Reproduce a blocker appearing during admission, recheck current recovery before queuing, and consume the authorizing receipt atomically even when aggregation is suppressed. Retain the same saved receipt under daily-cap retries.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Keep terminal stop receipts intact when a late process callback arrives. Reconsider saved execution-wait comments independently of recovery-action state, validate their author under the task lock, and retain admission gates and retry deduplication.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Retry decisions must respect changes to an issue owner.
> - Database tests verify this with two concurrent transactions.
> - The test started the competing operation before its fixture held the
lock.
> - That race can fail a correct source verification run and block
deployment.
> - This PR waits for lock acquisition before starting the competing
operation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13257 for the deployment verification work that exposed this test
race. No duplicate fix was found.
**What happened?**
[Cloud verification job
103424158921](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34648268409/job/103424158921)
failed because the test did not observe a concurrent issue-row lock
waiter. The fixture and retry operation both started without an ordering
guarantee.
**Expected behavior**
The fixture must hold the issue lock before the competing retry
operation starts. The test must still prove that the retry waits for the
lock and observes the reassignment.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Add a temporary 50 ms delay before the fixture acquires the issue
lock.
2. Run the promoteOrCancelDueRetry issue-lock test.
3. The original fixture fails with the same missing-waiter error as CI.
4. The synchronized fixture passes with that delay. The delay is not
part of this PR.
## What Changed
- Separate fixture readiness from its transaction completion promise.
- Wait for readiness at both callers before starting the retry decision.
- Propagate transaction failure during setup through Promise.race.
## Verification
- The original fixture fails under the temporary delayed-lock probe. The
fixed fixture passes the same probe.
- All 31 tests in
server/src/modules/run-dispatch/adapters/postgres.test.ts pass after
removing the probe.
- The real concurrent waiter, lock-order, and reassignment assertions
remain intact. No timeout was increased.
- Full local typecheck and build pass (221s and 50s). The full local
test command stopped in its server phase after 10,610 passes, 65 skips,
and 14 failures: 13 existing macOS skill-cache rename/permission
failures and one unchanged Telegram test assertion. The Telegram test
passes in a focused rerun. Later local phases did not run after that
failure. Current-head Greptile is 5/5 with no findings. All 32
current-head checks pass, including full Linux typecheck, build, native
verification, server suites, browser suites, and canary packaging. The
unchanged GitHub browser mock assertion passed its single failed-shard
retry.
- git diff --check passes.
## Risks
- Only test synchronization changes. Production database behavior is
unchanged.
- Awaiting the transaction itself during setup would deadlock the test.
Returning the completion promise inside an object avoids that problem.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
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 — all 31 database adapter
tests pass; full local verification limits are disclosed above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Preserve verified native process-stop evidence and retry saved user messages through normal continuation admission after recovery cleanup. Show the current wait reason and serialize delivery so a saved message starts one fresh turn.
Validated with 410 focused tests, typecheck, build, token gates, all PR CI checks, and Greptile 5/5.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Native sessions keep a provider process and its work alive across
control-plane operations.
> - A hidden 15-minute turn deadline stopped work even when the agent
timeout was zero.
> - A one-hour runner lifetime and fixed connection lease added two more
limits.
> - Recovery also rejected goal commands because it reconstructed their
startup summary with the wrong protocol version.
> - This pull request removes implicit duration limits and renews
authenticated leases in the harness.
> - Healthy sessions can continue without model action or a user
interface change.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13092 and #12845. Related: #13163 covers sandbox recovery after
app restarts; this change covers session duration and lease renewal.
**What happened?**
A native Codex session stopped after 15 minutes while a tool was still
running. The agent had `timeoutSec: 0`. Recovery then rejected a
`session.goal.get` startup command with `invalid provider startup
ownership fence`.
**Expected behavior**
An unlimited session keeps working while its provider and authenticated
controller remain healthy. Lease maintenance is transparent. Explicit
timeouts, cancellation and revoked authority still take effect.
**Steps to reproduce**
Start a native session with `timeoutSec: 0` and run a tool beyond 15
minutes. Before this fix, the runtime cancels the turn. A recovery
startup that uses a goal command also exposes the protocol-version
mismatch.
## What Changed
- Honor the agent turn timeout. Zero disables the timer. Long explicit
durations use timer chunks to avoid Node timer overflow.
- Default native runner lifetime to unlimited. Keep bounded startup,
reconnect and control-operation deadlines.
