search can scan large text columns. The endpoint mitigates this with a minimum literal length, bounded issue pagination, a 20-distinct-match cap per issue, explicit truncation, existing company-search rate limiting, and no client-provided regex. - URL expansion uses a fixed server-owned pattern plus an escaped literal. A security review is requested as part of PR review to confirm the pattern and abuse controls. - No database migration or existing API response shape changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI coding agent; exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed to the session. Tool-enabled code execution and repository editing were used with medium reasoning effort. ## 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>	2026-07-15 19:05:06 -05:00
3 people	3ae2c30f2f	feat(skills): import skills from projects (#9620) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Company skills make reusable agent behavior discoverable and editable from one place. > - Projects already contain skill directories, but operators had to import each skill path manually. > - Copying those skills would break the desired write-through workflow between Skill Studio and the source project. > - The server therefore needs a safe preview/select/import contract that only accepts rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates. > - The UI needs a guided project picker that explains reference semantics, handles conflicts, and remains usable on mobile. > - This pull request adds that end-to-end project skill import flow with authorization, tenant-scope, traversal, and symlink regression coverage. > - The benefit is faster bulk onboarding while keeping project files as the single source of truth. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Feature request** **Problem:** Importing several skills already stored in a Paperclip project requires operators to discover and submit each local path individually. This is slow, hides which well-known directories were searched, and makes conflict/already-imported states difficult to evaluate before mutation. **Proposed solution:** Add an “Import skills from project” flow that previews skills from well-known directories, lets operators selectively import eligible candidates, and stores local-path references so Skill Studio edits write through to the project files. **Alternatives considered:** Copying files into company-managed skill storage was rejected because it creates divergent copies. Trusting client-supplied paths was rejected because imports must be constrained to server-rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates. **Additional context:** GitHub duplicate search found no existing issue or PR for this exact workflow. Refs #3799 for related skill-import inventory behavior; this PR does not claim to close that issue. ## What Changed - Extend `scan-projects` with backward-compatible preview and selective-import modes, typed validation, candidate statuses, and OpenAPI coverage. - Discover project skills under `skills`, `.agents/skills`, `.claude/skills`, `.codex/skills`, `.cursor/skills`, `.opencode/skills`, and `.gemini/skills`. - Re-discover selections server-side, enforce company/project/workspace scope, and reject traversal or symlink escapes before creating `local_path` references. - Add the Skills-page menu entry and responsive project import dialog with project selection, grouped candidates, select all/deselect all, conflicts, empty/error/403 states, and import results. - Add route, service, and component regressions for preview authorization, cross-tenant selections, traversal/symlink safety, selection counts, grouping, and result semantics. ### Screenshots **Choose a project**  **Review discovered skills**  **Mobile selection footer**  **Import result**  ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/skills/ImportSkillsFromProjectDialog.test.tsx` — 3 files, 81 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Security review passed after adding tenant-scope and unauthorized-preview regressions; UX re-review approved desktop/mobile surfaces; QA passed all seven acceptance areas including write-through editing, deduplication, conflicts, empty state, and permission denial. ## Risks - Files remain referenced in project workspaces, so moving or deleting a source directory can make an imported skill unavailable; the UI explicitly communicates the reference behavior. - New well-known directory scans may discover more candidates than older versions, but preview mode prevents mutation until the operator confirms a selection. - The endpoint remains backward compatible: omitting `mode` preserves the prior full-import behavior. - No schema migration or telemetry event changes. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with tool use/code execution assisted with the UI implementation and UX polish. OpenAI Codex CLI with tool use/code execution assisted with server implementation, security fixes, regression coverage, integration, and PR preparation; the runtime did not expose Codex's exact backing 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-15 18:01:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9af96461d5	fix(server): restore stranded recovery continuations (#9630) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work. > - Its server recovery layer classifies blocked issue graphs and restores interrupted heartbeat execution. > - A dependent issue could remain dispatch-suppressed by a cancelled blocker without producing operator-visible attention when the dependent still displayed as todo or backlog. > - Separately, a monitor-triggered run that lost its process before disposition could consume the monitor's one-shot wake without scheduling the existing bounded continuation. > - Both gaps strand useful work even though Paperclip already has the relevant blocker-attention and process-loss recovery mechanisms. > - This pull request widens the existing classification path and reuses the single process-loss retry for monitor dispatches with no future wake. > - The benefit is visible, routable recovery without weakening dependency checkout rules or introducing an unbounded retry loop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue or pull request was found. ### What happened? Two server recovery cases could leave work stranded: 1. A non-terminal, agent-assigned issue with an unresolved cancelled blocker remained ineligible for checkout, but blocked-chain liveness classification only inspected issues already displaying `blocked` or `in_review`, so the existing `blocked_by_cancelled_issue` attention was not surfaced. 2. A one-shot issue monitor cleared its next check when dispatched. If that monitor-triggered run ended as `process_lost` without a tracked local child, the existing bounded retry gate rejected it and no future monitor wake remained. ### Expected behavior - Cancelled blockers continue to be unresolved dependencies, and their dependents receive blocker attention regardless of whether the dependent currently displays as backlog, todo, blocked, or in review. - A monitor-triggered run lost before disposition receives exactly one bounded continuation when no future monitor check exists; a second loss follows the normal recovery-action escalation path. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an agent-assigned todo issue blocked by a cancelled issue and run issue-graph liveness classification. 2. Observe that no cancelled-blocker finding appears before this change. 3. Dispatch a due issue monitor, clear its one-shot `monitorNextCheckAt`, and mark the resulting untracked run `process_lost`. 4. Observe that no retry is queued before this change. ### Environment - Paperclip commit: `3e348b96b` - Deployment: built from source / local test environment - Adapter: not adapter-specific; core server recovery - Database: embedded test database ## What Changed - Inspect non-terminal, agent-assigned issues with unresolved blocker edges during blocked-chain liveness classification. - Include cancelled dependents in the existing blocked-inbox attention query while preserving company-scoped relation checks. - Allow monitor-triggered `process_lost` runs with no future monitor wake to use the existing single bounded retry. - Mark monitor recovery retries as continuation-needed context and retain the existing second-loss escalation behavior. - Document cancelled-blocker and monitor-dispatch recovery semantics. - Add focused regressions for liveness findings, attention propagation, one retry, and second-loss escalation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts` — 3 files, 126 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk and server-only. The liveness scan inspects more unresolved dependency shapes, which can produce additional existing attention entries for previously invisible cancelled blockers. - Monitor recovery remains bounded by `processLossRetryCount < 1`, and the extra path only applies when the dispatch was monitor-triggered and no future monitor check exists. - No schema, migration, authorization, API-contract, or UI changes. > 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-5.4` through Codex CLI, with reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and test execution capabilities. ## 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>	2026-07-15 16:41:39 -05:00
Nicky Leach	3a727bf780	fix(codex): warn when sandbox auth is shadowed (#9259)	2026-07-15 10:02:28 -07:00
4 people	89ce36d7af	feat(skills): open-by-default company skill policy and core UX (#9564) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable across an organization. > - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and inconsistent denial handling. > - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments. > - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI. > - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate `paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR. ### Problem or motivation Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution. ### Proposed solution Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise Edition implementation in the core repository. ### Alternatives considered Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must receive its own PR. ### Roadmap alignment Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent governance and removing workflow dead ends. ### Additional context The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI integration code. ## What Changed - Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary. - Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused server tests. - Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and execution. - Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an operation is actually denied. - Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE repository. - Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company restriction exists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - `git diff --check` — passed. - `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg 'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches. ## Risks - Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised. - Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions. - Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused review. - The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core policy API as policy actions evolve. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and code review capabilities enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details available to this runtime) - [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 or described the result 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 focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the latest head - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-07-15 11:42:40 -05:00
