Batch 3/4 of the design-token extraction (design/token-extraction). Replaces
hardcoded Tailwind arbitrary-bracket values for width/height/min/max,
padding/margin/gap/inset/translate, radius (incl. directional), ring/outline
width, and box-shadow in ui/src/components/** and ui/src/pages/** (including
*.test.tsx companions) with references to new CSS custom-property tokens in
ui/src/index.css. Zero visual change, proven by the Phase 0 Storybook
snapshot baseline.
Counts:
- 407 sites rewritten across 140 files (127 component/page + 13 test files
updated in lockstep with the components they assert against).
- 163 new tokens minted: 127 --sz-* (one shared family across
width/height/spacing/gap/inset/translate lengths, including 42
--sz-calc-N compound calc()/min()/max()/clamp() expressions and 2
--sz-safe-* env(safe-area-inset-*) wrappers), 8 --rad-* (shared across
radius/ring-width/outline-width), 5 --pct-* (incl. --pct-neg-50 kept
distinct per the source bracket's own negative sign), 23
--shadow-extract-* (38 sites, deduped by exact value).
- 11 var()-only passthrough sites (--radix-*-trigger-width/height,
--new-issue-dialog-height) rewritten to the bare paren form with no new
token minted, per DESIGN.md's runtime-library-variable special case.
- 3 sites resolved Tailwind's build-time calc(theme(spacing.N)-Mpx) into a
byte-equivalent runtime calc() (components/IssueRow.tsx), verified via
headless-browser computed-style comparison against the pre-change built
CSS.
- 2 sites skipped/allowlisted: rounded-[inherit] (CSS keyword, not a
literal) and drop-shadow-[...] (different utility than this batch's
shadow-[...] mandate) — logged as a Needs-human-decision item.
Three gotchas found and fixed during verification (all documented in the
codemod header and TOKEN-AUDIT.md's Batch 3 log): a boundary regex bug that
false-positived inside Tailwind's own slide-out-to-top-[1%] compound
utility, a calc()-operator-spacing bug that could corrupt
env(safe-area-inset-*) identifiers, and a generated-CSS-comment bug where a
literal "*/" substring in prose silently dropped the entire token block
from the compiled CSS (root cause of an initial 222-test snapshot failure,
fully resolved to 510/510 passing).
Verify: rg gates clean, pnpm build-storybook exit 0, Storybook visual
snapshot suite 510/510 (509 clean + 1 known-benign flaky retry), pnpm
typecheck exit 0, codemod re-run confirmed idempotent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Replaces hardcoded TYPE values in ui/src/components/** and ui/src/pages/**
with references to new verbatim CSS custom-property tokens in
ui/src/index.css, via a new committed codemod (scripts/codemod-extract-type.mjs).
- 932 sites rewritten across 143 files:
- 728 arbitrary font-size Tailwind classes (text-[Npx])
- 202 arbitrary letter-spacing classes (tracking-[N em])
- 2 inline-style fontSize string literals
- 0 leading-[...] sites found (none existed)
- 17 new tokens minted, no normalizing: 8 --fs-* (9/10/11/12/13/14/15px +
0.7rem, kept in its own unit) and 9 --ls-* (0.08-0.24em, 9 distinct
values) — the micro type-size and letter-spacing clusters TOKEN-AUDIT.md
flagged are now materialized as tokens, still un-collapsed pending a
human scale decision.
- 2 sites allowlisted (both already-documented functional/third-party
fontSize forms: CompanyEnvironments.tsx xterm.js config, CompanySkills.tsx
computed Math.round() value) — no new allowlist entries needed since
neither is a class-string or literal-fontSize site the codemod targets.
- Verified: rg gates clean, pnpm build-storybook exit 0, Storybook visual
suite 510/510 passed (first attempt), pnpm typecheck exit 0, codemod
re-run confirmed idempotent (0 sites on second pass).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving
through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift
notices, and linked work.
> - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface,
not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments.
> - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes,
CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation
controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the
primitive reviewable end to end.
> - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline
workflow primitive stack.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator
experience and server contract together against `master`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature
request is described inline.
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company
workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request
review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation,
and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified
pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues,
routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate.
### Proposed solution
Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and
migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes,
aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the
React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail,
review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over
fields, and retry/recovery flows.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because
operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated
workflow patterns.
- Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch
because the operator experience is the main way to validate the
primitive.
- Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same
primitives are useful across future company processes.
## What Changed
- Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts,
server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke
support.
- Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment,
blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and
permission recovery behavior.
- Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item
detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets,
automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets,
liveness banners, and source automation metadata.
- Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared
`DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent
with the pipeline document surfaces.
- Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current
pipeline branch.
## Verification
Current branch refresh:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31
passed
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19
passed
- `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed
- Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`:
sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline
routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental
settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle.
- GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket,
Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review
- Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
Confidence Score 5/5
- GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads
Previously recorded during branch development:
- Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests
- Shared validator tests
- UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests
- Pipeline tutorial smoke path
## Risks
- High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database,
shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI.
- Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention
because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master`
syncs.
- GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting
normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status
checks are green.
- Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing
requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming
rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references.
> 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 based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification
commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip
agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship.