- Renew leases over the authenticated connection. Persist renewal before
the reply. Validate identity, epoch and expiry. Handle duplicate
requests and a lost reply on reconnect.
- Freeze renewal during warm ownership transitions and terminal
handling.
- Validate persisted goal startup commands with protocol v2.
- Add duration, renewal, ownership, recovery and real-process regression
tests. Update runner protocol and recovery docs.
- Add no UI components or controls. Renewal requires no model output or
user action.
## Verification
Current head: `348e369c35c5da8bb8be378f4b35dcf6f40882e7`. [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34649767113).
- All 32 checks pass on this head. The two Storybook checks are skipped
as expected. CI includes full build, typecheck, runner verification,
browser suites, server tests and the canary package dry run.
- Greptile reports 5/5 on this head. All review threads are resolved,
and the security scan passes.
- Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` locally.
- Passed 219 native-runtime and controller tests, including fake-clock
tests for three weeks of renewal and 30-day explicit timeouts. Six
denial tests confirm that renewal cannot extend expired, revoked or
mismatched authority.
- Passed 337 executor, cancellation and restart-recovery tests, plus 278
Rust runner-core library tests.
- Passed a real runner with a silent fake Codex provider across its
original lease expiry. Runner PID, provider PID, thread and active turn
stayed unchanged. Warm-attach recovery tests also pass.
- Passed all 83 plugin-worker tests and 159 of 161 workspace-runtime
tests locally. The two remaining assertions passed with a canonical
macOS temporary directory, as did the changed runtime fixture. The full
affected server shard passes in CI.
- An unchanged GitHub callback-ordering test failed once in CI, passed
locally in isolation, and passed its one test-shard retry. The final CI
summary is successful.
- The full local `pnpm test:run` sweep was interrupted after dependency
setup failures and load-related timeouts. Identified failing suites
passed in isolated reruns after the dependency repair. The complete test
matrix passed remotely in CI.
## Risks
- Deploy the controller and runner together to enable renewal. Older
peers keep their existing bounded lease behavior.
- Unlimited runtime permits long resource use until completion, explicit
cancellation, configured timeout or loss of valid authority.
- Lease renewal changes authenticated protocol handling. Regression
tests cover stale, revoked and mismatched authority, lost replies and
warm handoff behavior.
- Simulated multi-week tests and a real lease-boundary test do not
constitute a weeks-long production soak.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution
and TypeScript/Rust test tools. The exact backend revision and
context-window size are not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Connections give agents controlled access to external services.
> - Experimental channels already map conversations to tasks and durable
work queues.
> - Email needs inbox ownership, recipient envelopes, delivery records,
and explicit sends.
> - This pull request adds AgentMail to that infrastructure and keeps
the provider key in the server vault.
> - Agents can receive and send email from local or sandbox execution
while the board follows each conversation in its task.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Agents need dedicated email addresses. Incoming email should become
assigned work. Internal task comments and progress must never become
outgoing email by accident.
**Proposed solution**
Add experimental AgentMail connections, an inbox assignment wizard,
durable email intake and publication, task email cards, and
authenticated API, CLI, and native runtime actions. Agents use Paperclip
credentials to request sends. Paperclip owns the provider key and
enforces access and task authority.
**Alternatives considered**
A general mailbox MCP connector does not provide durable task binding or
publication boundaries. A separate mailbox application duplicates task
collaboration. The board instead directs the agent through the normal
task conversation.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing experimental connections and task
infrastructure. Product scope and interaction design were reviewed with
the maintainer. Related connection authority work: #11831 and #11818.
The duplicate search found no competing task-based AgentMail
integration.
## What Changed
- Add AgentMail catalog data, shared contracts, company-scoped email
records, and an additive migration.
- Add vaulted setup, inbox assignment, access grants, trust guidance,
and provider-side allowlist guidance.
- Support WebSocket and signed-webhook intake through a shared durable
pipeline, deduplication, catch-up, and task wakeups.
- Queue explicit new conversations and replies with immutable send
intents, idempotency, delivery state, and uncertain-send resolution.
- Show inbound and outbound email cards in normal task conversations.
Keep internal messages internal.
- Add task-scoped CLI actions and the sandbox callback routes required
for Daytona execution.
- Provide a dedicated AgentMail skill automatically only to agents with
active authorized inbox assignments. Keep email instructions out of the
universal Paperclip skill.