3 people	24bd860280	Stop cancelled productivity review loops (#5210) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Productivity review reconciliation creates manager-owned review issues when assigned work shows no-comment, long-active, or high-churn patterns. > - SplatImmo hit a loop because productivity-review issues were auto-cancelled while the source issue still matched the same trigger. > - The service already snoozed recently completed reviews, but cancelled reviews were ignored for that snooze check. > - This pull request treats recently cancelled productivity reviews as terminal snooze evidence. > - The benefit is that cancelling a review now suppresses immediate recreation without disabling useful future productivity reviews. ## What Changed - Renamed the recent-review lookup to terminal-review semantics and included `cancelled` alongside `done`. - Added a regression test proving a recently cancelled productivity review produces `snoozed` instead of creating another review. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` passes: 1 file, 12 tests. - Queried the SplatImmo Paperclip instance for existing `Review productivity` issues: 500 `issue_productivity_review` issues found, all already `cancelled`, 0 active. ## Risks - Low risk: this only affects the reconciliation branch after a terminal productivity-review issue exists. - Operators who cancel a productivity review now get the same default 6-hour quiet window as completed reviews; after that window, persistent evidence can still create a fresh review. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 class model, tool-enabled code editing and local command 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Yanis Ismail <yanis.ismail@emissive.fr> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-15 11:38:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ea66ea81e6	fix(auth): honor responsible-user grants for company skills (#9571) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Company skills are governed resources, so board users and agents acting for responsible users must be authorized consistently before mutating skill configuration > - The responsible-user authorization intersection handled several task permissions but did not map company-skill mutation actions to the corresponding `skills:create`, `skills:update`, and `skills:delete` grants > - That gap caused valid skill import and mutation requests to be rejected even when the responsible user held the exact direct permission required by the route > - The branch also introduces the repo-sourced `prepare-paperclip-pr` skill so the standard PR preparation process is versioned and reviewable alongside the code > - This pull request adds the missing authorization mappings, covers board, agent, JWT-route, and denial behavior with regression tests, and adds the renamed PR-preparation skill > - The benefit is that governed company-skill workflows honor explicit grants without weakening the responsible-user permission intersection ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Bug-report shape: - **Affected area**: company skill authorization and skill import routes - **Observed behavior**: agents acting under a responsible user could receive `403` responses for company-skill mutations even when that user had the matching direct `skills:create`, `skills:update`, or `skills:delete` grant - **Expected behavior**: the responsible-user authorization intersection should accept exact company-skill grants while preserving denials for missing or unrelated grants - **Reproduction**: authenticate as an agent with a responsible user, grant that user the relevant company-skill permission, then import or mutate a company skill - **Additional repository change**: adds the renamed `prepare-paperclip-pr` skill as the versioned source of truth for PR preparation Supersedes #9324, which added the PR-preparation skill under the old `prepare-pr` name. ## What Changed - Added `.agents/skills/prepare-paperclip-pr/SKILL.md` with the standard worktree, commit, rebase, guardrail, review-loop, and handoff procedure - Mapped company `skill_config:create`, `skill_config:update`, and `skill_config:delete` actions to direct `skills:create`, `skills:update`, and `skills:delete` responsible-user grants - Preserved restrictive behavior for unsupported resources, missing grants, and unrelated permissions - Added authorization-service regression coverage for board actors and responsible-user agent intersections - Added route-level JWT regression coverage for company skill imports, including allowed and denied cases ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-import-authz-routes.test.ts` — 42 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed - `pnpm build` — passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI groups passed; one unrelated CLI doctor assertion failed because the execution environment injects static `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, which intentionally changes the result from `pass` to `warn` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY NODE_ENV=development pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when non-secret provider config is present'` — passed, confirming the full-suite failure is environment-specific - GitHub CI — all required checks passed on head `0758393c`; one unrelated `packages/db/src/client.test.ts` 5-second timing timeout passed on the single allowed failed-job rerun after three consecutive local passes (42/42 tests) ## Risks - Low-to-moderate authorization risk: the change expands accepted responsible-user grants only for company-scoped skill configuration actions and is protected by explicit allow/deny regression cases - No database migrations, workflow changes, lockfile changes, or UI changes - The added skill is documentation consumed by agent tooling and does not alter runtime application behavior > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent; exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed to the session. Used reasoning, terminal execution, Git/GitHub tooling, and test/build execution. - Earlier commits were assisted by Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) and an OpenAI Codex coding agent, as recorded in the branch history/task workflow. ## 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 documented the one environment-specific full-suite failure - GitHub CI — all required checks passed on head `0758393c`; one unrelated `packages/db/src/client.test.ts` 5-second timing timeout passed on the single allowed failed-job rerun after three consecutive local passes (42/42 tests) - [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>	2026-07-15 07:52:54 -05:00
Jannes StubbemannandClaude Fable 5	1cfed0c0ff	security(invites): widen invite-token entropy and rate-limit public invite endpoints (#8979) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Companies onboard human members through shareable invite links; the `/api/invites/:token` endpoints are deliberately public so a recipient can view the invite and accept it without being logged in > - That publicness makes the invite token itself the only secret guarding company membership — and it was guessable: the token suffix carried only ~41 bits of entropy, and the endpoints had no rate limiting > - An attacker could therefore enumerate the token space online and accept an invite into someone else's company, gaining member access to its onboarding data, skills, and workspace > - This pull request widens invite tokens to 256 bits of entropy and puts a per-IP rate limit in front of every public `/invites/:token` sub-route > - The benefit is that invite links stop being brute-forceable while their shape, storage scheme, and UX stay exactly the same — existing links keep working ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists; describing the problem in-PR (security/bug): **What happens:** Company invite tokens are **public**: anyone with the link can `GET /api/invites/:token`, fetch onboarding/logo/skills, and `POST /api/invites/:token/accept`. Two weaknesses combined to make them brute-forceable: 1. **Token entropy ~41 bits.** The token suffix was 8 chars over a 36-char alphabet (`8 * log2(36) ≈ 41.4` bits). That is online-enumerable. 2. **No rate limit on `/invites/:token*`.** The public endpoints had no throttling, so the ~41-bit space could be enumerated online. **Impact:** an attacker who guesses a live token can accept the invite and join the company as a member — unauthenticated, from any IP. **Expected:** invite tokens should be computationally infeasible to guess, and the public endpoints should throttle guessing attempts anyway (defense in depth). ## What Changed **Entropy** - `createInviteToken` now uses `crypto.randomBytes(32)` (256 bits) base64url-encoded, keeping the human-readable `pcp_invite_` prefix so link shape and UX are unchanged. The duplicate generator in `plugin-host-services.ts` is updated to match. - Tokens are stored **hashed** (sha256) in `invites.tokenHash`; the raw value is only returned once on creation. Storage scheme is unchanged. - **Backward compatible**: only newly minted tokens are affected; lookup is by hash of the presented value, so existing invite links keep working. **Rate limit** - New generic in-memory per-IP sliding-window limiter (`server/src/services/invite-rate-limit.ts`, 20 req/min/IP), applied as a router-level middleware on `/invites/:token` so every current and future sub-route is covered (summary, logo, onboarding, onboarding.txt, skills/index, skills/:name, test-resolution, and POST accept). - Returns `429` with `Retry-After` and `X-RateLimit-*` headers. In-memory ⇒ per-process, which bounds enumeration per replica. Mirrors the existing `company-search-rate-limit` pattern; no new dependency. - Adds a `tooManyRequests(429)` error helper in `server/src/errors.ts`. ## Verification - `invite-token-entropy.test.ts`: prefix preserved, suffix ≥ 128 bits / 22 chars, charset, 1000 unique tokens. - `invite-rate-limit.test.ts`: allows up to limit then 429s with retry-after; per-IP isolation; forgets hits after the window. - `invite-rate-limit-route.test.ts`: `GET /invites/:token` and `POST /invites/:token/accept` return 429 once the per-IP threshold is exceeded. - Manual: create an invite, open the link (works once per token as before), then hammer `GET /api/invites/<token>` >20 times within a minute from one IP → `429` with `Retry-After`. - Server package typechecks clean for all touched files. ## Risks - Low risk. Token change affects only newly minted tokens; existing links resolve via the same sha256-hash lookup. - The limiter is in-memory and per-process: in multi-replica deployments each replica enforces its own 20 req/min/IP budget. That still bounds enumeration (per-replica) and matches the existing `company-search-rate-limit` approach; a shared store can be layered later if needed. - Legitimate users behind a single NAT/proxy IP share the 20 req/min budget for invite endpoints; the invite flow makes only a handful of requests, so headroom is ample. - No DB migration, no API shape change. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (code search, editing, local typecheck) via Claude Code. ## 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 Supersedes #8147. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-14 15:47:58 -07:00
