mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-02 08:28:48 +01:00
ab0b15d234ef9bfbb3728fa97a5e2fe9a8d0c1de
8
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
8ff812cdde |
feat(chat): deliver proactive task messages to agent chats (#18374)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent Chat gives each person a persistent conversation with each
agent.
> - Tasks and routines produce results outside that conversation.
> - Those runs need a safe way to bring a requested result back to the
person.
> - The server must select the agent's own chat and check the source
task's access rules.
> - This pull request adds proactive chat messages and unread
indicators.
> - People can see the result, open its source task, and reply in the
same chat.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Server, native runner tools, shared contracts, database, and UI.
**Problem or motivation**
An agent can report progress on a task or comment on an authorized task.
It cannot send a routine result to its own standing chat with the
responsible person. A morning review routine therefore cannot leave a
visible digest in that person's chat.
**Proposed solution**
Add `send_chat_message({body, idempotencyKey})` and `POST
/api/agents/me/chat/messages`. The server selects the company, agent,
and responsible person from the active run. It saves an attributed
comment and audit record in one transaction. The chat shows a
source-task link and per-person unread state.
**Alternatives considered**
A destination parameter on a generic comment tool would expose
unnecessary routing authority. A new delivery worker would add another
durable delivery path. This change uses a dedicated tool and the
existing comment and live-event paths.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the experimental Agent Chat capability in `ROADMAP.md`. The
existing `enableAgentChat` setting controls it. Related public work:
Refs #13282, Refs #13283, and Refs #14408. Searches for proactive chat
and unread chat found no duplicate PR.
## What Changed
- Add a focused messaging service shared by the native tool and HTTP
route. It checks current run ownership, execution mode, recipient
membership, task access, and task privacy.
- Reuse the canonical company/agent/person conversation. Save the
comment and audit record together. Keep task completion and chat
execution separate from delivery.
- Add source-task provenance and source-scoped retry keys. Identical
retries return the saved receipt. Changed content returns a conflict.
- Enforce the conversation's fixed agent at the shared comment-write
boundary. Keep normal reply cancellation and session checks.
- Add chat unread state, accessible agent dots, aggregate Chat
indicators, and visible-message read cutoffs. Refresh through existing
live events.
- Add the request-key constraint, native tool contracts, documentation,
capability maps, stories, and regression coverage.
## Verification
- Local delivery/security proof: all 38 proactive-message cases pass.
Eight credential-scope regressions and four quota regressions fail
against the prior source. The repaired delivery and canonical
cross-issue cap suites pass all 49 cases; all 31 OpenAPI tests, server
typecheck, and capability-map checks pass. The shared per-run cap covers
native and HTTP sends, mixed ordinary mutations, concurrent last-slot
contention, and retry/recovery without double charging.
- Credential tests preserve the authenticated person and authorizer;
reject bridge/test credentials and persisted skill-test runs after
task-mode changes; and recheck API-key revocation, scope, and
responsible person after destination locking. The earlier
delivery/native-authority suites passed all 74 cases before the four
quota additions.
- Four PostgreSQL contention cases cover native and HTTP sends plus
retries during a native chat mutation. All four deadlock against the
earlier source and pass with destination-before-source/run locking.
Recovery and human-reply delivery enqueue only the human comment; a
proactive digest never wakes the chat agent.
- Passed 108 companion conversation, native-authority, and OpenAPI
tests; 112 runner catalog/workflow-report tests; 47 completion-delivery
tests; and 25 project-handoff tests. Focused runner tests cover native
tool availability without generic API tools.
- All 327 affected UI tests, UI typecheck, token gates, and catalog
checks pass. The read hook retries at most three times, respects server
retry delay, coalesces only seen cutoffs, recovers on reconnect, and
cancels on scope changes.
- Real browser journeys with a deterministic process agent verify
routine-to-chat delivery, first-chat creation, unread state across
reload, the source link, secondary chat navigation, and a follow-up
reply referring to the digest. This does not qualify live GitHub
retrieval or model output quality.
- The Storybook showcase uses production components with deterministic
network fixtures. Rendered interactions pass for the landing, ordinary
read success, transient read recovery, and persistent failure after
bounded retries. Both Chat navigation variants update from two unread
chats to one while only Kodi's dot clears. Mobile and light variants
were reviewed. The existing Coordinator Recents label contrast finding
is unchanged; no Linux visual baseline archive exists.
- Current master's independent sandbox migration retains 0418.
Regenerated the feature migration as 0419 from the combined schema and
retained exactly the newest five snapshots; numbering/safety, replay,
and schema-drift checks pass.
- Workspace typecheck and build passed before PR preparation; canonical
server/UI typechecks passed again on the combined tree. Migration
`0419_slippery_impossible_man.sql` passes safety and schema drift checks
on disposable PostgreSQL, including interrupted index repair, concurrent
migrators, one-time owner read-state backfill, preserved receipts, and
two SQL replays. A default five-second local snapshot comparison timed
out; a diagnostic 30-second run passed without drift.