- Advertise connector-owned `agentmail_inboxes`,
`agentmail_read_thread`, `agentmail_send`, and `agentmail_delivery`
tools only in eligible native sessions. Recheck live authority on
execution.
- Isolate Codex CLI connector skills by agent and skill revision.
Deliver the assigned skill in the run prompt for adapters that use
shared skill directories, including resumed turns. Keep automatic skills
out of manual persistent sync. Show them as read-only and document the
pattern in the connector playbook.
- Fix AgentMail health checks that entered local-stdio validation and
optional missing Codex credential cleanup in sandboxes.
- Add API, pipeline, authorization, sandbox, browser, and Storybook
coverage.
## Verification
- Live AgentMail testing covered WebSocket intake, signed webhooks,
restart catch-up, and a full receive → task → Daytona Codex CLI →
explicit reply → Delivered round trip. The reply was verified in the
other inbox. The normal task composer also initiated an outgoing email
child task.
- The connector-skill change was verified in the browser: AgentMail
appears once as an automatic, read-only skill with its assigned address.
Disabling experimental chat connections removes it; re-enabling restores
it. A regression test covers assignment data arriving after library
data.
- Connector regression coverage passed 178 runtime utility, email
integration, skill-route, and heartbeat tests. All 17 Codex execution
tests passed, including per-agent skill isolation, model identity,
revision changes, removal, and prompt delivery without shared skill
files.
- After rebasing onto master, all 44 focused email, heartbeat, and
native-authority tests passed. All 313 native-session executor tests
passed. The UI regression suite passed all 3 tests. These test sets
overlap earlier focused runs.
- Full workspace typecheck and build passed after the rebase. Token
gates passed. Earlier focused Playwright task/setup coverage and the
Storybook build also passed.
- Native connector tool execution uses deterministic integration tests.
Live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter; the new
shared-home prompt fallback has deterministic coverage.
- The full repository suite is run by CI. The earlier unsharded local
full-suite attempt was stopped after the equivalent CI suites passed and
is not reported as a completed local run. Greptile reviewed
`7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb` at 5/5 with no unresolved
threads. All server, workspace, serialized server, and browser suites
passed in CI. The build job hit a five-second timeout in a runner
transport test; both variants and the full 80-test file passed locally
with unchanged timeouts. The build passed on retry on the same commit
without code or timeout changes. All required CI gates, including the
final `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` summaries, are green on
`7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb`.
## Risks
- Email from external senders can start normal agent work. Setup
recommends a low-trust agent and AgentMail sender controls. Sender
addresses never grant board membership.
- Provider timeouts can leave uncertain sends. Retries retain their
idempotency key; expired windows require reconciliation or operator
resolution.
- Connector skills and native tools are assignment-dependent and require
current access. Revocation denies retained calls; assignment changes
select a new runtime context.
- Activation remains behind the experimental-channel setting. The native
runner path has deterministic coverage; live Daytona qualification used
the Codex CLI adapter.
- Schema changes are additive. Inbox ownership is unique across
companies. Disconnect preserves provider inboxes and task history.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
and browser testing. The exact deployment model ID and context-window
size were not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The native runtime records completion assessments and task
decisions.
> - An application update can change the assessment policy version.
> - The previous code treated that version change as a reason for human
review.
> - An upgrade alone does not give the user a new decision to make.
> - This change keeps existing decisions and withdraws obsolete upgrade
review cards.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A rules version change moved unfinished tasks into review and created a
card that said, "Review the superseding native policy assessment." The
task did not need new work or a human decision.
**Expected behavior**
New runs use the current rules. An upgrade leaves existing task
decisions alone. The saved policy version remains available in the audit
history.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Save a native run assessment and a task decision.
2. Change the native status policy version.
3. Run finalization reconciliation without new task evidence.
4. The previous code created a review card. The corrected code keeps the
saved assessment and decision.
Related context: #13038 changed the native policy version. Searches
found no duplicate fix for upgrade-only completion reviews.
## What Changed
- Remove policy-version mismatch as a reconciliation trigger.
- Withdraw pending cards only when their source decision, effect ledger,
creator, key, and prompt match the old upgrade-only review.
- Restore the previous status only while that decision and status
version remain current and no other review gate is pending.
- Preserve answered cards, real review requests, later task changes, and
historical assessments and decisions.
- Record cleanup activity and retire any corresponding chat review
actions.