Jannes StubbemannandClaude Fable 5	b4e7ba5143	feat(run-logs): durable run-log store via object-storage mirror (#8984) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every agent run streams its stdout/stderr/system output into the run-log store (`server/src/services/run-log-store.ts`), and the run-log API serves those logs back for review and debugging > - The only store implementation is `local_file`: logs live on the server pod's filesystem under `PAPERCLIP_HOME` > - In hardened / ephemeral deployments, `PAPERCLIP_HOME` is an `emptyDir` with no persistent volume, so every pod restart wipes the log files while the DB row still references them — the run-log API then returns "Run log not found" for every completed run after any redeploy > - Run logs are the primary audit/debugging trail for agent work; losing them on routine redeploys undermines trust in the platform > - This pull request adds transparent durability: when `RUN_LOG_S3_BUCKET` is set, the store mirrors each completed log to object storage on `finalize` (same `logRef` key) and falls back to it on `read` when the local file is gone; live append/tail stays on the fast pod-local file > - The benefit is that completed run logs survive pod restarts and redeploys with zero changes for existing deployments (unset bucket = today's behaviour) and zero downstream changes (store id stays `local_file`) ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue — inline description following the bug report template: **What happened?** After any server pod restart/redeploy, the run-log API returns "Run log not found" for all previously completed runs. The DB still references the log file, but the file is gone because run logs are written only to the pod-local filesystem. **Expected behavior:** Completed run logs remain readable across pod restarts and redeploys. **Steps to reproduce:** 1. Deploy the server with `PAPERCLIP_HOME` on an `emptyDir` (no persistent volume — common in hardened/ephemeral Kubernetes deployments). 2. Complete an agent run and confirm its log is readable via the run-log API. 3. Restart or redeploy the server pod. 4. Request the same run's log — the API throws "Run log not found". **Paperclip version or commit:** reproducible on current `master`. **Deployment mode:** Kubernetes (server pod without persistent volume). **Agent adapter(s) involved:** Not adapter-specific (core bug). Supersedes #8795. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/run-log-store.ts`: the local-file store becomes a durable store with an optional object-storage mirror - `finalize` mirrors the completed NDJSON log to S3-compatible object storage (keyed by the same `logRef`), best-effort so a failed upload can never break run finalization; upload failures are logged via `console.warn` so operators can detect a persistently broken mirror before a pod roll makes logs unreadable - `read` serves the pod-local file when present and falls back to a ranged object-storage read (with correct `nextOffset`) when the local file is gone - Live `append`/tail stays on the pod-local file — fast path unchanged, no per-chunk PUT - Store id stays `local_file`, so nothing downstream changes (feedback pipeline, read casts, fixtures untouched) - New optional config, all read at store construction: `RUN_LOG_S3_BUCKET`, `RUN_LOG_S3_ENDPOINT`, `RUN_LOG_S3_REGION` (default `us-east-1`), `RUN_LOG_S3_PREFIX` (default `run-logs`), `RUN_LOG_S3_FORCE_PATH_STYLE` (default `true`); credentials via the standard AWS env chain; works with any S3-compatible endpoint - Reuses the existing `createS3StorageProvider`; deliberately independent from `PAPERCLIP_STORAGE_PROVIDER` so enabling durable logs does not redirect workspace/file storage - `server/src/services/run-log-store.test.ts` (new): 7 tests with an in-memory `StorageProvider` mock ## Verification - `npx vitest run src/services/run-log-store.test.ts` in `server/` — 7/7 pass locally: - store id stays `local_file` - live read served from the local file (no S3 round-trip) - `finalize` uploads the completed log to the mirror - read falls back to S3 after a simulated pod roll (local file deleted) - ranged S3 read returns correct slice + `nextOffset` - not-found when neither local nor mirror has the log - local-only safe degrade when no bucket is configured - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` — clean for the touched files - Manual: set `RUN_LOG_S3_*` against any S3-compatible endpoint (e.g. MinIO), complete a run, delete the local `.ndjson` file, and re-request the log via the run-log API — it is served from the mirror ## Risks - Low risk: with `RUN_LOG_S3_BUCKET` unset (the default), behaviour is byte-for-byte today's local-only store - Mirror upload is best-effort by design — a misconfigured bucket loses durability (not correctness) for affected runs; failures are now surfaced via a `console.warn` per failed upload - No DB migration, no API shape change, no change to the persisted `store`/`logRef` handle format ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Fable 5), via Claude Code with extended thinking and tool use (code execution, file editing). Original implementation TDD-authored with the same tooling. ## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-14 15:45:39 -07:00
3 people	df0e5bd021	fix(interactions): don't supersede decision cards on machine-authored comments (#9015) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents and humans coordinate on issue threads, where `request_confirmation` cards capture pending decisions; a genuine human comment on the thread is meant to supersede (cancel) a card. > - Supersession is keyed on `!comment.authorUserId` — the guard assumes only real human comments carry a user id. > - But local-CLI agent heartbeats post comments under user auth, so a machine comment's `authorUserId` is populated **nondeterministically per run** (the same agent resolves as `agent` on one run and `user` on another). > - As a result an agent's own on-thread comment — or a teammate's, from a different run — can carry `authorUserId` and silently expire a pending decision card. A card was observed expiring 7ms after its own automated comment landed, stranding the decision with no live approval path. > - This PR switches the discriminator to a durable, deterministic signal already persisted on every comment — `created_by_run_id` — so only comments with **no run context** (genuine board-UI comments) supersede. > - The benefit: machine-authored comments can never again expire decision cards, while real human supersession is preserved exactly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR. - **What happened:** A pending `request_confirmation` decision card was expired by an automated, machine-authored comment on the same thread. Supersession is keyed on `!comment.authorUserId`, but local-CLI agent heartbeats post under user auth, so a machine comment's `authorUserId` is set nondeterministically per run. An agent's own comment (or a teammate's, from a different run) can therefore carry a user id and expire a pending card — one was observed expiring 7ms after its own automated comment landed. - **Expected behavior:** Only genuine interactive human (board-UI) comments should supersede pending decision cards. Machine-authored comments must never expire them, regardless of how the adapter's auth resolves. - **Steps to reproduce:** With a pending `request_confirmation` card (`supersedeOnUserComment: true`), post a comment via a local-CLI agent run whose actor resolves to `user`; the card expires with outcome `superseded_by_comment`. - **Deployment mode:** server (self-hosted), reproduced against `master`. Related PRs (same lifecycle area, not duplicates): #6094 (auto-resolve stale `request_confirmation` interactions) and #8799 (expire ask-user questions superseded by comments, merged). ## What Changed - Supersession now fires **only on comments with no run context** (`created_by_run_id` is null), in both paths: - `expireRequestConfirmationsSupersededByComment` (live post path) — early-return when `comment.createdByRunId` is set. - `expireRequestConfirmationsSupersededByHistoricalComments` (repair sweep) — query filters `isNull(created_by_run_id)`. - Mirrors the existing `shouldImplicitlyMoveCommentedIssueToTodo` reopen guard, which already uses run context to solve the same nondeterministic-identity problem. - Adds live + historical regression tests asserting a run-originated comment under user auth does not supersede a pending card. ## Verification - Interactions service suite: **27 tests pass (1 file)**, including the two new regression tests. - CI: all substantive gates green (Build, General tests, serialized server suites, Typecheck, e2e, verify, security-review, policy). - Manual: with a pending card, a comment carrying `created_by_run_id` leaves it `pending`; a comment with null run context still supersedes it. ## Risks - Low risk, narrowly scoped to the supersession discriminator. Human supersession is preserved (comments with no run context still cancel cards); only the machine-authored case is closed. - No schema migration — `created_by_run_id` is already persisted by `addComment`. - Alternatives considered: (a) ignore only the assignee's own run — misses cross-run machine comments; (b) default `supersedeOnUserComment: false` for agent-created cards — would drop the legitimate "human comment redirects → cancel the card" behavior. The run-context guard covers all machine comments while preserving human supersession. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended reasoning + tool use, via Claude Code. ## 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id — **not yet met**; renaming an open PR's branch risks closing this PR, so it's flagged for a maintainer to rename safely (or via the GitHub rename-branch API). - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — N/A (internal behavior fix, no user-facing docs) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (the only red check is the automated PR-review template gate this revision addresses) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s — re-review requested after this revision - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>	2026-07-14 15:56:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	931eec3fbf	feat(mcp) [split 4/8]: wire gateway runtime and Smoke Lab (#9559) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 4/8 and focuses on gateway runtime, Smoke Lab, plugins, and server wiring > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The policy core needs runtime execution, endpoint guards, route registration, heartbeat integration, and adapter MCP injection to become operational. - Proposed solution: Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/03-server-tool-access`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: SecurityEngineer for gateway, endpoint guard, token issuance, and runtime wiring; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds the remaining server routes/wiring/consumers, runtime tests, adapter-utils MCP contracts, and Claude/Codex injection implementations required by the server layer. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - Changed server test set — 26 files, 382 tests passed - Affected server adapter tests — 38 tests passed after concrete adapter boundary move - Adapter-utils and Codex focused tests — 76 tests passed ## Risks - Remote endpoint validation, token handling, and runtime supervision are security-sensitive and can fail closed or deny legitimate access if misconfigured. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [ ] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 15:07:30 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cfa5e0704e	feat(mcp) [split 3/8]: add tool access policy core (#9558) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 3/8 and focuses on tool-access policy and authorization core > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: Authorization, OAuth binding, secret projection, content guards, and policy evaluation need a security-reviewable server boundary. - Proposed solution: Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/02-schema-shared`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: SecurityEngineer for authz, OAuth, secrets, and content guards; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds tool-access services/routes/tests plus the runtime service dependencies directly imported by the core, without registering the routes in the application. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - Focused server Vitest run — 4 files, 143 tests passed ## Risks - Authorization bugs could permit cross-company or over-broad tool access; the PR remains inert until PR 4 wiring and requires dedicated security review. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [ ] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 14:22:39 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1de0a3bb1e	feat(mcp) [split 2/8]: add governed access contracts (#9557) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 2/8 and focuses on database schema and shared governance contracts > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The governed access model needs additive persistence and synchronized shared types before server enforcement can compile. - Proposed solution: Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/01-demo-servers`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for migrations/validators; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db test` — passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared test` — passed ## Risks - Migration or contract mistakes could affect every upper layer; all migrations are additive/idempotent and compile consumers are included in this boundary. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [ ] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 12:57:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	efcce9cc8e	fix(adapters): record unpriced CLI usage (#9505) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Budgets and spend telemetry are control-plane safety features, not just reporting > - Local Codex and Claude adapters can execute through either ACP or their native CLI engines > - The ACP lane records usage and reported cost, but CLI JSON output often reports tokens without a price > - The CLI lane was either losing per-run usage semantics or coercing missing cost to zero, making real usage indistinguishable from a genuinely free run > - This pull request preserves CLI usage as per-run totals and records token-bearing runs without a reported price as explicitly unpriced ledger events > - The benefit is accurate usage accounting and a visible pricing gap instead of silently misleading zero-cost telemetry ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9471 Refs #9230 **Bug description** A `codex_local` run using the CLI engine can emit a final `turn.completed` event with millions of input tokens and tens of thousands of output tokens while the agent's spend ledger remains indistinguishable from a true zero-usage, zero-cost run. Claude CLI output has the same missing-price edge case. **Expected behavior** Token-bearing CLI runs should persist their usage. If the adapter reports a price, the ledger should record it as reported; if the CLI reports usage but no price, the ledger should explicitly mark the event as unpriced rather than silently treating missing price data as a reported `$0` cost. **Reproduction shape** 1. Configure `codex_local` with `engine: cli`. 2. Run a task that produces a `turn.completed` usage payload. 3. Observe token usage in the run stream. 4. Before this change, missing price data is represented as ordinary zero-cost spend and the CLI usage basis is not consistently propagated. ## What Changed - Mark Codex and Claude native CLI usage totals as `per_run` and propagate that basis through success and failure results. - Stop coercing missing Claude CLI cost to `0`. - Add `cost_status` to cost events with `reported` and `unpriced` values, including an idempotent migration and shared validation/types. - Persist token-bearing runs without a reported price as `unpriced` ledger events while retaining zero cents until an authoritative price exists. - Add parser, execute-path, heartbeat-accounting, and cost-service regression coverage for both local CLI adapters. - Document the cost-status invariant and CLI accounting behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` — 6 files / 102 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — includes migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` ## Risks - Existing cost rows default to `reported`, preserving current interpretation; only new token-bearing events with absent cost are marked `unpriced`. - This change does not invent model pricing. Budget hard stops still cannot charge an unknown amount, but operators and evals can now distinguish missing pricing from a genuinely reported zero cost. - Consumers that enumerate cost-event fields should tolerate the additive `costStatus` field. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model `gpt-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use and code execution; default reasoning mode. ## 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>	2026-07-13 20:44:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5dff52631d	fix(heartbeat): throttle redundant issue re-wakes (#9470) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work > - Heartbeat admission decides when an agent should start another adapter session for an issue > - After process-loss recovery, assignment pollers and reconcilers can repeatedly request another wake while the issue remains `in_progress` > - When the preceding runs succeeded without issue-visible progress, those event-free wakes provide no new information but still pay the full cost of an adapter session > - Existing liveness evidence is too broad for this case because workspace tool calls can make a run look active without moving the issue > - This pull request adds an issue-scoped admission throttle for consecutive no-progress re-wakes while preserving every wake that carries new information or recovery intent > - The benefit is bounded recovery cost without delaying comments, operator actions, failures, or other meaningful events ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. **What happened?** After a process died, external wake drivers could re-wake the same agent for the same `in_progress` issue every few seconds. Each succeeded run that produced no issue-visible progress could be followed by another full adapter session despite no new issue input. In the observed recovery smoke, one recovery consumed 25 sessions and 2.4× the direct-run cost. **Expected behavior** Repeated event-free re-wakes should back off after consecutive successful runs produce no issue-visible progress. Any new information, explicit operator intent, or failed-run recovery should continue immediately. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an issue heartbeat and simulate process loss while the issue remains `in_progress`. 2. Allow assignment/reconciliation drivers to request repeated event-free wakes for the same agent and issue. 3. Complete each follow-up run successfully without adding a comment, issue mutation, document, work product, interaction, or continuation. 4. Observe repeated adapter sessions starting every few seconds without new issue input. **Environment** - Version: reproduced on `master` before this change - Deployment: local development, built from source - Adapter scope: core bug; not adapter-specific - Database: reproduced and tested with embedded Postgres ## What Changed - Add a pure issue re-wake throttle that detects consecutive succeeded runs without issue-visible progress and applies a 120-second exponential cooldown capped at 30 minutes. - Gate event-free `enqueueWakeup` requests and return the explicit skip reason `issue_rewake_throttled` while the cooldown is active. - Always bypass throttling for comment wakes, new issue activity, explicit resumes, `forceFreshSession`, event-shaped reasons, and post-failure recovery. - Add focused pure unit coverage and database-backed heartbeat admission coverage for throttle and bypass behavior. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts` — 12 passed. - `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts` — 6 passed with embedded Postgres. - `cd server && pnpm run typecheck` — passed. - Neighbor suites previously verified: `heartbeat-dependency-scheduling`, `heartbeat-process-recovery`, `run-continuations`, `heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation`, `recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep`, and `heartbeat-comment-wake-batching` — 131 tests passed. ## Risks - A progress classifier that is too narrow could defer a legitimate event-free poll; the cooldown is bounded and new issue activity bypasses it immediately. - A progress classifier that is too broad could allow the original heartbeat storm; tests intentionally distinguish issue-visible mutations from workspace-only activity. - Low compatibility risk: no schema, API contract, or migration changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The runtime does not expose the exact underlying model ID or context-window size; reasoning, terminal tool use, code inspection, GitHub CLI access, and test execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally 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>	2026-07-12 20:38:27 -05:00