## 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
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products.
> - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue
properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and
plugin-provided external context.
> - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly
plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand
status, identity, and liveness.
> - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and
pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company.
> - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts,
storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can
contribute detection and status resolution.
> - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation,
GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters,
sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage.
> - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable
Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the
UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work.
Feature request:
- Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related
surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline.
- Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist
normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise
status-aware links across issue surfaces.
- Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues
containing external work links.
- Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped,
provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where
relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests.
Related PR search:
- No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`.
- Closed related prior attempt: #4556.
## What Changed
- Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness
helpers, and plugin protocol declarations.
- Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects,
source mentions, and display metadata.
- Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing,
refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents,
comments, projects, and plugins.
- Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring
docs.
- Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat,
documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar
badges, and Storybook stories.
- Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired
stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive
tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR
branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56
tests.
- Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm
test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not
claim those were rerun after the final rebase.
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on
issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync
wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core
mutations.
- Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are
additive and company-scoped.
- Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge
cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current
GitHub shapes.
- Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy
issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended
surfaces.
> Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the
current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature.
Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products,
preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped
external-object reference foundation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool
use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context
window were not exposed in the environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution
policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract.
> - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal
same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and
generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads.
> - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context,
which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer
assigned to hostile content.
> - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging,
route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output
does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the
low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations.
> - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection,
preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind
promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion,
documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks,
enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor
authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic.
> - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review
containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot
surfaces.
Fixes#7531.
## What Changed
- Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus
database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work
products.
- Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent
self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion
checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context.
- Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source
trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime
containment, and quarantine redaction.
- Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust
preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views.
- Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review
contract plan under `doc/plans/`.
- Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses
`ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered
migration are not broken by the renumbered migration.
## Verification
- Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with
lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment
tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata.
- Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to
`0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT
EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not
broken.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts
ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `git diff --check`
- GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release
registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify,
policy/review, Socket, and Snyk.
- Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved
Greptile review threads.
- No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly
says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server
authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata,
and UI preset controls.
- Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate
future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions.
- Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover
the current known routes but future integrations must route through the
same containment layer.
- The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is
5/5.
> 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 shell and GitHub CLI
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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added
per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically
required
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through issues, documents,
runs, and durable company-scoped state.
> - Issue documents are where agents and operators capture plans,
handoffs, and work products.
> - Before this change, document collaboration could only happen through
whole-document edits and detached issue comments.
> - Inline document annotations need stable anchors, revision-aware
persistence, and UI affordances that do not break existing document
editing.
> - This pull request adds company-scoped document annotation threads,
comments, anchor snapshots, API routes, and board UI.
> - The benefit is that operators and agents can discuss specific
document passages without losing context as documents evolve.
## What Changed
- Added document annotation tables, schema exports, shared types,
validators, anchor hashing, and text-anchor helpers.
- Added server-side document annotation services and issue routes for
listing, creating, commenting, resolving, and reopening annotation
threads.
- Included annotation summaries in relevant issue document reads and
backup/recovery document workspace behavior.
- Added React UI for inline document highlights, comment panels, mobile
sheet behavior, deep-link focus, and resolved/open filtering.
- Added annotation design artifacts, Storybook coverage, screenshots,
and a screenshot helper script.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and
renumbered the annotation migration from `0085_old_swarm` to
`0091_old_swarm`; the SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments
that previously applied the old migration number can safely apply the
new one.
- Adjusted the new annotation UI tests to use a local async flush helper
because this workspace's React 19.2.4 export does not expose
`React.act`.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/document-anchors.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.test.ts
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-selection.test.ts`
- Confirmed `git diff --check` passes.
- Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` files are
included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this adds new persisted annotation tables and routes
across db/shared/server/ui.
- Migration risk is reduced by moving the branch migration to
`0091_old_swarm` after upstream `0090_resource_memberships` and keeping
the SQL idempotent for old `0085_old_swarm` adopters.
- UI risk is mostly around text range anchoring and panel positioning
across long documents, folded content, and mobile layouts; the PR
includes focused unit coverage and design 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 coding agent, tool-using software engineering
mode. Context window size is not exposed in this Paperclip 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 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped
issues, comments, and issue documents.
> - Issue documents are the durable place where plans, handoffs, and
other work artifacts are revised over time.
> - Some documents need to be preserved as operator-approved snapshots
while agents continue working on the same issue.
> - Without document locking, a later board or agent write can overwrite
the document key that reviewers expected to remain stable.
> - This pull request adds board-managed issue document locks and makes
agent writes to locked keys create a derived document instead of
mutating the locked document.
> - The benefit is safer document handoffs: approved or frozen issue
documents stay immutable until the board explicitly unlocks them.
## What Changed
- Added `locked_at`, `locked_by_agent_id`, and `locked_by_user_id`
document fields plus migration `0085_tranquil_the_executioner.sql`.
- Added document lock/unlock service behavior, route endpoints, activity
events, and locked-document write protections.
- Made agent document writes to locked keys create a new derived key
such as `plan-2` rather than overwriting the locked document.
- Surfaced lock state through shared issue document types, UI API
methods, document header lock controls, and activity formatting.
- Added server and UI tests for lock/unlock behavior, locked document
immutability, and UI action visibility.
- Updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` with the V1 document lock
contract and endpoints.
## Verification
- `git rebase public-gh/master` completed cleanly after committing the
branch changes.
- `git diff --check` passed before commit.
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-revisions.test.ts` passed: 5 files, 32 tests.
## Risks
- Medium risk because this changes the document persistence contract and
adds a migration.
- The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and guarded foreign-key
creation so it remains safe for users who may have already applied an
earlier copy of the migration.
- Locked documents intentionally reject board edits/deletes/restores
until unlocked; any existing workflows that expected direct overwrite
need to unlock first.
- Agent writes to locked keys now create derived documents, which may
create extra issue documents when agents retry locked writes.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with tool use and local code
execution in the Paperclip worktree.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue comments and documents are the main working surface where
operators and agents collaborate
> - File drops, markdown editing, and long issue descriptions need to
feel predictable because they sit directly in the task execution loop
> - The composer had edge cases around drag targets, attachment
feedback, image drops, and long markdown content crowding the page
> - This pull request polishes the issue composer, hardens markdown
editor regressions, and adds a fold curtain for long issue
descriptions/documents
> - The benefit is a calmer issue detail surface that handles uploads
and long work products without hiding state or breaking layout
## What Changed
- Scoped issue-composer drag/drop behavior so the composer owns file
drops without turning the whole thread into a competing drop target.
- Added clearer attachment upload feedback for non-image files and
image-drop stability coverage.
- Hardened markdown editor and markdown body handling around HTML-like
tag regressions.
- Added `FoldCurtain` and wired it into issue descriptions and issue
documents so long markdown previews can expand/collapse.
- Added Storybook coverage for the fold curtain state.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx --config ui/vitest.config.ts`
passed: 3 files, 75 tests.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-editor-composer-polish --
. ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed.
- Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: this changes user-facing composer/drop behavior
and long markdown display.
- The fold curtain uses DOM measurement and `ResizeObserver`; reviewers
should check browser behavior for very long descriptions and documents.
- No database migrations.
> 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 based on GPT-5, with shell, git, Paperclip
API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip workspace.
## 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
Note: screenshots were not newly captured during branch splitting; the
UI states are covered by component tests and a Storybook story.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution
window.
> - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still
holding useful next-step state.
> - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path
to be durable and visible.
> - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation
summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers.
> - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with
clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff.
## What Changed
- Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking,
and an idempotent `0058` migration.
- Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation
summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill.
- Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context
through shared adapter utilities.
- Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness
continuation state.
- Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run
ledger, with component tests.
- Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance,
onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation
behavior.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run,
excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence,
importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts,
documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness
backfill off the request path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts
server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a
plan document update"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity
service|treats a plan document update"`
- Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and
Snyk all passed.
- Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after
fetching `public-gh master`.
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff.
- Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after
`0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application.
- Greptile inline review threads are resolved.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery,
activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI.
- Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent
guards.
- Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger
response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the
background backfill completes.
- UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass;
validation is currently through focused component tests.
> 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, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git,
GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API 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 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
Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR
packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests
listed above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Board users and agents collaborate on issue-scoped documents such as
plans and revisions need to be trustworthy because they are the audit
trail for those artifacts.
> - The issue document UI now supports revision history and restore, so
the UI has to distinguish the current revision from historical revisions
correctly even while multiple queries are refreshing.
> - In `PAPA-72`, the newest content could appear under an older
revision label because the current document snapshot and the
revision-history query could temporarily disagree after an edit.
> - That made the UI treat the newest revision like a historical restore
target, which is the opposite of the intended behavior.
> - This pull request derives one authoritative revision view from both
sources, sorts revisions newest-first, and keeps the freshest revision
marked current.
> - The benefit is that revision history stays stable and trustworthy
immediately after edits instead of briefly presenting the newest content
as an older revision.
## What Changed
- Added a `document-revisions` helper that merges the current document
snapshot with fetched revision history into one normalized revision
state.
- Updated `IssueDocumentsSection` to render from that normalized state
instead of trusting either query in isolation.
- Added focused tests covering the current-revision selection and
ordering behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Targeted revision tests passed locally.
- Manual reviewer check:
- Open an issue document with revision history.
- Edit and save the document.
- Immediately open the revision selector.
- Confirm the newest revision remains marked current and older revisions
remain the restore targets.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is isolated to issue document revision
presentation in the UI.
- Main risk is merging the current snapshot with fetched history
incorrectly for edge cases, which is why the helper has focused unit
coverage.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [ ] 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
Add a "View diff" option to the document three-dot menu (visible when
revision > 1) that opens a modal showing side-by-side changes between
revisions using react-diff-viewer-continued. Defaults to comparing the
current revision with its predecessor, with dropdowns to select any two
revisions.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
- Shorten button labels ("New document" → "New", "Upload attachment" → "Upload") on small screens
- Add min-w-0 and shrink-0 to flex containers and items to prevent overflow
- Truncate document revision text on narrow viewports
- Mark chevron, key badge, and action buttons as shrink-0
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