- Earlier failures are retained in the record: full local `pnpm
test:run` and broad shards encountered embedded-PostgreSQL startup,
timing, and provider-recovery failures. Thirteen selected
external-channel cases pass in isolation on the original and changed
sources; an unordered comment-row assertion now explicitly orders both
reads. The earlier route registry, native tool count, runner catalog,
and accessible Chat badge-name failures were fixed and passed full
remote CI on `920b3bb7db`.
- Repeated managed-skill server8 failures came from CI's newer synthetic
merge: its Cloud guard correctly rejected the old local-disk fixture.
Master independently repaired the fixture in #18385; this branch keeps
that repair unchanged. All 57 managed-skill and Cloud prerequisite cases
pass on the combined tree, and that fixture has no remaining PR diff.
- Current reviewed head `dc16f314739a6d977bed21cb1446d0e80a541578`:
Greptile 5/5 with no findings, Superagent security assessment passed,
advisory Paperclip Review 5/5 with no findings, and zero open review
threads. All 55 current-head check runs pass, with five expected skips
and the advisory review neutral at 5/5; Snyk also passes. No checks are
pending or failing. Protected squash auto-merge is enabled and is
waiting for required code-owner approval. A normal exact-head merge was
refused by the base-branch policy; no admin bypass was used. The
previous head's Superagent quota finding is fixed and covered above.
## Risks
- Chat remains company-visible. Delivery rejects a source task with
private-task, project, or ancestor restrictions.
- Read state uses a comment timestamp cutoff. The server retains
database precision and never moves a read receipt backward.
- The new unique constraint changes comment query planning. An existing
regression now uses an explicit row order. The migration builds the
unique index concurrently, then takes a brief table lock to attach it.
It uses the existing top-level migration and interrupted-index recovery
path.
- The upgrade backfills missing chat-owner read-state rows at the latest
existing agent comment. Existing read receipts remain intact. New chats
can still be unread before the human participates.
- Quota observation commits atomically with delivery. A rejected send
rolls back its attempted denial audit row and any first-chat creation;
the canonical warning remains in server logs, and previously spent quota
remains enforced. Identical/conflicting retries and receipt recovery
spend no extra slot.
- This version delivers in-app only. It adds no external-channel, push,
or email delivery.
- Local full-suite acceptance remains limited by the failures recorded
above. The feature stays behind `enableAgentChat`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex. PR preparation and CI work used `gpt-6.1-sol` with tool
use and code execution. The earlier implementation also used Codex, but
its exact model ID was not recorded in the visible session. The
context-window size was not provided.
## 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 focused tests locally and they pass; the broad local
failures are recorded above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2de43fc909 |
fix(issues): keep agent mentions as context and defer personal app authorization (#14577)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each task has one assignee. Explicit assignment and review requests select who should act. > - An agent mention started another agent on a task it did not own. Native attachment staging then rejected that run. > - Allowing that run through startup could also let two agents work on the same task. > - Mentions should identify relevant context. They should not start work or forward comments to other tasks. > - A personal app installed on a shared agent must also wait until tool use to resolve the current user's grant. > - This pull request removes mention dispatch and keeps missing personal app credentials from blocking startup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native agent mentioned on another agent's task failed with `paperclip_runner_attachment_staging_not_authorized`. The source task could already be complete. A nearby optional-app warning was a separate problem: personal app tools were excluded when their shared health state required attention. **Expected behavior** An agent mention is context only. It does not wake the agent, take ownership, or copy a comment onto another task. Normal feedback still reaches the assignee. Assignment and explicit review requests still dispatch work. An unavailable personal app does not block startup or produce a startup warning. Tool use requests the current user's authorization and never uses another user's grant. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a task to agent A. Post a comment that mentions agent B, including a comment that closes A's task or references B's child task. 2. Confirm the comment retains its agent link and B receives no run or deferred wake. A can still receive normal feedback. 3. Install an active personal MCP connection on B. Give only Alice a grant and leave shared health at `error`. 4. Explicitly assign work to B for another user. Confirm it can finish without using the app. 5. Ask B to use the app. Confirm its tool call shows an inline connection request for the current user. Related work: Refs #11144. This change uses the existing execution-time personal grant resolution. ## What Changed - Remove mention dispatch from standalone comments and issue updates. Remove implicit forwarding of parent comments to a mentioned worker's child task. - Ignore new requests with the legacy mention wake reason before creating a run or deferred request. Preserve already accepted queue entries, which can combine assignments and feedback with a later mention. - Remove the native mention admission, staging, and finalization exceptions from this PR. Native task ownership checks remain intact. - Keep active, installed personal app tools available despite shared health errors. Remove optional-app startup warnings. Tool execution retains the current user's grant and policy checks. - Update agent instructions and product/API docs. Refresh generated capability source anchors. ## Verification - Red: comment-route regressions reproduced extra agent wakes and child comment forwarding. A separate regression proved that cancelling by the last coalesced reason could drop an accepted assignment. - Green: the targeted route, wake queue, heartbeat, workspace, responsible-user, MCP discovery, and HTTP gateway suites passed. The final queue and heartbeat rerun passed 104 tests, the restored queue adapter passed 56, and both comment-route suites passed 135. These include accepted assignment preservation, rejection of new mention requests, and normal assignee feedback. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted for review/CI fixes, so it is not claimed as a completed local pass. It exposed a cleanup timing race in the concurrent-mention assertion, now fixed and verified across 10 repetitions. CI also exposed an obsolete test waiting for the removed mention lookup; it was reproduced and fixed, then both comment suites passed. Final full-suite verification is through CI. - Final head `bd9ea4cb05a8f081c54e017760a8999f9ea6ef44`: 54 checks passed, 2 Storybook checks intentionally skipped; no pending or failing checks. Full CI includes general and serialized suites, all 8 browser shards, runner verification, typecheck, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit, with no unresolved findings. - One unchanged Cursor adapter test hit its 10-second CI timeout. All 5 tests in that file passed locally; one retry of its CI shard passed all 674 tests (3 skipped). The aggregate verification gate then passed. No code or timeout was changed for that retry. - Live browser check: inserted a structured mention with the picker on a human-owned task. The saved link remained visible. Database checks found zero new runs and zero wake requests. - Live Codex runner check: explicitly assigned that task with the unavailable personal app attached. The run succeeded and committed completion without using the app or creating a connection card. - Live browser follow-up: asked the assignee to call PostHog and mentioned another enabled agent as context. Only the assignee ran. It succeeded and displayed the existing inline connection card. Only Alice's grant existed; the run belonged to a different user. - The HTTP regression covers tool discovery with no provider calls or connection cards, first use returning the current user's authorization request, and successful retry after that user's grant exists. - App checks use an isolated local fixture and a fake MCP provider. They do not use production app credentials. ## Risks - Intentional behavior change: workflows that used mentions to wake agents must use assignment, a bounded child task, or an explicit review request. - Already accepted queue entries retain their prior rules. An old entry can combine assignment or feedback with a later mention; its last reason cannot safely identify mention-only work. New mention requests create no run or deferred wake. - Personal apps with a shared health error remain discoverable. Actual tool use still requires the responsible user's grant and existing policy gates. - No database migration or public API schema change. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. - Live native-run verification used `gpt-6-astra` through the Codex provider. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
SamandSami Rusani
|
39666aa906 |
fix(server): clarify execution policy decision comments (#9105)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Execution policies let issues move through enforced review and
approval stages before work is considered done.
> - Active reviewers and approvers must include decision rationale when
approving or requesting changes.
> - The server already requires the decision comment to arrive in the
same `PATCH /api/issues/:id` request as the status change.
> - When callers post a normal comment first and then send a status-only
`PATCH`, the existing 422 only says a comment is required.
> - This pull request keeps the atomic decision behavior but makes the
API error and docs explicit about the same-request requirement.
> - The benefit is that agents and API clients can recover immediately
by sending `{ status, comment }` together instead of dead-ending on an
ambiguous validation error.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes #9049.
Duplicate/related search completed before implementation: searched open
PRs for `9049`, `Approving a review or approval stage requires a
comment`, `Requesting changes requires a comment`, and `same PATCH`. I
did not find a direct open PR for the same error-message/docs fix.
Related PRs found but not duplicates: #8302 documents cross-agent review
gates in the skill API reference, and #5487 covers human approval UI.
## What Changed
- Expanded execution-policy 422 messages for approve and request-changes
decisions to say the comment must be included in the same `PATCH`
request and prior comments are not considered.
- Tightened unit coverage so the comment-required branches assert the
new actionable guidance.
- Documented the same-request `{ status, comment }` decision shape in
the execution policy guide, issue API reference, and agent communication
guide.
## Verification
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts --reporter verbose`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec node
../../../scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
Low risk. This does not change execution-policy state transitions or
relax the atomic decision guard; it only makes the existing requirement
explicit in errors and docs.
> 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 Codex), operating in Codex desktop with repository
file access, shell validation, and GitHub CLI workflow. Exact context
window size is not surfaced by this environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a957394420 |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
09d2ef1a37 |
fix: restore docs deleted in v0.2.3 release, add Paperclip branding
- Restored docs/ directory that was accidentally deleted by `git add -A` in the v0.2.3 release script - Replaced generic "P" favicon with actual paperclip icon using brand primary color (#2563EB) - Added light/dark logo SVGs for Mintlify navbar (paperclip icon + wordmark) - Updated docs.json with logo configuration for dark/light mode - Fixed release.sh to stage only release-related files instead of `git add -A` to prevent sweeping unrelated changes into release commits Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
28bf5e9e9b | chore: release v0.2.3 | ||
|
Dotta
|
cabd16bc70 | docs: sync docs and skills updates from backup branch | ||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
02dc46e782 |
docs: add external documentation site content
Add structured documentation covering quickstart, architecture, core concepts, API reference, adapter guides, CLI commands, deployment options, and operator/developer guides. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |