PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-11-12 14:19:00 +01:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	5978b7a1e0	fix(chat): tell chat agents when the Conference Room is enabled and what it is (#20036 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat lets a person talk to an agent in a standing conversation > - The Conference Room is a separate, experimental board chat surface at `/<prefix>/board-chat` > - A chat agent cannot read the experimental settings, so it cannot know that the Conference Room exists > - When a person asks to "discuss the launch in the conference room", the agent treats the phrase as a metaphor and asks launch questions > - This pull request tells the chat agent about the Conference Room only while the experiment is on > - The benefit is that the agent links the real surface and states its actual scope ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened A person said "Let us discuss the launch in the conference room." in Agent Chat on a local-trusted instance with Conference Room Chat enabled. The agent's reasoning asked whether the conference room is a Paperclip feature. It found no information, because the experimental settings endpoint is board-only. It replied with launch questions and gave no link to the Conference Room. Expected behavior The agent links the Conference Room (`/<prefix>/board-chat`) and says what it is: a separate board assistant whose history does not carry over from the chat. When the experiment is off, the agent does not mention it. Steps to reproduce 1. Enable Conference Room Chat in Instance Settings > Experimental on a local-trusted instance. 2. Open a chat with the CEO agent. 3. Send "Let us discuss the launch in the conference room." 4. See that the reply gives no Conference Room link. ## What Changed - Add `CONFERENCE_ROOM_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` in `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`. It gives the route as a Markdown link and states the real scope of the surface. - Render the directive in standing-chat task markdown only when `conferenceRoomEnabled` is true (`server/src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.ts`). - Set `conferenceRoomEnabled` from the experimental settings that the heartbeat already loads (`server/src/services/heartbeat/task-context.ts`). No new query runs before the turn starts. - Add a regression test for the enabled, disabled, and non-chat cases. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts` passes (16 tests). - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` passes. - End to end: the `agent-chat.conference-room` chat eval runs with this commit cherry-picked onto its case branch. ## Risks - Low risk. The text is added only to standing-chat context and only while the experiment is on. - The directive does not check the deployment mode. It says that the surface works only on a local single-operator instance, and the route itself refuses other deployments with a clear error. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-08 06:09:32 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	9dcf1e5c43	fix(chat): tell chat agents a task they cannot find may be private (#20027 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People talk to agents in chat, and the chat agent acts with the agent's own access > - Tasks can be private, and an agent cannot see a private task unless it has access > - The chat guidance did not tell the agent this, so a hidden task looked like a missing task > - The agent then searched through many other tools, endpoints and files, and the turn ran out before it answered > - This pull request adds one paragraph of chat guidance: a task the agent cannot find may be private, stop searching, and tell the person how to share it > - The benefit is a fast, honest answer that keeps the privacy boundary and gives the person a real next step ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened A person asked a chat agent to summarize a private task in the same company. The agent has no access to that task, so search returned nothing. The agent kept searching for about five minutes (tasks, documents, activity, chats, files, API catalog) and did not reply before the turn limit. Expected behavior The agent says that this chat cannot see the task, possibly because it is private. It does not search for a way around the boundary or guess the content. It tells the person that they can share the task with the agent from the task's sharing controls, or paste the parts they want. Steps to reproduce 1. In an authenticated instance, create a private task with you as the responsible user. 2. Do not share it with the CEO agent. 3. Open a chat with the CEO and ask: "Summarize the private acquisition task for me here." 4. Watch the run: the agent searches repeatedly and does not answer in a reasonable time. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: add a chat guidance paragraph. It says that private tasks are hidden from the agent's searches and lookups, that a task it cannot find may be private, that it must not search further or guess, and that the person can share the task from its sharing controls or paste the content. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: add a regression test for the new guidance. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` passes (50 tests). - Chat eval `access.private-resource` (runner-opencode), cherry-picked onto the eval branch: before the change, the agent searched for 4.5 minutes with no reply and the cell timed out. After the change, the run took 39 seconds and passed. The reply: "I can't see a private acquisition task from this chat. ... it's likely private or not shared with me. If you want a summary, open that task and share it with me from its sharing controls, or paste the relevant details here". ## Risks - Low risk. This is prompt guidance only. No API or permission behavior changes. - An agent can stop searching early for an open task that a vague query did not match. The guidance limits this to a task that one search does not find, and the agent still tells the person what it could not find. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-08 05:13:56 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	2175b8db93	fix(chat): link the agent profile page that holds a control, including API keys (#20008 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat agents send people to controls in the board UI when an action needs a human > - Agent API keys are board-only, so a chat agent must send the person to the agent's API keys controls > - The Refine-v2 agent page (#18378) removed API keys from the profile navigation; the page exists only at `/<prefix>/agents/<id>/api-keys` > - Chat guidance only told agents to link the bare profile, so replies said "open the profile and use the API keys section", which the person cannot find > - This pull request tells chat agents to link the profile subpage that holds the control > - The benefit is a one-click route to the right control, including the unlisted API keys page ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18378 What happened A person asked chat to give an agent a new API key. The agent correctly said that agents cannot create keys. It linked the agent's profile and told the person to use the "API keys section". The profile navigation has no API keys item, so the person cannot reach the control from that link. Expected behavior The reply links the agent's API keys page directly, so the person can create the key in one click. Steps to reproduce 1. In chat, ask the CEO agent: "Give Morgan a new API key called local integration." 2. The agent gets HTTP 403 "Board access required" and replies with a link to Morgan's profile. 3. Open the link. The profile navigation shows no API keys item. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: chat guidance now says to link the profile page that holds a control (`/api-keys`, `/identity`, `/runtime`, `/secrets`, `/permissions`). It says the API keys page is not in the profile navigation. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: regression test for the new guidance and its presence in the task prompt. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` (49 passed) - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts` (25 passed; it embeds the directive) - End to end: the `agents.agent-api-key` chat eval. Its human step follows the reply link to the API keys controls. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is prompt text only. Agents can link a subpage when a bare profile link was enough; the subpages are valid routes. - The UI gap stays: a person who does not use chat still cannot find API keys from the profile navigation. A separate UI change can add it back. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-08 04:06:55 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	201163793a	fix(chat): route another company's task identifier to a company switch (#19995 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A chat conversation and its agent credentials belong to one company > - A person can belong to more than one company and can paste a task identifier from another company into a chat > - The agent cannot read that task, and the lookup returns "not found", so the agent cannot tell another company's task from a missing task > - In the `access.other-company` chat eval, the agent searched for more than three minutes, decided the task did not exist, and asked the person to paste the brief > - This pull request adds chat guidance: a different identifier prefix means another company that this chat cannot read, so the agent tells the person to switch to that company and open a chat there, with a link to the task > - The benefit is a fast, correct refusal that gives the person a usable next step and keeps the company boundary ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened A person in company Acorn asked the Acorn chat agent to "Open BIR-1 and copy its brief into our launch task". BIR-1 belongs to the person's other company, Birch. The agent correctly could not read it (404). But the agent did not know that a different prefix means a different company. It searched tasks, the API catalog, the file system and its run logs for more than three minutes. It then decided BIR-1 did not exist and asked the person to paste the brief. The turn ran out of time before it posted a reply. Expected behavior The agent keeps the company boundary and does not search further. It tells the person that this chat can only work in this company, and that they can switch to the task's company and open a chat there. It links the task at `/<its prefix>/issues/<identifier>` so the person can open it. Steps to reproduce 1. Sign in as a person who is a member of two companies. 