- Isolate cleanup failures so one old card cannot block other cleanup or
normal finalization.
- Update the status conformance fixture, regression tests, and
architecture documentation.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/native-status-arbiter-corpus.test.ts` (23 tests,
including the 53-fixture status corpus).
- Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Passed: `git diff --check`.
- Passed: `pnpm build`.
- Passed: fresh Greptile review at 5/5 on `d24e5ecaf`, with no open
review threads.
- Passed: the 23 focused tests in the isolated full-suite environment.
- Local `pnpm test:run`: the server group finished with 10,638 passed
and one missing-fixture failure. Built the required
`fake-codex-app-server` fixture and reran the entire affected native
session-resume suite: 37/37 passed. The initial full command exited on
that server-group failure, so remaining groups are covered by CI.
- Passed: the workspace-runtime-exposure suite (25 tests, 3 platform
skips).
- Passed: all CI gates, including every test shard, browser tests,
typecheck, and build. The server shard passed on one retry after an
unrelated host-port conflict in the unchanged workspace-exposure tests.
- Cleanup tests cover repeat runs, real reviews, answered cards, later
statuses, newer decision identity, status changes back to review, other
pending requests, run scope, cleanup failures, retry, and live
publication failures.
## Risks
- Cleanup changes stored task state. It checks the exact obsolete
decision and status version under database locks before restoring
status.
- Pending approvals, interactions, and execution stages prevent
restoration out of review.
- The cleanup handles at most 100 matching cards per reconciliation
pass. It does not rewrite old decisions or accept an agent's completion
claim.
- New evidence and explicit task changes still use the existing
reconciliation paths. This change does not reevaluate old work merely
because Paperclip was updated.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployment identifier and context window
are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection,
code editing, shell execution, and automated tests.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip Cloud instances can inject a trusted operator HTML snippet
before `</body>` in served UI pages (#13168)
> - Operators deliver env vars to managed instances through
hosting-provider APIs
> - Web application firewalls in front of those APIs reject request
bodies that contain raw `<script` markup
> - The snippet value always contains a script tag, so the firewall
blocks its delivery every time
> - This pull request adds `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET_B64`, which
carries the same snippet as standard base64
> - The benefit is that operators can ship the snippet through
WAF-fronted delivery pipelines without firewall exceptions
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13168 (introduced the Cloud UI snippet).
**Subsystem affected**
Server UI shell serving: `server/src/cloud-ui-snippet.ts`, used by
`static-index-html.ts` and `app.ts`.
**Current behavior**
`PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET` is the only way to configure the Cloud UI
snippet. The value is raw HTML. Delivery pipelines that write env vars
through provider APIs can fail to deliver it: web application firewalls
classify a request body that contains `<script` as an injection attempt
and block it. Verified against Railway's GraphQL API, which sits behind
Cloudflare: a variable value with a bare `<script></script>` returns
HTTP 403 before authentication, and JSON unicode escapes (`<script`) do
not bypass the block. The snippet is exactly the kind of value that
always contains a script tag, so such pipelines cannot deliver it at
all.
**Proposed behavior**
A new optional `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET_B64` carries the same snippet
as standard base64 of the UTF-8 HTML. The server decodes it and injects
the result through the existing path. The plain variable wins when both
are set. Whitespace and line wrapping in the value are tolerated. A
value that is not canonical base64, or that decodes to blank, is ignored
instead of injected as garbage.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can deliver the snippet through WAF-fronted APIs without
requesting firewall exceptions. Base64 contains no markup, so the
firewall has nothing to match. Existing deployments see no behavior
change.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new variable is optional. The existing variable is unchanged
and takes precedence.
## What Changed
- `server/src/cloud-ui-snippet.ts`: resolve the snippet from
`PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET` first, then from base64-decoded
`PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET_B64`; ignore non-canonical or blank-decoding
values.
- `server/src/__tests__/cloud-ui-snippet.test.ts`: cover
decode-and-inject, plain-wins precedence, whitespace tolerance,
invalid/blank values, and the self-hosted no-op.
- `doc/cloud-ui-snippet.md`: document the variant, how to produce the
value, and the ignore rules.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/cloud-ui-snippet.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/static-index-html.test.ts` — 13 tests pass.
- `tsc --noEmit` in `server/` passes.