3 people	9e7e84e3fe	fix(adapters): propagate ACP-lane usage and cost into spend telemetry (#9471) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane for running and governing AI-agent companies. > - Adapter executions feed token usage, billing identity, and run cost into the control plane's spend telemetry. > - The default ACP execution lane for local Claude and Codex adapters did not propagate per-turn usage or cost, so paid runs could be recorded with zero spend and no tokens. > - Claude CLI result events could also undercount output tokens by reading only the main-loop usage block instead of the complete per-model ledger. > - The shared executor needs to distinguish per-run usage from session-cumulative usage so the server does not apply the wrong delta heuristic. > - This pull request captures ACP usage and cumulative-cost deltas, resolves adapter billing identity, uses Claude's complete model-usage ledger, and preserves per-run usage in server normalization. > - The benefit is accurate token and cost accounting across the default paid Claude and Codex execution paths. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Paid `claude_local` and `codex_local` runs using the default ACP engine can complete successfully while the control plane records zero or null cost and missing token usage. Claude CLI result parsing can additionally undercount output tokens when subagent or sidechain usage is present. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run a paid Claude or Codex local adapter through the ACP engine. 2. Complete a turn that reports usage and cumulative cost through ACP status/events. 3. Inspect the execution result and normalized run telemetry. ### Expected behavior The execution result contains per-turn token usage, a per-run USD cost delta, and the correct billing identity. Server normalization records those per-run values without applying a session-cumulative delta a second time. ### Actual behavior before this change ACP execution results returned no usage and `costUsd: null` with unknown billing. The server therefore recorded zero spend and no tokens for paid runs. Claude CLI parsing could use an incomplete usage block. ## What Changed - Capture ACP usage from runtime status and `usage_update` events, reporting it as `usageBasis: per_run`. - Convert agent-reported cumulative ACP cost into a per-turn delta, including counter-reset and no-report safeguards. - Add a shared billing-identity resolver and map Claude and Codex authentication/provider modes to control-plane billing types. - Prefer Claude result-event `modelUsage` totals so subagent and sidechain tokens are included. - Skip the server's session-cumulative usage delta when an adapter explicitly reports per-run usage. - Add regression coverage for usage capture, event fallback, cost resets, stale reports, billing identities, model-usage totals, and server spend normalization. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/monthly-spend-service.test.ts` — 6 files, 126 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - A broader Claude-local suite has a pre-existing rate-limit classification failure in `test.probe.test.ts`; it also fails on clean `master` and is unrelated to this change. ## Risks - Cost reporting depends on the agent's cumulative counter semantics; reset handling falls back to the post-turn amount and is covered by regression tests. - Incorrect billing-mode inference could misclassify spend; provider/auth mappings mirror each adapter's existing CLI behavior and have focused tests. - The new `usageBasis` contract changes server normalization only when adapters explicitly opt into `per_run`; existing adapters retain prior behavior. - No database migration, workflow, lockfile, or UI changes are included. > 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 - Implementation commit: Anthropic Claude Fable 5, tool-enabled coding workflow (exact context window and runtime configuration were not recorded in the commit metadata). - PR preparation and verification: OpenAI Codex, tool-enabled coding agent (runtime model ID and context window 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-12 20:37:22 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4a40c0cb13	feat(routines): gate scheduled runs on external activity (#9436) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI-agent companies and their recurring work > - Scheduled routines provide native cron-driven execution for recurring agent tasks > - Watcher-style routines currently dispatch a model run even when the control plane has been quiet since their last useful run > - Existing pause, catch-up, and concurrency policies do not distinguish external work from a routine's own bookkeeping > - This pull request adds a generic activity gate that checks company-scoped activity provenance before scheduled dispatch > - The benefit is backward-compatible zero-token quiet skips while real human, agent, or delegated-child activity still wakes the routine ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8534 ## What Changed - Added `activity_gate_policy` and `activity_gate_scope` routine columns with backward-compatible `always` / `company` defaults. - Added a company-bounded `evaluateActivityGate()` predicate that uses the last dispatched run as its open window, excludes the routine's own execution runs and scheduler bookkeeping, ignores pure-read actions, and supports company/project scope. - Integrated the predicate into scheduled ticks after pause/worktree eligibility checks; quiet ticks create visible skipped run-history rows with reason `no_external_activity` and gate-window diagnostics without advancing the activity window. - Kept webhook, manual, and API dispatch paths ungated; catch-up schedules evaluate the gate once per scheduler tick. - Added migration-default, provenance predicate, project-scope, quiet-window, scheduler, and webhook-bypass coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed - Embedded Postgres `EXPLAIN` for the company-scope gate scan: ```text Limit (cost=24.56..24.58 rows=1 width=24) -> Incremental Sort (cost=24.56..24.60 rows=2 width=24) Sort Key: activity.created_at, activity.id Presorted Key: activity.created_at -> Nested Loop Anti Join (cost=0.44..24.55 rows=1 width=24) Join Filter: (own_run.id = activity.run_id) -> Index Scan using activity_log_company_created_idx on activity_log activity (cost=0.15..8.19 rows=1 width=40) Index Cond: ((company_id = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001'::uuid) AND (created_at > (now() - '01:00:00'::interval)) AND (created_at <= now())) ``` ## Risks - The migration adds two non-null text columns, but constant defaults preserve all existing routine behavior and avoid a backfill step. - Project scope resolves activity through issue/run/routine provenance; tests cover in-project and cross-project issue activity, while every top-level and correlated query remains company-bounded. - This is the scheduler/schema foundation. Public API validation and documentation for configuring the new fields are intentionally handled in the next scoped follow-up. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.4` with medium reasoning, repository/tool access, terminal code execution, and test execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked the related efficiency request 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 (no user-facing configuration is exposed in this scoped foundation PR) - [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>	2026-07-11 21:52:09 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e4e12bfb89	fix(workspaces): persist readiness state and validate ports (#9408) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Execution workspaces can run managed services that must report reliable lifecycle and readiness state > - Service startup previously waited for readiness before committing the starting row, making concurrent control actions see stale state > - Fixed service ports also needed clearer configuration and ownership diagnostics to avoid cross-workspace collisions > - This pull request persists startup state before readiness, validates port ownership, and exposes configurable service ports in the workspace UI > - The benefit is dependable service controls and actionable diagnostics when workspace runtimes start slowly or compete for ports ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Slow-starting workspace services could remain invisible to concurrent stop/restart controls until readiness completed, and fixed-port conflicts lacked enough ownership context for safe repair. ### Expected behavior A starting service is persisted immediately, control operations can observe it, configured ports are editable, and conflicts identify the owning process/workspace. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure a workspace service that delays binding its HTTP port. 2. Start the service and immediately request another control action. 3. Observe stale persisted state before this change. 4. Configure two workspaces for the same fixed port and observe limited conflict diagnostics. ### Paperclip version or commit `origin/master` at `02e2dd271` ### Deployment mode Local dev; built from source; not adapter-specific; database-backed workspace runtime state. ## What Changed - Commit the `starting` runtime-service row before waiting for readiness and transition it after the probe completes. - Add port-owner inspection and cross-workspace conflict details to local service supervision. - Preserve configurable runtime service ports through workspace configuration updates. - Surface service-port editing and validation in the execution workspace details UI. - Add server and UI regression coverage for slow readiness, concurrent controls, port persistence, and conflict diagnostics. ## Verification - `vitest --project @paperclipai/server src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — 118 tests passed. - `vitest --project @paperclipai/ui src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.service-ports.test.ts` — 4 tests passed. - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` — all token gates clean. ## Risks - Moderate risk: changes touch workspace service lifecycle persistence and local process/port inspection. - No schema migration is required; tests exercise slow readiness, concurrent control, persisted ports, and cross-workspace conflicts. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.3 Codex, reasoning with repository tool use and code execution; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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>	2026-07-11 03:02:21 -05:00
3 people	36ec79c196	feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-10 17:09:57 -05:00
Devin Foley	17dde9d3f2	fix(sandbox): keep custom-image snapshots applied to config tests, probes, and saves (#9385) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Sandbox environments can capture reusable custom images (provider snapshots) so agents boot with pre-installed tools and CLI logins > - The custom-image runtime fingerprint check included provider secret-ref paths (e.g. the Daytona `apiKey`), while capture-time fingerprinting excluded them, so any config carrying a credential never matched its captured snapshot > - As a result, agent config tests and environment probes silently booted the provider base image instead of the snapshot, test sandboxes were deleted before operators could inspect them, and any environment save orphaned the snapshot without warning > - The UI compounded the confusion by displaying an internal template id that matches nothing in the provider dashboard > - This pull request aligns runtime fingerprints with capture-time exclusions, re-stamps fingerprints on saves that cannot affect the snapshot (warning when they can), archives test/probe sandboxes instead of deleting them, and surfaces the provider snapshot ref in the UI > - The benefit is that custom images actually apply to config tests and probes, survive unrelated config edits, and are debuggable against the provider dashboard ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this; describing it in-PR per the bug template. Related: Refs #9329 (saved-environment probe company context — this branch carries an equivalent fix), Refs #8794 (introduced reusable sandbox custom images). **What happened?** With a Daytona environment whose provider config stores the API key as a secret reference and an active captured custom-image snapshot: - Agent config tests and environment probes booted the provider base image (`daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0`) instead of the captured snapshot, so CLI upgrades/logins baked into the snapshot were missing and the probe reported "login required" and an outdated CLI. - The environment card showed an internal template id (e.g. `b5be03e1-ca5…`) that does not correspond to any snapshot name in the provider dashboard, making the active image impossible to correlate. - Test/probe sandboxes were deleted immediately after the run, so the sandbox a test used could not be inspected afterwards. - Saving the environment config (even fields unrelated to the image) changed the stored fingerprint, silently detaching the snapshot with no warning. **Expected behavior** Config tests and probes boot the captured snapshot when one is active; the UI shows the provider-facing snapshot/template ref; test sandboxes stay inspectable for a short window; unrelated config edits keep the snapshot linked, and edits that genuinely invalidate it produce an explicit warning. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a sandbox environment on Daytona with the API key stored as a company secret reference. 2. Capture a custom image snapshot from the environment page and mark it active (e.g. after installing/logging into a CLI in the setup sandbox). 3. Run the agent config test or an environment probe: the sandbox boots the base image, not the snapshot, and the sandbox is deleted immediately after the test. 4. Save the environment config with an unrelated field change: the snapshot silently stops applying. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at the merge-base of this branch. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted local instance (macOS, pnpm dev server) with the Daytona sandbox provider plugin. ## What Changed - Runtime custom-image fingerprint checks now exclude provider secret-ref paths, matching capture-time exclusions, so configs carrying credentials match their captured snapshots (`environment-custom-image-runtime.ts`). - Agent config tests and saved-environment probes force fresh, non-reused sandboxes and pass company context so lease-backed probes can resolve company secrets and boot the real snapshot (`environment-probe.ts`, `routes/agents.ts`, `routes/environments.ts`). - Test/probe sandboxes are released by archiving (stop + 60-minute provider-side auto-delete) instead of immediate deletion, so operators can inspect the exact sandbox a test used (Daytona plugin). - On environment PATCH save, changes that cannot affect the captured snapshot re-stamp the template's source fingerprint so the snapshot stays linked; boot-source or provider-identity changes (new manifest field `templateIdentityPaths`) mark the template detached and the save response reports it (`environment-custom-images.ts`, shared plugin types/validators). - The custom-image overview exposes `activeTemplateMatchesConfig`; the environments UI shows the provider snapshot/template ref (internal id moved to a tooltip), warns via toast when a save detaches the snapshot, and shows a persistent "Not in use" warning when the active template no longer matches the saved config (`CompanyEnvironments.tsx`, `api/environments.ts`). ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-probe.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-test-environment-routes.test.ts` — server coverage for fingerprint exclusions, re-stamp/detach on save, probe company context, and fresh-sandbox test behavior. - `pnpm vitest run packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts` — archive-on-release and snapshot ref handling. - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx` — snapshot ref display, detach toast, and "Not in use" warning. - Manually verified end-to-end on a live self-hosted instance against real Daytona: config test boots the captured snapshot (CLI login and version persist), the test sandbox remains visible in the provider dashboard as archived, and saving unrelated fields keeps the snapshot applied. ## Risks - Fingerprint exclusion widening: a provider credential rotation alone no longer detaches a captured snapshot; that is the intended behavior (the snapshot content does not depend on the credential), and provider-identity fields (e.g. Daytona `apiUrl`) still detach via `templateIdentityPaths`. - Archived test sandboxes consume provider-side resources for up to their auto-delete window instead of being freed immediately; bounded (60 minutes) and only for test/probe sandboxes. - New optional manifest field `templateIdentityPaths` is backward-compatible; providers that omit it keep current matching behavior. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK. ## 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	2026-07-10 14:32:47 -07:00
3 people	70ce005bef	Ensure worktree execution starts only after activation (#9374) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open-source control plane people use to manage AI agents and their work. > - Its scheduler, routines, and heartbeat services decide when agents automatically begin work. > - Experimental per-worktree execution is useful for isolated development, but enabling it previously allowed automatic services to consider an existing backlog. > - A worktree activation must therefore create a durable eligibility boundary rather than merely toggle execution on. > - This pull request records an activation cutoff and applies it consistently to automatic routine and heartbeat dispatch. > - The result is that an enabled worktree executes only work created after its own activation, while non-worktree behavior remains unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem type:** Bug / safety regression **Summary:** Enabling experimental run execution in an existing worktree could start automatic scheduler, routine, watchdog, and heartbeat activity for work created before that worktree was explicitly armed. **Expected behavior:** A worktree that has execution enabled only considers automatically dispatched work created on or after its activation timestamp. Ambiguous activation state fails closed. Non-worktree instances keep their existing behavior. **Related public work:** Refs #8275 (runtime worktree policy gating); this PR adds an activation-time boundary for automatic execution rather than changing the general runtime policy. ## What Changed - Persist a worktree execution activation timestamp and originating instance ID; stamp them only when the experimental toggle changes from disabled to enabled. - Resolve activation state fail-closed when the cutoff is missing, invalid, disabled, or belongs to another instance. - Gate automatic routine scheduling, webhooks, watchdog activity, and heartbeat selection at the activation cutoff; manual runs remain available. - Share the canonical worktree truthy-environment helper across routine dispatch and agent inbox filtering. - Add cutoff and truthy-runtime regression coverage, plus experimental-settings UI states that explain armed and suppressed execution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — passes: 2 files, 60 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passes. - Existing CI completed successfully before the follow-up review fixes; this branch was rebased onto the latest `origin/master` before retesting. ## Risks - **Behavioral:** Automatic worktree execution is intentionally more restrictive; pre-existing work is suppressed until newly created after activation. - **Operational:** A malformed or cross-instance activation record fails closed, requiring an operator to disable and re-enable the experimental toggle on the intended worktree. - **Compatibility:** The worktree environment now accepts all canonical truthy values (`1`, `true`, `yes`, and `on`) consistently; non-worktree instances are unaffected. - **Branch metadata:** This existing execution-workspace branch predates the current naming rule and cannot be renamed under this task's workspace contract; the code and PR title do not include internal ticket references. > `ROADMAP.md` was checked; this targeted execution-safety fix does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Code — assisted with the original implementation; exact model identifier and context window were not recorded in the repository metadata. - OpenAI Codex CLI — assisted with PR preparation and review fixes; exact model identifier and context window are not exposed in this execution environment. Used with terminal tooling, code editing, and targeted 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) - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-10 16:11:26 -05:00
3 people	1fe89eb8f8	Enforce durable external-wait liveness (#9373) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat/recovery subsystem decides whether an agent run has a durable continuation path after the process stops. > - External waits need stricter semantics than local background watchers: a killed local process is not durable, while a first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake is. > - Without that distinction, recovery can repeatedly treat adapter-failed continuations as live work and obscure the real reason a task stopped. > - This pull request adds explicit durable external-wait liveness handling and documents the expected execution semantics. > - It also improves operator-visible recovery evidence so invalid external-wait paths explain why they were rejected. > - The benefit is clearer recovery behavior, fewer duplicate continuation recoveries, and a safer contract for monitor-backed external waits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #5978 - Related PRs: #4988, #7495, #8502 ## What Changed - Added durable external-wait liveness classification so local/background watchers are not accepted as durable live paths after the owning process exits. - Preserved first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake paths as valid external-wait continuations. - Added backend regression coverage for killed watcher failure, monitor-backed durable wait resumption, normal completion, blocker behavior, and no duplicate recovery. - Added adapter utility coverage for terminal cleanup behavior used by local process adapters. - Surfaced invalid external-wait recovery evidence in the recovery action card and run ledger. - Updated execution semantics documentation and the V1 implementation contract. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-server` equivalent lane passed in CI-clean env: 238 files, 2164 tests passed, 1 skipped. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-workspaces-a` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: UI 305 files / 2430 tests; CLI 43 files / 230 tests. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-workspaces-b` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: shared/db/adapters/plugin packages all green. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: 107 serialized server suites green, including 84/84 heartbeat-process-recovery tests. - `pnpm build` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env. Notes: running `pnpm test:run` directly inside the Paperclip heartbeat environment exposed local harness env contamination in existing tests (`PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_DB_BACKUP_DIR`, and `PAPERCLIP_WORKTREE_START_POINT`). Re-running the same lanes with inherited `PAPERCLIP_*` and port env removed produced the CI-equivalent green results above. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery classification for stopped local external-wait processes, so adapters relying on unmanaged background watchers must use blockers, monitors, scheduled wakes, or explicit durable handoff instead. - Low UI risk: recovery-card copy changes are covered by component tests and Storybook screenshot QA. - No database migration is included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/code execution. Exact context-window metadata was not exposed in the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-10 13:21:12 -05:00
Devin Foley	a4993a72a6	Fix live run streaming text readability (#9330) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread UI renders live agent output from adapter run logs and transcript parsing. > - Some adapter streams emit many small or repeated token chunks, and live UI updates can expose partial words, duplicated slices, or transient markdown placeholders. > - That makes active run updates look like gibberish even when the underlying agent output is valid. > - The fix needs to preserve raw logs while making the live thread view stable, readable, and ordered. > - This pull request adds monotonic run-log sequencing, safer live transcript dedupe/order handling, markdown placeholder hiding, and readable live text stabilization. > - The benefit is a live issue thread that updates smoothly without showing confusing partial parser artifacts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists yet, so this PR includes the bug details inline. ### What happened? Live run updates in the issue thread can show confusing repeated or partial text while an adapter is streaming. The visible text appears to lose parsing boundaries during active updates, especially with ACP-style token deltas, so the live output can briefly render duplicated chunks, incomplete words, or HTML-comment placeholders. ### Expected behavior Live text should remain readable while preserving the underlying run output for raw inspection. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Start a live agent run whose adapter emits small stdout token deltas. 2. Watch the issue thread while the run is still active. 3. Observe transient duplicated chunks, incomplete words, or markdown placeholder artifacts in the live rendered text. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against current `master` before this PR branch. ### Deployment mode Local dev issue-thread UI with live local adapter runs. ### Additional context GitHub PR search for `live run streaming text markdown transcript` found one broad merged PR, `#252` (“Dotta updates - sorry it's so large”), but no targeted duplicate for this live streaming readability bug. ## What Changed - Added per-run monotonic sequence numbers to persisted and live run-log chunks. - Dedupe and order live transcript chunks by sequence before falling back to timestamp ordering. - Hide markdown HTML comment placeholder text from rendered markdown output. - Smooth live issue-thread text updates so partial additions reveal at readable word boundaries and sliding-window removals do not produce gibberish. - Added coverage for run-log ordering/deduping, markdown comment hiding, live issue-thread stabilization, and Greptile-reviewed edge cases where overlap rewrites could synthesize text or no-boundary additions could stay hidden. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.test.tsx` passed before the review fix: 3 files, 86 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` passed after the review fix: 1 file, 30 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.test.tsx` passed after the final Greptile overlap fix: 2 files, 40 tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Local PII/secret scan of touched files found only expected code/test words such as `secret`, `token`, and redaction-related strings; no literal credentials found. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after restoring declared dependencies with `CI=1 pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` and running with a short `TMPDIR` because `tsx` IPC sockets fail under the long sandbox temp path. - `pnpm build` passed with existing Vite CSS/font/chunk warnings. - GitHub PR checks passed on head `4c052dfe86aecb5feb73504e6b48843f68fce813`: build, typecheck/release registry, server and workspace test shards, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, review, Socket, Superagent, Snyk, and verify. - Greptile review passed on head `4c052dfe86aecb5feb73504e6b48843f68fce813` with confidence score 5/5 and no blocking issues found. - `pnpm test:run` failed in unrelated server workspace tests on this macOS local environment: - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`: two assertions compare `/tmp/...` with `/private/tmp/...`. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-worktree-suppression.test.ts`: expected one heartbeat run but observed two, followed by cleanup fallout in the full run. - Isolated rerun of those two server suites reproduced the same three failures. ## Risks - Low product risk for the UI changes: the readable smoothing only affects active live-run display stabilization, not stored comments or raw run logs. - Moderate verification risk: local full Vitest did not pass because of unrelated server workspace tests. Targeted tests for this change, typecheck, token gates, and build passed. - Run-log sequence fields are optional for compatibility with older log rows that do not include `seq`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-using local workspace 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [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	2026-07-10 08:11:52 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	0f5f461729	Avoid startup crash when Reflection Coach assets are missing (#9351) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server has built-in agent definitions that are loaded during startup and used to provision optional operational agents such as Reflection Coach > - Reflection Coach stores richer stock instructions, a routine description, and a bundled skill as markdown assets outside the TypeScript module body > - A deployed server can fail before it is healthy if one of those copied markdown assets is absent from `server/dist` > - A recent build fix preserves those assets during normal server builds, but runtime should still degrade gracefully if a packaged asset is missing or unreadable > - This pull request adds resilient loading for built-in Reflection Coach assets and keeps a minimal compiled fallback available > - The benefit is that a missing optional built-in agent file no longer turns into a process-wide startup crash ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug fix. No public GitHub issue found for this exact startup crash. - Related public PR: #9339 - What happened: the server could throw `ENOENT` while importing the built-in agent service if `server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md` was missing from a deployed build. - Expected behavior: the server should keep starting, log that the built-in asset was missing, and use safe fallback text for the optional built-in agent resource. - Steps to reproduce: build the server, remove the compiled Reflection Coach `AGENTS.md` asset from `server/dist`, then import/start the server path that loads built-in agent definitions. - Paperclip version/commit: reproduced against a deployed build containing the Reflection Coach built-in agent assets; fixed against current `master` after #9339. - Deployment mode: Node server deployment using compiled `server/dist` output. ## What Changed - Added built-in agent text loading that checks the compiled asset path first, then source/package fallback paths, then a minimal compiled-in fallback string. - Added fallback text for Reflection Coach instructions, routine description, and bundled skill content so startup does not depend on optional markdown assets being present. - Added regression coverage for readable candidate selection and missing-file fallback behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm -w exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts` — 1 test file passed, 24 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — server TypeScript build completed and copied `src/built-ins` into `dist/built-ins`. - Manual smoke: temporarily moved `server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md`, imported `server/dist/services/built-in-agents.js` through the repo-pinned `tsx` runtime, and confirmed Reflection Coach definitions still loaded with output `reflection-coach:3732`; the asset was restored afterward. ## Risks Low risk. The normal path still uses the full packaged markdown assets. The fallback path is only used when those files are missing or unreadable, and it logs a warning so packaging drift remains visible. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent, with repository tool access and shell-based verification. Exact context window was not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-10 08:28:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cc81eefb60	Make plan-approval continuations durable after failed wakes (#9331) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through issue-thread interactions. > - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume the assignee so approved work continues. > - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in review with no durable retry or visible recovery path. > - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable, recoverable, and visible when resume fails. > - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of silent limbo. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved, because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable retry or recovery path for accepted continuations. ### Expected behavior Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes the assignee on accept. 2. Accept the confirmation. 3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss before agent start or workspace validation failure. 4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a provider-specific API. ### Database mode Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well. ### Access context Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the assignee wake path. ### Relevant logs or output No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed wake and recovery states directly. ### Relevant config No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand enabled. ### Additional context This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction continuation wakes. - Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation wakes are requeued. - Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted confirmation cards. - Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine. - Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an accepted continuation that never resumed. - Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery, visible failure state, and interaction card rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction card tests for the visible resume-failure UI. - GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports 5/5 with no blocking issues. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries. - Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context, and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being retried. - Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new resume-failure field is optional. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal workflow. The runtime does not expose an exact context-window value to the agent. ## 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>	2026-07-10 08:12:16 -05:00
3 people	5c85ae64a0	Cases: experimental first-class case object (#9198) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single task thread. > - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for content artifacts and their supporting metadata. > - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history, issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend on Cases. > - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views, reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases without making them the default workflow. > - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature. > - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the `enableCases` flag. > - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work, references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads without polluting the core issue model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature. Feature request fields: ### Problem Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on. ### Proposed solution Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and writable by agent workflows through documented conventions. ### Alternatives considered Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution history. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and experimental `enableCases` instance setting. - Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments, and idempotent agent-oriented upserts. - Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than leaking existence. - Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot. - Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters and no-project filtering. - Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible lookup regressions. - Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes, list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children, attachments, and issue-page case rail. - Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company route. - Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or update Cases. - Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to `0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence. ## Verification - Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`. - Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing PR branch. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff --check` before commit. - Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no `.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the Greptile 100-file limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the timestamp and lookup fixes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` — passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file / 12 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the list-filter fix. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes. - Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build, typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review, Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral. - Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads. ## Risks - Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI. - The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default operator exposure while the model is exercised. - Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect remains for externally entered URLs. - Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second pass for ancestor/context rows. - Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where relevant for safer replay. > 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-5 Codex in the Paperclip local coding environment was used for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation, push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter. Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers recorded in git history. ## 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 22:11:03 -05:00
3 people	606aa4f266	feat(search): filters, sorting, operators & command-palette parity (#9327) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company search is the primary way operators find issues, comments, documents, artifacts, agents, and projects across a busy company > - Search previously supported only a bare text query: no way to narrow by status/assignee/project/label/date, no sort control, no typed operators, and weak relevance/snippets meant hunting through noise > - As companies accumulate tens of thousands of items, unfiltered single-sort search stops scaling for day-to-day operator workflows > - This pull request adds a full filtering model (filter bar, chips, mobile sheet, URL state), sort modes, typed query operators (`status:`, `assignee:`, `type:`, …) with command-palette parity, relevance/snippet/deep-link improvements, zero-results recovery, and the supporting shared validators, backend service work, and DB indexes > - The benefit is that operators can go from a vague query to the exact item in a couple of keystrokes, on desktop and mobile, with shareable filtered-search URLs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public GitHub issue; describing the underlying feature request inline (per feature_request template): - **Problem:** Company search accepted only a plain text query. Users could not filter results by status, assignee, project, label, or recency; could not change result ordering; and got no guidance when filters emptied the result set. - **Desired solution:** Structured search filters (UI controls + typed query operators + URL parameters), selectable sort modes, better relevance and snippets with exact deep links, and parity between the search page and the command palette. - **Alternatives considered:** Client-side filtering of unfiltered results (does not scale past the fetch limit); a separate "advanced search" page (splits the surface and duplicates state handling). Related (not duplicate) PRs found while searching: #4848 (issue search query planning), #8235 (search rate limiting). ## What Changed - **Shared contract:** new search filter/sort/count/zero-results types and validators in `packages/shared` (`validators/search.ts`, types index). - **Backend:** `server/src/services/company-search.ts` supports issue filters, sort modes, per-filter option counts, snippets, artifact visibility, and zero-results loosen suggestions; single-statement match replaces per-scope scans and predicates are trigram-index compatible (~3.7s → ~350ms on a live 14.8k-hit corpus). - **DB:** migration `0142_company_search_sort_indexes.sql` adds the supporting indexes. - **Search page (`ui/src/pages/Search.tsx`):** filter bar, removable chips, mobile filter sheet with result-count preview, sort menu, URL round-tripping, zero-results recovery UI. - **Query operators (`ui/src/lib/search-query-parser.ts`):** typed operators parsed into filters, operator autocomplete, filter pills. - **Command palette:** operator-aware parsing and full-search handoff. - **Stale-operator fix (latest commit):** typed operator filters are no longer folded into persistent URL-filter state, so deleting a token (e.g. removing `status:blocked` from the input) actually removes the filter from subsequent requests; filter-control edits materialize control state and strip typed tokens so a removed chip cannot resurrect from the input. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Search.test.tsx` — 19 tests including two new red→green regressions for the stale-operator paths (both fail on the previous commit, pass now). - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/CommandPalette.test.tsx` and `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/company-search-service.test.ts` — operator parity and backend filter/sort/count coverage. - `cd ui && npx tsc --noEmit` — clean. - Manual: open `/search`, type `auth status:blocked`, confirm the status filter applies; delete `status:blocked`, confirm results are unfiltered again; drive the same filters from the filter bar/chips/mobile sheet and confirm the URL round-trips (reload/back/forward preserves state). - Full end-to-end QA pass (9/9 acceptance checks) against the wireframes on desktop (1280px) and mobile (390px) with a live API and browser automation. ## Risks - Additive migration (indexes only, no data rewrites) — safe to roll forward; index creation cost is paid once at migrate time. - Search request shape gains optional parameters only; old clients keep working. - Behavioral shift: filter-control edits now strip typed operator tokens from the query text (their values persist as filter state) — deliberate, so removed filters stay removed. - Ranking changes alter result ordering for existing queries; covered by service tests and the QA pass. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, extended thinking + tool use) — stale-operator-filter fix, regression tests, PR preparation. - GPT-5 Codex (`codex_local` adapter) and Claude Opus 4.6 (`claude-opus-4-6`) — earlier implementation phases (backend contract, filter UI, operators, ranking) under agent orchestration. ## 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details — pre-existing branch name retained to avoid closing/reopening the PR - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no user-facing docs affected) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending re-run on latest commit) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending re-review of the stale-filter fix) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 19:32:58 -05:00