- Manual check: on a Cloud-managed instance, set
`PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET_B64="$(base64 < snippet.html)"`, restart,
open `/`, and confirm the decoded snippet appears before `</body>`. On a
self-hosted instance, confirm no snippet is injected.
## Risks
Low risk. The injection path and the Cloud-managed gate are unchanged. A
malformed base64 value is ignored, so the failure mode is a missing
widget, not corrupted HTML. The decoded value is trusted operator
configuration, the same trust model as the plain variable.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI,
agentic workflow with tool use (code edits, test runs, and live API
verification of the WAF behavior).
## 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
* codex/work-folders-storybook-refresh:
fix: keep supported ACPX profiles available in the Pi layer
test: wait for active Daytona transfers before teardown
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agent runtime settings can bind organization secrets to an adapter
environment
> - Paperclip redacts plain environment values when it returns a saved
agent to the UI
> - A saved-agent test sent the redacted `CODEX_HOME` value back to the
server
> - Codex ACP also received the API key without an ACP API-key
authentication request
> - This pull request restores saved environment values for tests and
selects API-key authentication for Codex ACP runs
> - The benefit is that Codex agents can test and run with an
organization-scoped OpenAI API key
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Testing a saved Codex agent sent `***REDACTED***` as `CODEX_HOME`.
Secret normalization rejected that placeholder. Remote Codex ACP runs
received `OPENAI_API_KEY`, but session creation stopped with
`Authentication required`.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must use the saved `CODEX_HOME` value when it tests an
existing agent. Codex ACP must select API-key authentication when
`OPENAI_API_KEY` is available.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an organization-scoped secret named `OPENAI_API_KEY`.
2. Give a Codex agent access to the secret.
3. Save the agent runtime settings.
4. Test the saved agent again.
5. Run the agent in a remote sandbox through ACP.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master before commit
`68c17709d7c051a804a416263e2e08920f1dfcb1`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server with a remote sandbox environment.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Codex.
## What Changed
- Send the saved agent ID with adapter environment tests.
- Restore redacted plain environment values from the saved agent before
test-time secret resolution.
- Select the Codex ACP `api-key` authentication method when
`OPENAI_API_KEY` is present.
- Add focused regression coverage for saved-agent tests and remote ACP
launch configuration.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run
src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/agent-adapter-validation-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/test-agent-setup.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Low risk. The test route reads saved configuration only when the
request supplies a compatible agent ID and the caller can update that
agent.
- The Codex ACP change applies only when `OPENAI_API_KEY` exists and no
explicit `DEFAULT_AUTH_REQUEST` exists.
- There are no schema migrations or telemetry 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 with `gpt-5`. The context-window size is not exposed in
this runtime. The model used reasoning, repository search, file editing,
command execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Its recovery loop keeps assigned work moving after execution
failures.
> - Productivity review used run counts, comment counts, and elapsed
time to create management tasks.
> - Infrastructure failures could satisfy those rules and create more
tasks without evidence that the source work needed management review.
> - This pull request removes that detector and its continuation holds.
> - Bounded recovery, budgets, explicit blockers, and normal review
stages remain in place.
> - Existing task records stay readable and unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #5897. That request describes unwanted automatic productivity
reviews and asks to preserve existing tasks. This change retires the
feature instead of adding another configuration switch.
Related prior approaches: Refs #9191, Refs #12489. Those changes
excluded infrastructure failures or bounded review creation. This
removal replaces the detector rather than tuning its thresholds.
## What Changed
- Delete the scheduled detector, automatic task creation, evidence
refresh, and productivity continuation holds.
- Remove computed productivity fields, special attention items, badges,
and Storybook fixtures.
- Retain historical origin values, decision compatibility, and recovery
recursion exclusions. Add no migration and change no existing task data.
- Update the execution contract. Replace feature tests with regressions
for legacy task reads, ordinary attention, and bounded continuation in
the presence of an old review.
## Verification
- Targeted attention, issue-route, startup, and UI tests: 4 files and
101 tests passed.
- Updated issue-route and UI tests: 2 files and 61 tests passed.
- Bounded continuation regression: 2 cases passed, including a legacy
review plus pre-dispatch cancellation churn.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: all four gates passed.
- `git diff --check`: passed.
- `pnpm build-storybook`: passed.
- Greptile: 5/5 on `a5a612eea`, with no actionable findings.
- Scheduler and historical recovery regressions: 2 files and 28 tests
passed.
- Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed.
- The complete `pnpm test:run` suite passed across the CI server,
serialized-server, and workspace shards on `a5a612eea`. Stopped the
duplicate local monolithic run after the full CI suite passed; no
completed local full-suite result is claimed. The targeted local suites
above passed.
- CI serialized shard 5 initially hit a 10-second timeout in the first
interaction-route test. The complete file passed locally (78 tests),
then the single CI rerun passed.
- All CI gates are green, including the build and end-to-end suites.
- A local merge check against current `master` (`ce09ea40b`) completed
without conflicts.
## Risks
- API responses no longer include the computed `productivityReview`
field. Consumers must stop using it.
- The scheduler no longer creates management work from elapsed time, run
counts, or missing comments. This is the intended behavior change.
- Existing review tasks and explicit dependencies remain in place.
Historical origins still prevent recursive recovery treatment. No task
cleanup or data migration occurs.
- The native review handoff repair is separate from this removal.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code
execution. The exact runtime model identifier and context-window size
are not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Users can stop a run and send another message on the same task.
> - Remote runners need evidence from their sandbox provider that
execution stopped.
> - Local process checks cannot prove that a remote process exited.
> - This pull request records provider stop receipts and uses them for
conversation admission.
> - New user messages can proceed after confirmed cleanup without
repeating interrupted actions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13237 and #13239. Related: #13163 covers app-restart recovery;
this change covers an explicit stop followed by a new user message.
**What happened?**
A stopped remote Claude ACP task kept its execution hold after Daytona
cleanup succeeded. Native runners also rejected remote process
identities and retained stale session cleanup gates. A message sent
during cleanup could stay deferred after the sandbox stopped.
**Expected behavior**
After the provider confirms that the old execution stopped, a new user
message starts a fresh turn. Pending user messages must not need another
message to trigger admission. Prior action outcomes remain recorded.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a long-running task in Daytona with a legacy Claude ACP or
native ACP runner.
2. Cancel the run while its tool is active.
3. Send a new message immediately, or after cleanup completes.
4. Observe the execution hold despite the old sandbox having stopped.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at 7b829efdf6. The
branch is rebased on current master.
## What Changed
- Add optional provider stop receipts to sandbox release and destroy
hooks. Old plugins remain compatible.
- Bind receipts to the company, run, lease, and provider resource.
Failed cleanup cannot supply stop authority.
- Acknowledge legacy remote cancellation after confirmed termination.
- Admit native user continuations using remote receipts instead of host
process checks.
- Retire only the settled cleanup owner matching the stopped company,
run, and provider resource. Isolate cleanup gates between remote
sandboxes, including two sandboxes owned by one run.
- Reconsider user messages deferred during remote cleanup through normal
admission, including successful later cleanup retries.
- Preserve receipts through cleanup retries and inline cleanup after
failed startup.
- Permit provider destruction after a terminal remote checkpoint
failure. Busy ownership still blocks destruction.
- Add regression tests and update execution semantics.
- Give the real preview fixture ten seconds for cold startup. Reuse
release-mode Rust artifacts for the filtered parity checks, avoiding a
duplicate debug test build that exhausted CI disk twice; test filters
and assertions are unchanged.
## Verification
- Recursive typecheck and build passed.
- Targeted server, Daytona plugin, and native runtime tests passed. They
cover missing or mismatched receipts, failed cleanup, local process
protection, exact cleanup ownership, and a message sent during cleanup.
- Live Daytona tests passed for legacy Claude ACP, native per-turn,
native warm, and a newly created native runner using disposable
sandboxes. Each original run was cancelled; its explicit follow-up
completed with no execution hold. The disposable case confirmed a new
sandbox after deletion.
- Native tests used the provider's Opus 5 selector, `opus[1m]`, and the
Linux runner bundle from the sandbox image. Existing checkpoint/sync
finalization warnings remained visible before the native follow-ups
reached committed success. This change does not repair those separate
warnings or guarantee recovery of uncheckpointed files.
- A direct live provider test also passed with the final delete-wait
change: the destroy hook returned its receipt only after Daytona
reported the sandbox destroyed. The final Daytona plugin suite passed
all 153 tests; its build passed.
- After rebasing on master, 284 targeted server/plugin tests and 313
native executor tests passed. The native session runtime suite passed
all 128 tests.
- The review regression passed all 145 tests across the continuation,
environment runtime, and pending-cleanup sweep suites. Recursive
typecheck and build passed again after that fix.
- The security review's exact-resource finding is fixed. Cleanup
completion requires the same provider-resource scope used during session
creation. All 128 native runtime tests, 61 server continuation/cleanup
tests, recursive typecheck, and build passed after this fix. The
two-sandboxes-in-one-run regression proves one receipt cannot retire the
other quarantine.
- Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, the security scan passed,
and no review threads remain unresolved. The final native executor suite
also passed all 313 tests.
- The full local suite reached 10,616 passing tests before stopping on
four failures. All four now pass in focused reruns: the final-code
continuation/teardown suites, the attachment suite, and the native
session test after building its required fake-provider binary. The
original full run overlapped source edits and did not reach the
remaining groups; it is not counted as a full-suite pass.
- The preview exposure suite passed all 25 applicable tests (three
Linux-only tests skipped locally) after the startup allowance change.
Both release-mode Rust parity commands passed locally. All final-head PR
checks passed, including full server/workspace/browser test groups, full
native runner verification, build, typecheck, canary dry-run, and the
aggregate gates.
## Risks
- A provider must return a receipt only after confirmed termination.
Incorrect provider claims could permit overlapping execution.
- Older providers without receipts retain the existing hold. Missing
evidence, failed cleanup, active ownership, pauses, approvals, and
budgets still block admission.
- This change preserves unknown action outcomes and old checkpoints. It
does not authorize replay or alter historical runs.
- No database migration or telemetry contract change is required.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution,
and browser tools. The exact backend revision and context-window size
are not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `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 references)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run targeted 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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runtime recovery protects controller takeover with process
identity checks
> - The live-controller test mocked process liveness but left process
start time to host state
> - This pull request supplies the matching process start time in the
fixture
> - The benefit is deterministic coverage of the live-controller fence
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Closes#13172
## What Changed
- Complete the live-controller takeover fixture with the recorded
process start time.
## Verification
- Contributor reports focused native restart-recovery tests, related
native tests, integration tests, and typecheck passed locally.
Maintainer reran the 20 native restart-recovery tests successfully and
verified current-head CI, Greptile 5/5, and zero unresolved review
threads.
## Risks
Low risk. This changes test setup only. Production controller fencing is
unchanged.
## Model Used
Original patch by @lorenzozanee; the original author did not record
model details. Maintainer review and verification used OpenAI GPT-6
through Codex with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The
exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed 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 (no
documentation change is needed for this test fixture)
- [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
Combine task-scoped workspace adoption with chat isolation, bounded shutdown draining, and provider identity handling. Preserve per-run capability rotation evidence and the new master warm-session transition coverage.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Keep the experimental cached-file entry in task properties and preserve current gallery, task continuation, and development-setting behavior.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Preserve verified Pi and Codex ACP profiles alongside current Claude installation handling, provider recovery, and native attachment staging. Keep preview lock integrity checks on native-architecture image builds.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Keep current task continuation, chat UI, provider security, and multi-architecture build behavior. Regenerate the work-folder schema after the published migration sequence and make it replay-safe for preview databases. Verify preserved file/trash/checkpoint references and company constraints on PostgreSQL.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A task can cause an agent to create more tasks.
> - Those tasks can belong to other projects or have another parent.
> - The subtask view does not show all work created from the current
task.
> - This pull request adds a Tasks tab with separate subtask and
creation groups.
> - Operators can follow created work without changing its parent or
project.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Operators need to see all work that an agent creates while running for a
task. Parentage alone does not describe this relationship. Legacy and
native runs must follow the same rules.
**Proposed solution**
Show all subtasks in one section. Separately group tasks created from
the source task by their current project, with a No project group when
needed. A created subtask appears in both sections. Use saved run
context and recorded creation activity to find the source task.
**Alternatives considered**
Making all created tasks children would change their hierarchy. Removing
overlap between sections would hide the creation relationship. This
change keeps the two memberships separate.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing Activity log & action attribution capability.
It does not add a new roadmap area. Related PR: #9727 adds a stored
source-task field and inbound attribution UI. This PR adds the outgoing
task list using existing run and activity records and does not require
that schema change.
## What Changed
- Add a company-scoped createdFromIssueId filter to issue lists.
- Save the actor run during task creation, including legacy child-helper
calls.
- Recover historical run attribution from creation activity when the
origin run is absent.
- Render the production Tasks panel with all subtasks and independently
grouped created work.
- Keep progress only for subtasks. Add folding, hover fades and project
links.
- Fetch all result pages and refresh on issue activity. Show load
failures with Retry.
- Add database, API, UI and pagination tests, design-guide examples and
Storybook pages.
## Verification
- Before rebase: 158 targeted tests passed. Workspace typecheck,
UI/server builds, Storybook build and token gates passed.
- After rebase: full workspace typecheck and build passed. The cursor
fix passes 26 focused tests and UI/server typechecks.
- The full local test command completed its general-server group with
10,563 passing tests and two failures: a missing native-runner fixture
and a concurrency-test timeout. Building the fixture and rerunning both
affected files passed all 41 tests. The local command stopped before its
remaining groups; all corresponding GitHub test shards passed on the
submitted head.
- GitHub checks on commit 3b4bf0bd8: 31 passed, including the aggregate
CI gate, all server/workspace/browser test shards, typecheck, build,
runner verification, canary dry run, policy and security checks. Two
conditional Storybook jobs were skipped by the workflow.
- Greptile reviewed commit 3b4bf0bd8 at 5/5 with no unresolved comments.
- Open Storybook at UX Labs / Tasks Created From a Task / Full Task
Page. Check that a created subtask appears in both sections. Fold each
group and use a project link. Check the No project group and first-task
arrival story.
## Risks
- Old tasks without a saved origin run or attributed creation activity
cannot be linked to a source. The code does not infer a source from a
shared creator or a comment.
- The new list filter reads run and activity records. Source, run,
activity and result stay within the requested company.
- Task creation now saves the actor run when no explicit origin run is
supplied. Existing explicit origins remain unchanged. No database
migration is required.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The runtime identifies the model family as
GPT-6 but does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window
size. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution and browser
inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks.
> - A failed native run can leave a durable execution hold.
> - The hold prevents automatic replay of actions with unknown outcomes.
> - It can also prevent the agent from answering a new user message.
> - A new user message should authorize a fresh turn after the prior
execution stops.
> - This pull request adds that admission path and preserves the
existing execution gates.
> - Users can continue the conversation without certifying every past
action.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Server task wake admission and native execution recovery.
**Problem or motivation**
A native task can remain blocked after automatic recovery stops. A new
user message is saved, but its run is cancelled before the agent can
answer.
**Proposed solution**
Use a new authenticated user comment to authorize a fresh turn. Check
stopped predecessor ownership and available history. Retain uncertain
action outcomes. Commit the new run and hold retirement together.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is a focused improvement to the existing self-healing runs and
recovery behavior.
Builds on merged #13237, which covers legacy conversation continuation.
This PR adds native admission and preserves native automatic-recovery
eligibility and budgets.
## What Changed
- Admit a fresh native turn for a new user comment after every held
predecessor has stopped.
- Validate the comment author, task, timing, process ownership,
controller, and cleanup leases.
- Preserve failed runs, unknown action outcomes, and the failed
incident's attempt count.
- Record the new comment and run in the existing recovery audit history.
- Validate the saved continuation source and discard consumed user-wake
authority from later automatic replacements.
- Keep pause, approval, budget, ownership, and dependency interaction
rules.
- Add database and actual wake-path regressions. Update the execution
contract.
## Verification
- [Full CI run
34626750213](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34626750213)
passed on `c58e6c087e0df7530c747d80b27d491da925a9c4`: all 31 reported
checks passed, including all server/workspace suites, browser shards,
native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and
aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped.
- Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. All review threads are
resolved, and security checks passed.
- All 218 local targeted tests passed across explicit native
continuation, continuation history, safe replacement, durable chat
wakeups, wake queue, issue liveness, native session resume, and run
dispatch. The native implementation is unchanged by the final rebase
onto master.
- Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the
final head. Complete test coverage is supplied by the green CI suites;
local tests used the targeted suites above.
- Regressions cover scoped authorization, concurrent delivery, live
ownership, later admission gates, retained message receipts, and
automatic replacement after terminal-task or reviewer changes.
## Risks
- A fresh model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip preserves
prior history and does not replay recorded calls.
- Missing process identity and remote ownership without a target-aware
stop proof retain the hold. A terminal database row alone does not prove
that execution stopped.
- No schema or dependency changes. Existing historical tasks are not
awakened by deployment.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and test execution. This session does not expose a more
specific model build 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>