2. Open a chat with an agent in the first company. 3. Ask the agent to open a task identifier from the second company and copy its content. 4. See that the agent searches for a long time and then reports that the task does not exist. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: add one paragraph to `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE`. A task identifier with a different prefix belongs to another company or to none. A "not found" lookup does not prove that the task does not exist. The agent does not search further, guess or copy. It tells the person to switch companies and open a chat there, and links the task with the prefix from the identifier. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: add a regression test for the new guidance and its presence in the chat task prompt. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` (47 passed). - End to end: this commit is cherry-picked onto the eval branch `chat-eval/case-other-company`, together with a grader change that checks the rendered link to the task in its own company. The agent's reasoning quoted the new guidance. The full-stack chat eval `access.other-company` passed in https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42461513395: the agent replied in under three minutes, did not read or copy the task, and linked it. Following the link as the person opened the task in its own company. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is prompt guidance only. It does not change permissions or API behavior. - The guidance names the task's own prefix for one link. Other company links still use this conversation's prefix. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-08 03:08:38 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	1444b0d151	fix(chat): keep every listed task linked and send long lists to a document (#19994 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People ask agents in chat to show company work, for example all open tasks in a project. > - The chat links each full task identifier (such as `RUN-12`) to its task. The chat guidance tells agents how to write task links. > - The guidance says nothing about long lists. An agent that must list 501 tasks can compact them into ranges such as `RUN-76–82`. Only the first task of each range then gets a link. > - The person then cannot open most of the tasks from the reply. > - This pull request adds one guidance paragraph: write each identifier in full, and put a list that is too long for the reply in a document on the conversation's task, linked from the reply. > - The benefit is that every task in a long answer keeps a source link. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened A chat agent was asked to show all open work in a project with 501 open tasks, grouped by owner. Its reply had correct groups and counts. It wrote the identifiers as ranges, for example `RUN-1–2, RUN-76–82`. Chat linked only the first identifier of each range. 161 of the 501 tasks had no link. The agent's reasoning said it chose ranges because 501 separate links "would be enormous". Expected behavior Every task that a chat reply lists has a source link. When the list is too long for a reply, the agent puts the complete list in a document on the conversation's task and links that document from the reply. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a project with more than 500 open tasks. 2. In chat, ask the CEO agent: "Show me all open work in this project, grouped by owner, with blocked items first." 3. Read the reply. Identifiers written as ranges have a link only on the first task of each range. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the chat directive has a new paragraph after the agent-profile link paragraph. It tells agents to write each task identifier in full, says that a range links only its first task, and says to save a list that is too long for the reply as a conversation document linked as `/<prefix>/issues/<identifier>#document-<key>`, with a short summary and counts in the reply. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: a new test checks the three parts of the paragraph. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: 47 passed. The new test fails without the guidance change (1 failed, 46 passed). - The `#document-<key>` issue anchor is an existing UI route (`ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.ts`), and the server already builds it in `company-search.ts` and `feedback.ts`. - End-to-end: the `tasks.organize-open-work` chat eval runs this change on its case branch. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is guidance text only. There is no schema, API, or UI change. - The directive is slightly longer, so each chat turn has a few more prompt tokens. - An agent can still write a long inline list. The guidance does not force a document. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), agentic coding with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-08 02:52:01 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	c6781f5b2c	fix(chat): keep company links written as //PREFIX/... inside the app (#19986 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People ask chat agents about their work, and agents answer with Markdown links to tasks, runs and agents > - A chat agent sometimes writes a company link target with two leading slashes, for example `(//ACME/agents/<agentId>/runs/<runId>)` > - A browser reads that target as a link to a website whose host is `ACME`, so the link leaves the app and fails > - Task links still worked because the issue-reference parser finds `/issues/<id>` in any path, but run, approval and agent links did not > - This pull request renders such a link as the company path when its "host" is exactly a known company prefix, and tells chat agents to start link targets with one slash > - The benefit is that a person can open the run, approval or agent the agent linked ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Related, but different: #17864 (same-origin absolute links). What happened In a chat-feature eval, a person asked what happened on a failed website attempt. The agent read the run, explained the failure and linked both runs as `[...](//ACME/agents/<agentId>/runs/<runId>)`. The rendered anchors kept `href="//ACME/..."`, which opens `http://acme/...`. The agent made the same `//` slip in an earlier attempt of the same case. Expected behavior A link to a company page opens that page in the app. A target like `//ACME/...`, where `ACME` is a company prefix, can only mean the company path `/ACME/...`. Steps to reproduce 1. Render Markdown `[Failed run](//ACME/agents/a/runs/r)` in a chat or comment while the viewer belongs to company prefix `ACME`. 2. Inspect the anchor. 3. See `href="//ACME/agents/a/runs/r"`. Click it, and the browser goes to host `acme`. ## What Changed - `ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.tsx`: add `companyPathFromProtocolRelativeHref`. When a link target is `//<host>...` and `<host>` is exactly one of the viewer's company prefixes, render it as `/<host>...` (query and fragment kept). Other protocol-relative links, absolute URLs and renders without known prefixes stay unchanged. - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: chat guidance now says to start each link target with exactly one slash, because a `//` target points to a different website. - Tests for both. ## Verification - `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx`: 69 passed. With the normalization removed, the new company-path test fails (red/green checked). - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` gets one added `toContain` assertion for the new guidance sentence. I could not run that suite locally in this worktree (its linked workspace packages are from an older checkout), so CI supplies it. - End to end: the change is cherry-picked onto a chat-eval case branch and run through the remote `runs-adapters.inspect-failed-run` eval. ## Risks - Low risk. The rewrite applies only when the protocol-relative host matches a company prefix the viewer already has, exactly and case-sensitively. A real single-label intranet host with the same uppercase name as a company prefix would now open the company path instead. Chat guidance already forbids invented hostnames for Paperclip links. - Guidance text grows by one sentence. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-08 00:42:00 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	5742c42b75	fix(chat): tell agents to write company links as Markdown links (#19981 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - In chat, an agent often gives the person a link to the next place to act: a task, an approval, a run or an agent profile. > - Chat guidance gives the correct paths, but it does not say how to write them. > - The chat makes links from Markdown links and issue identifiers. It does not make a link from a bare `/<prefix>/approvals/<id>` path. > - An agent proposed a hire and wrote the approval as a bare path. The person could not click it to decide the approval. > - This pull request adds one sentence to the chat guidance: write every company link as a Markdown link. > - The benefit is that the person gets a link they can open. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19344 (similar guidance for completion feedback about created resources). What happened In the `agents.hire-needs-approval` chat eval, the CEO proposed a hire and replied with `- Review the pending hire: /RUN/approvals/<id>`. The chat rendered the path as plain text. No link to the approval was rendered. In an earlier run of the same case, the agent wrote `[/RUN/approvals/<id>](/RUN/approvals/<id>)`, which rendered as a link. The guidance did not say which form to use. Expected behavior Company links in chat replies are Markdown links that the person can click. Steps to reproduce 1. Set a company to require board approval for new agents. 2. Ask the CEO in chat to hire a QA engineer. 3. Look at the reply. Sometimes the approval path is plain text, and you cannot click it. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the chat directive now says to write every company link as a Markdown link, for example `[Review the approval](/<prefix>/approvals/<approvalId>)`. It says that a bare path or a path in inline code is not clickable. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: assert the new guidance. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`: 71 passed. - An end-to-end rerun of the `agents.hire-needs-approval` chat eval with this change follows on the eval branch. ## Risks - Low risk. This is a change to guidance text only. The prompt gets one sentence longer. - The model can still write a bare path. This change makes that less likely. It does not rewrite replies. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-07 23:37:07 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	a480335e69	fix(chat): tell agents how to read the company link prefix from a task identifier (#19967 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat agents reply with links to tasks, approvals, runs and agent profiles > - Each link starts with the company prefix, for example `/RUN/agents/<id>` > - The chat guidance said to derive the prefix from the task identifier, but it did not say how > - An agent decided that `RUN-1` does not give the prefix and invented one, so its links were broken > - This pull request states how to read the prefix and forbids prefixes built from names, slugs, hostnames or paths > - The benefit is that agent profile links and other company links in chat replies open the correct page ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened A person asked a CEO agent in chat to preview and then import a company package. The chat task was `RUN-1`. The agent's reasoning said: "Task identifier RUN-1 doesn't give prefix directly." The agent then linked agent profiles as `/runner-e2e/agents/<id>`. Each link opened "Organization not found: No organization matches prefix RUNNER-E2E". Expected behavior The agent links `/RUN/agents/<id>`. The guidance tells the agent that the prefix is the identifier part before the final hyphen and number. Steps to reproduce 1. Open a chat with a CEO agent in a company whose prefix differs from its slugified name. 2. Ask it to do something with another agent, for example import a package that creates an agent. 3. See that the reply can link `/<invented-prefix>/agents/<id>`, which opens "Organization not found". ## What Changed - Replace the task-link sentence in `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` (`server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`). It now says that the prefix is the identifier part before the final hyphen and number (`RUN-1` gives `RUN`). It says that all company links use that prefix. It forbids a prefix built from a company name, slug, hostname or path. - Add a regression test in `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` passes (46 tests). - An end-to-end check runs the `companies.import-preview` chat eval with this commit cherry-picked onto the eval branch. ## Risks - Low risk. This changes only prompt guidance text. Runtime behavior does not change. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-07 22:32:38 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	38d8ef89ca	fix(chat): link a person's own profile editor instead of attempting an agent write (#19943 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People talk to their agents in chat. The chat guidance tells the agent which links to give back. > - A person can ask the agent to change their own display name. Only the person can do this, in their profile settings. > - The chat guidance did not say where that page is. The agent searched the API and tried the human-only profile endpoint. The product correctly refused it. The reply then gave only vague "profile/account settings" directions. > - This pull request tells chat where the personal profile editor is, and that agent credentials cannot change a person's profile. > - The benefit is a reply with a link that the person can open to make the change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened In chat, a person wrote "Change my display name to Alex Chen." The agent spent about four minutes on API searches. It tried `PATCH /api/auth/profile`, and the product refused it. The reply told the person to use their "profile/account settings" but gave no link. Expected behavior The agent does not try to change the person's profile. It links the person's profile editor at `/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/profile`, so the person can change the name. Steps to reproduce 1. Sign in as a person in an authenticated deployment. 2. Open chat with the CEO agent. 3. Send "Change my display name to Alex Chen." 4. See that the reply has no link to the profile editor. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the chat directive now says that a person's own name and avatar change only in their profile settings at `/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/profile`. It says that agent credentials cannot edit a person's profile, and that renaming an agent, member record or company does not change it. The agent links that page instead of trying the change. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: a regression test checks the directive and the built chat prompt. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts -t "chat prompt policy"`: 10 passed. - The chat eval case `navigation-preferences.edit-profile` checks this end to end. It requires a link to the profile editor, and the person follows that link to save the new name. ## Risks - Low risk. This is a guidance change only. It adds no permission and changes no route. - Deployments that hide the Profile settings page get a link to a hidden page. The page gate still applies. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-07 21:03:35 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	47dc3dd9d0	fix(chat): ask which record is meant when a change matches several (#19942 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People use the agent chat to change records, for example task priority > - A request can name one record when several accessible records match it > - The chat guidance tells the agent to ask focused questions, but it does not say what to do when a reference matches several records > - In an eval run, the agent spent more than two minutes. It considered picking one task, changing both tasks, and asking. It did not reply before the run was cancelled > - This pull request adds one rule: ask which record is meant before changing any of them, and link each candidate > - The benefit is a fast, safe reply that does not change the wrong record ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened The person wrote "Mark the landing-page task as high priority." Two accessible tasks have the title "Landing page", in the projects Launch and Experiments. Nothing in the chat selected one. The agent searched, read both tasks, listed projects and searched the API. Its reasoning wavered between "ask", "change both" and "pick one". After about 130 seconds it had not replied, and the run was cancelled. Expected behavior The agent asks which task the person means. The question links both tasks, names what makes them different, and keeps the requested change. The agent changes no task until the person answers. Then it changes only the selected task. Steps to reproduce 1. Create two tasks with the same title in two different projects. 2. In the agent chat, ask to set "the <title> task" to high priority. 3. See that the guidance gives no rule for several matches, and the agent can deliberate, guess, or change both. Refs: chat-feature eval `tasks.ambiguous-task`. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` now says: when a change request matches several accessible records and nothing selects one, ask which one before changing any. Link each candidate, name the difference, and restate the change. Do not pick the first match, change every match, or keep searching for a hidden answer. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: a regression test checks the rule in the directive and in the built chat prompt. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts -t "chat prompt policy"` passes (10 tests). - End-to-end: the chat-feature eval `tasks.ambiguous-task` runs with this commit on an eval branch. The result is in a comment below. ## Risks - Low risk. This is a prompt-guidance change only. No API, schema or permission changes. - The agent can ask in more cases. The rule applies only when several records match and nothing in the conversation selects one. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-07 21:00:57 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	2fb4837cca	fix(chat): tell chat how to link execution runs and name their agents (#19889 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat lets a person ask an agent about work, such as the runs behind a task > - The chat guidance gives a link template for tasks only. It does not give one for execution runs > - The issue runs API returns `agentId` and the run `id`, but no agent name and no link > - So when a person asks "Show me the runs behind this website task", the agent lists raw UUIDs. It does not link each run. It does not name the agent that did the work > - This pull request adds the registered run route to the chat link guidance. It also tells chat to read the agent and name it, not show a raw ID > - The benefit is that a person can open each run (including the cancelled attempt) and sees who ran it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A chat agent was asked to show the runs behind a task that had a cancelled attempt and a successful retry. It read `GET /api/issues/{id}/runs` correctly, but its reply showed both runs as raw UUIDs in code spans and named the agent as "`fe03dd15…`, the Website Brief worker" instead of its name. It gave no run links. What did you expect? Each run links to its run detail page (`/<prefix>/agents/<agentId>/runs/<runId>`), and the reply names the agent that executed it. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a task assigned to an agent, cancel its first run, and retry it so a second run succeeds. 2. In chat, ask "Show me the runs behind this website task." 3. The reply lists run UUIDs without links and identifies the agent by ID. Refs #19614 (the chat catalog eval case `activity.find-runs` shows this failure). ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the chat link guidance now gives the run route `/<prefix>/agents/<agentId>/runs/<runId>` and tells chat to read and name the agent instead of showing a raw ID. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: a regression test checks that the run template matches the registered UI route and reaches the chat task prompt. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts -t "chat prompt policy"`: 7 passed. The new test fails without the guidance change. - `src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts` passes. - The embedded-Postgres suite in `agent-conversations.test.ts` did not start in my local sandbox (Postgres init error). It does not depend on this prompt text. CI runs it. - End-to-end: the chat catalog case `activity.find-runs` is rerun with this commit on its eval branch. ## Risks - Low risk. This is prompt guidance text only. No API, schema, or UI change. - It conflicts textually with #17985, which edits the same guidance line. The merge is simple: keep both sentences. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). Default reasoning mode. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-07 18:41:35 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	0f19eb39d3	fix(chat): link the profile of an agent chat acted on (#19893 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat lets a person ask the CEO agent to act on other agents, for example to resume a paused agent > - The chat guidance tells the agent how to link tasks, but it does not tell the agent how to link an agent profile > - In a chat eval, the CEO resumed Morgan and reported the result, but the reply had no link to Morgan > - The person then has no direct route to check the saved availability of the agent > - This pull request adds one guidance sentence for agent profile links > - The benefit is that a reply about an agent gives the person a link to that agent ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A person asked the chat agent: "Resume Morgan so they can pick up their work." The agent resumed Morgan through the API and reported the new status. The reply did not link Morgan's profile. The chat guidance gives only the task-link template (`/<prefix>/issues/<identifier>`), so the agent had no route for an agent. Expected behavior When a reply is about a specific agent, the reply links that agent's profile at `/<prefix>/agents/<urlKey or id>`. The link is a plain profile link. It is not an `agent://` mention, because a mention notifies the agent. Steps to reproduce 1. Pause an agent named Morgan. 2. In Agent Chat with the CEO, send "Resume Morgan so they can pick up their work." 3. Read the reply. It reports the resume but has no link to Morgan. Refs #19889 (adds the run-link template in the same guidance; this change merges cleanly with it). ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: add one sentence to the chat directive. It tells chat to link an affected agent's profile at `/<prefix>/agents/<urlKey or id>`, and to use `agent://` only to notify an agent. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: add a regression test that checks the directive and the built task prompt contain the profile-link guidance. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts -t "chat prompt policy"` passes (7 tests). - The new test fails on `origin/master`, because the directive does not contain the sentence. - The route exists in `ui/src/App.tsx` (`agents/:agentId`), and the UI accepts a url key or an id. - End to end: the `agents.resume-agent` chat eval runs with this change on its case branch. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds prompt text only. No API, schema, or UI behavior changes. - The prompt becomes one sentence longer. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), agentic coding with tool use (shell, file edit), extended reasoning. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-07 16:28:00 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	29b6411660	fix(chat): give chat replies the approval route (#19892 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat lets a person ask their agent about company state, such as "What decisions are waiting on me?" > - The chat directive tells the agent how to link a task: `/<prefix>/issues/<identifier>` > - The directive gives no route for an approval, and the approval tools return no href > - The completion feedback tells the agent not to guess routes, so the agent names a pending approval but cannot link it > - The person then cannot open the approval from the chat to decide it > - This pull request adds the approval route that the board UI already serves to the chat directive > - The benefit is that a chat reply can link each pending approval to its exact source ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? In the Agent Chat eval `inbox-search.show-decisions`, the person asked "What decisions are waiting on me?". The agent found the pending hire approval and listed it. It did not link it. Its recorded reasoning said that it had no known href for approvals and that it must not invent URLs. Task sources in the same reply had working links. Expected behavior The reply links the pending approval, so the person can open it and decide it. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a pending `hire_agent` approval in a company. 2. In Agent Chat, ask "What decisions are waiting on me?". 3. See that the reply names the approval but gives no link to it. Paperclip version or commit `master` at the base of this branch. Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core bug). The chat directive is shared by all runners. ## What Changed - `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` now says to link approvals as `/<prefix>/approvals/<approvalId>`, with the same company prefix as task links. The board UI serves this route (`approvals/:approvalId` in `ui/src/App.tsx`). - Added a regression test that the directive gives routes for both tasks and approvals and keeps the "never invent a hostname" rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` passes (41 tests). The new test fails without the directive change. - End to end: the change is cherry-picked onto the eval branch `chat-eval/case-show-decisions` and run in the Runner Full-Stack E2E workflow for `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.inbox-search.show-decisions`. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds one sentence to the chat prompt. It does not change routes, permissions or tool results. - The prompt becomes slightly longer for every chat turn. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, GitHub CLI). ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-07 16:27:47 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	384fa2b7be	Allow context compaction while Agent Chat waits (#19801 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - Agent Chat can wait for a user between useful turns. > - The task Properties panel already lets that user request context compaction. > - The queue treated that maintenance request as an ordinary wake and refused it while the chat waited. > - Compaction must maintain that session without starting a new conversation turn. > - This change admits the authenticated request, preserves the waiting state during execution, and prevents competing requests from saving extra maintenance work. > - Ordinary and unauthorized wakes remain blocked. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19378, which introduced the existing Compact now action. Refs #19377, whose review identified this independent queue admission gap. Searches for `context_compaction` with `waiting` and `Compact now` with `waiting` found no existing fix for this admission bug. What happened? An owner clicks Compact now for a waiting Agent Chat conversation. The real compaction service reaches the heartbeat queue, receives no run, and reports that compaction did not start. Expected behavior The authenticated owner can request one separate compaction run while the chat waits. The request must keep its existing actor, task, agent, budget, and execution checks. Ordinary waiting-chat wakes must stay blocked. Steps to reproduce 1. Use an open Agent Chat conversation whose agent supports compaction. 2. Wait until the conversation is waiting for its owner. 3. Request Compact now from the task Properties panel. 4. Observe the refusal before this fix. The new database regression calls the real compaction service and queue to reproduce it. ## What Changed - Admit only the existing complete manual compaction envelope. Require a user actor, no coalescing, the compaction intent, and matching nonempty request IDs. - Preserve the waiting conversation state, session generation, reply boundary and unanswered questions in the existing conversation preparation owner. - Recheck active and deferred maintenance under the existing issue admission lock. Competing clicks cannot save a second maintenance request. - Add execution coverage with and without a pending question. Add concurrent admission and deferred-request controls, including admission after the pending receipt is cancelled. Keep the existing authorization and ordinary conversation controls. ## Verification - The original service-to-queue request failed before the admission fix. - The execution regression then caught the review finding: compaction succeeded, but both waiting-state controls failed. The same complete controls passed after the conversation preparation fix. - A real concurrent request test recorded two durable maintenance receipts before the atomic admission fix. It counts deferred authority as well as admitted runs. - Current integrated candidate: normal current Runner core and surface TypeScript exports passed. All seven normal App typecheck programs passed. The whole queue/execution suites passed 86/86, the whole context-compaction suite passed 5/5, and 11 selected ordinary conversation controls passed. There were 102 actual passes; the 29 unselected conversation cases are not counted as passes. - Database controls use fresh dedicated PostgreSQL 17 databases, Node 24, one test worker and pools capped at four. Private fixture adapters use the existing dedicated database and normal migrations. They keep test bodies, assertions and time limits intact. - Earlier fixture and setup failures remain recorded separately from product failures. These include an omitted external URL, an invalid closed-task fixture, a missing crypto import, an incorrect result-envelope matcher, and an unavailable test-library helper. Each was corrected at its owning boundary. A test-output text matcher also missed Vitest's abbreviated failure; the raw assertion stack and failure were retained. - Local session tests exercise the actual admission, native Runner lifecycle, accepted result and persisted conversation state through the supported test backend. They do not prove live provider compaction, UI rendering or deployed suspension. - Exact-head remote CI passed: 59 successful checks, three intentional skips and one neutral check. Greptile and Ponytail both reviewed this head at 5/5 with no actionable findings. Ponytail explicitly marked it Ship. - Master advanced during review. A local merge evaluation preserves every unrelated master change and all four PR files. The current App programs and all three execution controls passed again on that projected squash tree to check the workspace-finalization seam. ## Risks The change affects admission and preparation for one maintenance request. A broad exception could start ordinary work or reopen a waiting chat. The request therefore keeps the complete existing manual envelope and authorization checks. Conversation preparation still checks the session generation. The existing issue lock owns duplicate admission. There is no new timer, database migration or provider protocol. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6 managed the change and reviewed the shared queue fix. OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` authored the focused regression coverage. Both used reasoning, repository tools and local code execution. The runtime did not expose the 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 (the existing Compact now documentation remains accurate; no new configuration is added) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-11-07 05:11:44 -06:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	958f9aa9f3	feat(issues): limit agent-created task trees to parent and child (#19312 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents split work into tasks. A task can have a parent task. > - Today agents can nest tasks to any depth: parent, child, grandchild, and deeper. > - Deep agent-made trees are hard to follow, and an agent that works on a child task makes grandchildren by default. > - This pull request limits agent-created trees to two levels: a top-level task and its children. > - A request for a grandchild does not fail. The server puts the new task beside the requester and tells the agent. > - Board users keep full control. They can still nest to any depth. Existing deep trees stay valid. > - The pull request also records which task created each new task, so the audit trail stays complete when the parent changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. This is the feature description. Related: #16853 (budgets that include descendant work) also reasons about task trees; this change does not alter its traversal. Subsystem affected Issues (tasks): create, child create and move in the issue service and routes. Agent tools, chat suggestions and creation provenance use these paths. Problem or motivation Agents create subtasks as deep as they want. An agent that runs on a child task gets that child as the default parent, so its follow-ups become grandchildren. The trees become deep and hard to read. The parent link is also the only record of which task created a follow-up, so that record is lost when the parent changes. Proposed solution Limit agent-created trees to a parent and its children. When an agent asks for a grandchild, put the new task under the requester's parent and return `parentAdjusted`. Do not reject the request. Keep board users unrestricted. Record the originating task in a new server-set `origin_issue_id` column. Keep `origin_run_id` as the originating run. Alternatives considered Reject grandchild requests with an error. We did not do this, because agents then fail mid-task. Add a database constraint. We did not do this, because existing deep trees must stay valid and nesting can return later. ## What Changed - Add `MAX_AGENT_TASK_HIERARCHY_DEPTH` (2) and the `IssueParentAdjustment` type in `packages/shared`. - Add `resolveNewTaskParent` and `planIssueParentChange` in `server/src/services/issues.ts`. `create`, `createChild` and `update` use the agent limit by default (`parentDepthPolicy: "flatten"`). - The issue create, `/children` and PATCH routes pass `allow_nested` for board users. For agents, the routes check authorization against the parent that the server actually writes. - The requester keeps its behavior when the server moves a task beside it: `blockParentUntilDone` blocks the requester, and the new task inherits the requester's workspace and privacy. - The server never moves a task above a low-trust boundary root that contains the requester. - These subsystems keep any depth, because they find their work by parent: watchdog reviews, monitor recovery, email-channel placement, and routines that a person configured. - An agent move of a task that has children skips only the parent change and returns `reason: "has_children"`. - Add `issues.origin_issue_id` (nullable, `on delete set null`, indexed) in migration `0434`. Only the server sets it. The `createdFrom` detail field, the `createdFromIssueId` filter and task-creation provenance read it first. - Chat prompts now let a chat agent create one task, a task with children, or separate tasks. The conversation is never a parent. - The runner `create_task` tool accepts an optional `parentTaskId`. A chat agent can create a top-level task and then put subtasks under it. The run must be able to read and change the parent. A conversation is never a parent. The depth limit still applies. Project tools map the field to `parentId` through the issue route. The protocol manifest, semantic contracts and eval fixture are regenerated. - Watchdog runs that have an active watchdog keep their requested parent on all create paths, because their access is limited to the watched subtree. - Fix a bug that the test drive found: the chat (MCP) `create_task` ignored the requested `status`, so a `backlog` task became `todo` and started to run. It now uses the same rule as the native tool. - Update `skills/paperclip`, `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and add the plan `doc/plans/2026-11-05-two-level-task-hierarchy.md`. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-task-hierarchy-depth.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-task-hierarchy-depth-routes.test.ts`: 19 new tests for service and route behavior, all pass. - Related suites (64 files: issues service, thread interactions, privacy, watchdogs, provenance, runner tool authority, decisions, routines, project tools): 1208 tests pass. Two tests changed because of the intended behavior and pass now. Two `email-channels.integration` tests fail locally because the test cannot find a bundled skill file from this worktree path. This change does not touch that code. - `packages/db`: migration safety, snapshot drift and journal tests pass. - Typecheck passes for `server`, `packages/shared`, `packages/db`, `cli` and `ui` (local `ui` errors come only from generated Storybook catalog files that are absent). - Local test drive on an isolated instance with real Claude agents: 29 of 29 use cases pass, including an agent on a child task (follow-ups placed beside it, with the notice) and a chat that creates a top-level task with three subtasks. - I did not run the full `pnpm test:run` or `pnpm build` locally. CI runs them. ## Risks - Behavior change for agents: some follow-ups that were grandchildren are now siblings. The parent of the requester is woken when all its children finish, which now includes these tasks. - The runner `create_task` input contract adds one optional field, so the protocol manifest and the pack contract change. The tool output does not change: it shows the actual `parentId`, and the activity log records `parentAdjusted`. - Migration `0434` adds a nullable column, a foreign key and an index. It does not backfill rows. - `IssueCreationSource.run` is now nullable. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edits, local test runs). ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-05 21:22:33 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	66e8fab944	fix: complete native chat responses and improve API discovery (#18364 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip must perform work and report its outcome accurately. > - A chat response and its delegated or operator-owned work are separate stages. > - Native chat contracts instead required literal completion of the user's whole request. > - Agents kept searching or waiting even when a truthful handoff should finish the response. > - OpenCode also has separate acknowledgement backlog and empty-response failure paths. > - This PR aligns chat completion with its current stage and makes OpenCode completion truthful. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18098 for retained OpenCode evidence and #18377 for separate eval setup, oracle and reporting repairs. What happened? Real pinned OpenCode 1.18.34 reproduced an MCP timeout behind 800 text fragments. Pilot [41222196525](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41222196525) separately exposed a fabricated successful reply after a reasoning-only response. Later restart attempts timed out without an answer. Their native criterion literally required restarting the instance, although the chat instructions and authority required an operator handoff. General authority guidance alone did not resolve it. Expected behavior: A standing chat completes its current authorized response. It performs and verifies permitted actions, verifies delegated handoffs, or explains the specific unavailable action and operator path. The worker's task remains separate. Ordinary execution tasks must still complete their requested work. Empty provider responses must not become invented success. Version and reproduction: Actual pinned OpenCode and native Rust Runner, with retained full-stack AWS attempts. Product baseline master `51ea624344`. This PR adds no historical catalog to master. ## What Changed - Build standing-chat completion contracts from the server-owned conversation identity. Scope each current request to the response stage; preserve request text, criterion IDs, order, human-response scope and source revisions. Require verified authorized actions and truthful handoffs. Ordinary task contracts stay strict. Existing admitted inputs retain their saved contract during recovery; new contract content uses the existing revision/hash mechanism. - Guide prospective defaults to their owning resource and preserve existing work unless backfill is requested. Guide unavailable board/operator operations to the supported handoff. These are general chat instructions with no eval identities or expected answers. - Batch adjacent assistant text for at most 50 ms and 4,000 UTF-8 bytes. Preserve text, metadata and order; flush before non-text frames and shutdown. - Give an empty OpenCode response one correction within its existing turn, model, reasoning, context and deadline. Accept actual completed answer parts with incomplete headers. Preserve actual active tool work, bound idle evidence grace and fail truthfully if correction stays empty. - Reject empty OpenCode terminals in Rust without actual prose or an accepted semantic result. Never invent successful replies or evidence. Refresh generated project-discovery contracts. - Preserve accurate public API-discovery descriptions for existing project defaults and managed instance restart operations, including their field scope and authority limits. ## Verification Qualified: [pilot 41256592937](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41256592937) passes 3/3, with all 35 independent checks passing. \| Case \| Checks \| Full case duration \| Evidence and cleanup \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| Instance restart \| 9/9 \| 140.1 s \| complete \| \| Project defaults \| 11/11 \| 204.2 s \| complete \| \| Project work \| 15/15 \| 204.0 s \| complete \| All three are original-attempt results from source `c51e079f7f2364305b131ffd549e263ff78c5335`, containing the exact product files from `13c2b61f31d873a475ea0c3c026b19926ff42301`. Actual saved conversation contracts were inspected, as were ordinary native worker contracts where present. Each protected archive includes the actual API state and final PNG; cleanup completes. Original queries, `openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017`, finite case clocks, concurrency one and zero eval retries are preserved. Earlier passes do not transfer into this qualification. Both current heads pass all checks: product 62 (56 success, one neutral, five skipped), catalog 56 (54 success, one neutral, one skipped). Both have exact-head Greptile 5/5, zero unresolved review threads and clean mergeability. The three trusted private-evidence protocol files remain byte-identical to the dispatch workflow. Raw evidence stays protected. - 2,044 API discovery tests pass. Red controls showed that “restart instance” selected unrelated drain/settings operations and “save project defaults” selected repository replacement. Accurate public summaries now rank the existing operations correctly; route registration preserves descriptions. No endpoint, permission or field behavior changes. - 112 real-database, authenticated HTTP, native Runner and OpenAPI consumer tests pass locally, using disposable task-owned Docker PostgreSQL. It was removed afterward; shared IPC was untouched. These cover persisted contract selection, admitted native input and the model envelope together. The isolated CI suites also pass. - 77 focused contract/input/context tests pass. Red controls catch the wrong conversation predicate; canonical identity requires both agent and user IDs, including the actual heartbeat projection. Ordinary tasks, agent-only issues and planner tasks remain strict. Coalesced requests preserve criterion identities, source hashes and human-response scope. - 144 OpenCode driver tests pass; native core 441 pass, one ignored; packaging 56 pass, six skipped. Server typecheck and build pass. - Real pinned OpenCode/native Runner: a delayed 25-second acknowledgement completes within the original 30-second MCP deadline. The text-fragment control changes 817 notifications / 54.1 seconds / timeout to 45 / 19.0 seconds / accepted finish. Separate fast, six-minute and real authenticated API probes complete 32 tool calls plus finish. These do not reproduce every remaining historical MCP timeout, and no common cause is claimed for all such failures. Retained failures remain attributed to their original source. Earlier runs exposed fabricated empty-response success, prospective-default backfill, a literal whole-task chat criterion, fixture readiness and oracle/reporting defects. The immediately preceding [41250502608](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41250502608), product `c0bf249807` / source `7b1de24ce1`, is 1/3: work 15/15; restart 4/9 with the repaired contract actually admitted but no answer; defaults timed out before settlement, then exceeded the unchanged 256 MiB original-evidence allowance. Defaults domain behavior on that attempt remains inconclusive. #18377 retains the full attempt ledger, including missing archives and pre-paid cancellations. The fresh 3/3 establishes these selected outcomes; it does not establish full-catalog reliability. ## Risks The shared contract change applies to standing native chats across providers. It changes model instructions and completion scope, while permission, approval and review gates remain enforced by their existing owners. Incorrect model claims remain possible; the product evals independently require actual mutations, native work and delivery. The correction adds at most one provider request within the existing deadline; text batching can delay adjacent text by 50 ms. Three qualified attempts do not establish full-catalog reliability. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, tool use, code execution and live eval tooling. Exact hosted model revision and context-window size are not exposed. ## 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 #` 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 - [x] Final same-source three-cell pilot passes 3/3 with required evidence and cleanup --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-31 19:52:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b6b57079b9	fix: evaluate status cards on committed changes and deadlines (#18401 ) Reviewed and verified at `21795e222a`. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-31 11:41:59 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	42fd568cf8	Drive issue recovery from committed changes and exact deadlines (#18402 ) Reviewed and verified at `11b49125db`. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-31 09:41:27 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8ff812cdde	feat(chat): deliver proactive task messages to agent chats (#18374 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat gives each person a persistent conversation with each agent. > - Tasks and routines produce results outside that conversation. > - Those runs need a safe way to bring a requested result back to the person. > - The server must select the agent's own chat and check the source task's access rules. > - This pull request adds proactive chat messages and unread indicators. > - People can see the result, open its source task, and reply in the same chat. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Server, native runner tools, shared contracts, database, and UI. Problem or motivation An agent can report progress on a task or comment on an authorized task. It cannot send a routine result to its own standing chat with the responsible person. A morning review routine therefore cannot leave a visible digest in that person's chat. Proposed solution Add `send_chat_message({body, idempotencyKey})` and `POST /api/agents/me/chat/messages`. The server selects the company, agent, and responsible person from the active run. It saves an attributed comment and audit record in one transaction. The chat shows a source-task link and per-person unread state. Alternatives considered A destination parameter on a generic comment tool would expose unnecessary routing authority. A new delivery worker would add another durable delivery path. This change uses a dedicated tool and the existing comment and live-event paths. Roadmap alignment This extends the experimental Agent Chat capability in `ROADMAP.md`. The existing `enableAgentChat` setting controls it. Related public work: Refs #13282, Refs #13283, and Refs #14408. Searches for proactive chat and unread chat found no duplicate PR. ## What Changed - Add a focused messaging service shared by the native tool and HTTP route. It checks current run ownership, execution mode, recipient membership, task access, and task privacy. - Reuse the canonical company/agent/person conversation. Save the comment and audit record together. Keep task completion and chat execution separate from delivery. - Add source-task provenance and source-scoped retry keys. Identical retries return the saved receipt. Changed content returns a conflict. - Enforce the conversation's fixed agent at the shared comment-write boundary. Keep normal reply cancellation and session checks. - Add chat unread state, accessible agent dots, aggregate Chat indicators, and visible-message read cutoffs. Refresh through existing live events. - Add the request-key constraint, native tool contracts, documentation, capability maps, stories, and regression coverage. ## Verification - Local delivery/security proof: all 38 proactive-message cases pass. Eight credential-scope regressions and four quota regressions fail against the prior source. The repaired delivery and canonical cross-issue cap suites pass all 49 cases; all 31 OpenAPI tests, server typecheck, and capability-map checks pass. The shared per-run cap covers native and HTTP sends, mixed ordinary mutations, concurrent last-slot contention, and retry/recovery without double charging. - Credential tests preserve the authenticated person and authorizer; reject bridge/test credentials and persisted skill-test runs after task-mode changes; and recheck API-key revocation, scope, and responsible person after destination locking. The earlier delivery/native-authority suites passed all 74 cases before the four quota additions. - Four PostgreSQL contention cases cover native and HTTP sends plus retries during a native chat mutation. All four deadlock against the earlier source and pass with destination-before-source/run locking. Recovery and human-reply delivery enqueue only the human comment; a proactive digest never wakes the chat agent. - Passed 108 companion conversation, native-authority, and OpenAPI tests; 112 runner catalog/workflow-report tests; 47 completion-delivery tests; and 25 project-handoff tests. Focused runner tests cover native tool availability without generic API tools. - All 327 affected UI tests, UI typecheck, token gates, and catalog checks pass. The read hook retries at most three times, respects server retry delay, coalesces only seen cutoffs, recovers on reconnect, and cancels on scope changes. - Real browser journeys with a deterministic process agent verify routine-to-chat delivery, first-chat creation, unread state across reload, the source link, secondary chat navigation, and a follow-up reply referring to the digest. This does not qualify live GitHub retrieval or model output quality. - The Storybook showcase uses production components with deterministic network fixtures. Rendered interactions pass for the landing, ordinary read success, transient read recovery, and persistent failure after bounded retries. Both Chat navigation variants update from two unread chats to one while only Kodi's dot clears. Mobile and light variants were reviewed. The existing Coordinator Recents label contrast finding is unchanged; no Linux visual baseline archive exists. - Current master's independent sandbox migration retains 0418. Regenerated the feature migration as 0419 from the combined schema and retained exactly the newest five snapshots; numbering/safety, replay, and schema-drift checks pass. - Workspace typecheck and build passed before PR preparation; canonical server/UI typechecks passed again on the combined tree. Migration `0419_slippery_impossible_man.sql` passes safety and schema drift checks on disposable PostgreSQL, including interrupted index repair, concurrent migrators, one-time owner read-state backfill, preserved receipts, and two SQL replays. A default five-second local snapshot comparison timed out; a diagnostic 30-second run passed without drift. - Earlier failures are retained in the record: full local `pnpm test:run` and broad shards encountered embedded-PostgreSQL startup, timing, and provider-recovery failures. Thirteen selected external-channel cases pass in isolation on the original and changed sources; an unordered comment-row assertion now explicitly orders both reads. The earlier route registry, native tool count, runner catalog, and accessible Chat badge-name failures were fixed and passed full remote CI on `920b3bb7db`. - Repeated managed-skill server8 failures came from CI's newer synthetic merge: its Cloud guard correctly rejected the old local-disk fixture. Master independently repaired the fixture in #18385; this branch keeps that repair unchanged. All 57 managed-skill and Cloud prerequisite cases pass on the combined tree, and that fixture has no remaining PR diff. - Current reviewed head `dc16f314739a6d977bed21cb1446d0e80a541578`: Greptile 5/5 with no findings, Superagent security assessment passed, advisory Paperclip Review 5/5 with no findings, and zero open review threads. All 55 current-head check runs pass, with five expected skips and the advisory review neutral at 5/5; Snyk also passes. No checks are pending or failing. Protected squash auto-merge is enabled and is waiting for required code-owner approval. A normal exact-head merge was refused by the base-branch policy; no admin bypass was used. The previous head's Superagent quota finding is fixed and covered above. ## Risks - Chat remains company-visible. Delivery rejects a source task with private-task, project, or ancestor restrictions. - Read state uses a comment timestamp cutoff. The server retains database precision and never moves a read receipt backward. - The new unique constraint changes comment query planning. An existing regression now uses an explicit row order. The migration builds the unique index concurrently, then takes a brief table lock to attach it. It uses the existing top-level migration and interrupted-index recovery path. - The upgrade backfills missing chat-owner read-state rows at the latest existing agent comment. Existing read receipts remain intact. New chats can still be unread before the human participates. - Quota observation commits atomically with delivery. A rejected send rolls back its attempted denial audit row and any first-chat creation; the canonical warning remains in server logs, and previously spent quota remains enforced. Identical/conflicting retries and receipt recovery spend no extra slot. - This version delivers in-app only. It adds no external-channel, push, or email delivery. - Local full-suite acceptance remains limited by the failures recorded above. The feature stays behind `enableAgentChat`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex. PR preparation and CI work used `gpt-6.1-sol` with tool use and code execution. The earlier implementation also used Codex, but its exact model ID was not recorded in the visible session. The context-window size was not provided. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass; the broad local failures are recorded above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-30 21:39:07 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Codex	ba07f85cad	perf: schedule agent timers from durable deadlines (#17876 ) <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/58/changes/paperclip/58 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent timers must start due work and preserve queue admission rules. > - The server woke their scan on every heartbeat interval, even with no eligible timer. > - Idle scans keep the database and instance active. > - This pull request derives the next deadline from saved policy and work records. > - Supported producer transactions notify the shared coordinator when eligibility changes. > - An idle timer worker stops scanning and resumes when real work or a deadline requires it. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17863. This is slice 63 of the recurring-work migration and follows the merged issue-monitor deadline PR. Related: #16632 changes timer issue scope; #16881 changes live-run eligibility. This PR preserves the current admission policy. Those policy changes are separate work. A future time-sensitive predicate must expose its next transition deadline. What existing behavior does this improve? Agent timer heartbeat scheduling in the server. Current behavior A recurring heartbeat wakes the timer scan even when companies are paused, timers are disabled, or no actionable task exists. Proposed behavior Register the earliest eligible interval or positive daily-cap reset deadline. Re-read on supported producer commits and startup. Leave no recurring database scan when no timer obligation remains. ## What Changed - Keep policy and deadline calculation in the heartbeat queue. Scheduling retains company, reporting-chain, worktree, and CAS gates. - Use the existing deadline coordinator. Remove only the timer wake from the server heartbeat loop. - Notify before existing transaction writes that change eligibility or deadlines. Cover configuration, lifecycle, company budgets, task ownership, recovery, conversations, accounting corrections, and completion. - Use the lifecycle status-change hook for saved hire rejection. Cover checkout's second adoption transaction after an initial failed CAS. - Preserve pending work through idle and maintenance drains. Check cancellation between due agents. Reconstruct on restart. - Document the supported writer model and producer inventory. Add no schema, table, or provider branch. ## Verification - 1,710 passing cases across 49 complete files, no skips, on accepted source `32db86c1974dcbf794f01a8c5e42024e2ad071fc`. Coverage includes real timer policy/CAS/producers, monitor and shared deadline consumers, native reconstruction, Slack lifecycle, skills/settings/configuration, queue isolation and agent lifecycle. - Database build, production server typechecking/build, module boundaries, target migration order and Runner profile identity pass. Twenty-nine fresh PostgreSQL 17 schemas plus per-file fixtures applied all 412 journal entries through index 413; all selected source hashes and temporary fixture imports were restored exactly. - Four new deadline composition cases verify future/overdue timing, minimum scan spacing and disarming. A controlled mutation dropping only the inherited continuation option fails; the composed source passes with identical assertions and timers. - Normal parent reconciliation preserves task-drain expiry and both deadline contracts. The final monitor-parent publication changes only its audit, preserving every qualified runtime and selected test source. - Historical failures and review corrections remain in [the timer audit](doc/idle-agent-timers.md). No full local repository-suite, live provider, measured suspend/wake, external-alarm or fleet-savings claim. Final-head CI/security, exact-head Greptile 5/5 and actionable Ponytail findings remain separate merge gates. ## Risks - Process-local notifications cover supported service/API writers in one server process. Direct SQL and independent replicas need an explicit ingress contract. Startup reconstruction is not live cross-process notification. - Notifications can batch for up to the configured heartbeat interval. Known deadlines retain their scheduler path; failed reconciliation retains bounded retry. - Enabled timers without an actionable-work requirement remain real recurring obligations. Zero caps require policy changes; positive reached caps use UTC midnight. - The timer fixture substitutes adapter enqueue. Existing admission tests also pass, but this is not deployed provider or sleep qualification. - Cloud does not gain legacy agent timer alarms in this PR. Existing sleep-safety blockers remain. No database/host suspension or fleet savings claim is made. - Parent-stack CI and review must pass before merge. This PR does not authorize merging its dependencies. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6-based coding agent), using repository inspection, normal Git merges, composition proofs, a controlled red/green regression and complete PostgreSQL integration suites. No subagents were used in this reconciliation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com>	2026-10-29 08:58:27 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Codex	0f6f0a3fee	fix(server): schedule issue monitors without heartbeat polling (#17863 ) <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/56/changes/paperclip/56 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue monitors save a future check on an existing issue. > - The heartbeat timer still scans monitors on every tick, even when none are due. > - The saved deadline and claim already provide durable scheduling state. > - This pull request gives monitors their own deadline worker and connects state changes to it. > - Idle monitor work stops querying. Existing admission and recovery rules remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17840, #16325. Related: #17171 addresses rearming a monitor after its admitted run fails. This PR changes when monitor inspection runs and follows the merged routine prerequisite. What existing behavior does this improve? Issue-monitor scheduling and idle database use. Current behavior Heartbeat ticks call the combined agent and monitor sweep. The existing next-deadline query only retains future monitors. Polling covers overdue leftovers, stale claims, and changes that make a saved monitor eligible. Proposed behavior Use the shared deadline worker. Retain overdue work with bounded retries. Wake after committed changes to monitor state, issue eligibility, company state, or native ownership. Keep legacy agent ticks separate for the next slice. ## What Changed - Add monitor-specific sweep and deadline methods to the existing scheduling owner. Keep the manual combined method. - Include overdue work and the strict five-minute claim fence. Exclude active native owners until their state changes. - Register monitors with the shared deadline worker. Heartbeat ticks wake only the legacy agent timer worker. - Connect direct issue-state writers and existing execution-control notifications to monitor work. Checkout uses a short transaction around its existing CAS. Provider work stays outside it. - Add real database lifecycle tests and retain routine, startup, admission, execution-control, and native-projection coverage. - Record the obligation, producer inventory, recovery behavior, and limits in `doc/plans/2026-10-27-issue-monitor-sleep-audit.md`. ## Verification - 1,233 passing cases in 35 complete files, no skips, on accepted source `c24aadfc91e9394d73c799f9e05fc67202160557`. Coverage includes real monitor scheduling/admission, native settlement, committed producers, retained routines and all shared deadline consumer integration suites. - Database build, production server typechecking/build, module boundaries, target migration order and Runner profile identity pass. Twenty-four fresh PostgreSQL 17 schemas plus per-file fixtures applied all 412 journal entries through index 413; every selected source hash and temporary fixture import was restored exactly. - Normal parent reconciliation preserves master's admitted-wake result and scoped issue deletion while keeping committed monitor notifications. All other paths match the automatic merge; packages remain byte-exact to the qualified parent. The final routine-parent publication changes only its audit. - Historical failures and corrections remain in [the monitor audit](doc/plans/2026-10-27-issue-monitor-sleep-audit.md). Old delegated-Slack rate and Runner drain CI failures are retained; the current inherited clock fixture and package source are byte-identical to merged #17835. Fresh final-head CI remains required. - No full local repository-suite, live provider, deployed suspend/wake, external-alarm, production-load or fleet-savings claim. Final-head CI/security, exact-head Greptile 5/5 and actionable Ponytail findings remain separate merge gates. ## Risks - A missing producer notification can strand a monitor after polling is removed. The audit covers ordinary writes, direct status/assignment writers, recovery, and native ownership changes. - The writer model is process-local. Independent SQL writers and other replicas need a supported notification or reconciliation contract. - Overdue work uses the configured heartbeat interval as a retry floor for the monitor worker. New notifications during that backoff wait for its next pass. Normal state-change bursts coalesce for one second. - Notification fanout can inspect monitors during other active work. An unchanged idle subsystem has no recurring monitor scan. - The legacy agent timer still polls. Cloud sleep proofs and external alarm coverage are unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6-based coding agent), using repository inspection, ordinary Git merges, composition proofs, PostgreSQL fixtures and complete local integration suites. No subagents were used in this reconciliation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com>	2026-10-29 08:40:56 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4e715eb7ea	fix(server): schedule historical unsafe export recovery (#17687 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs can retain accepted results after an unsafe workspace export fails. > - Historical recovery can retire an old notice or resume the accepted result without another provider turn. > - The periodic reaper repeatedly scans failures that cannot currently recover. > - Existing rows and committed changes can identify the actual recovery obligation. > - This pull request wakes recovery from those changes and retries only owed work. > - Dormant history becomes quiet while ownership and explicit operator decisions remain protected. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The native finalization reaper repeatedly visits historical unsafe workspace-export failures. Cancelled tasks, newer runs, changed contracts, and explicit operator decisions can make those rows permanently ineligible. They still produce periodic database reads. What did you expect? Retire stale unsafe-export notices and recover eligible accepted results. Stop reading dormant history until a relevant committed change occurs. Keep a retry while a real obligation is blocked by ownership or a transient failure. Steps to reproduce Retain an unsafe-export terminal failure whose task is cancelled or superseded. Leave the instance idle after startup. The periodic reaper continues reading that history. Prerequisite #17680 is merged into master. Related: #14402 established safe export finalization; #14329 was an earlier historical recovery proposal. #17679 owns separate policy-review cleanup. This PR changes only historical unsafe-export scheduling and its producers. ## What Changed - Register a scoped worker through the existing coordinator and scheduler. Remove this duty from periodic reaping. Preserve the manual/startup recovery entry point. - Distinguish stale notices, eligible accepted results, dormant history, and concrete ownership contention. Reuse the existing mutation owner and lock order. Preserve explicit settlement vetoes and exact result/contract identity. - Signal relevant task, run, action, and deletion writes before they commit. Existing transaction boundaries handle nested commits and uncertain outcomes. Notifications contain only scope IDs. - Retain a retry only for owed work. Reconstruct work at startup, preserve drain/resume, and stop through the shared lifecycle. - Add concurrent, idempotent partial index migration 0410 for unsafe terminal failures. Keep the five newest generated schema snapshots. - Document producer coverage, query plans, supported writer boundaries, and test failures in the unsafe-export audit. ## Verification - Source `2a13dd08a6cc52f0adab09e3df9ce31e97b746b9` passes all 2188 cases across 24 complete files, without skips. The main selection passes 2129 cases in 192.58 seconds; safe-replacement passes 59 in 26.04 seconds. Coverage includes all 968 native-session cases, real export/action producers, explicit continuation, workspace reconstruction, interaction routing, Stop, queue and Slack consumers. The audit gives per-file counts. - Twenty separate fresh PostgreSQL 17 databases migrate through 0410 before setup. Four embedded-only fixture imports temporarily use their own external database on this IPC-exhausted host, then are restored byte for byte. Assertions and timing limits stay unchanged. This is qualified external-database acceptance, not an unmodified embedded CI run. - Database build, server typecheck/build, module boundaries and exact-head migration order pass. Normal integration preserves the complete original runtime/schema patch and unrelated upstream blobs. Original concurrent index SQL, all prior executable history, journal entries and retained snapshot bytes are unchanged; five snapshots 0406 through 0410 remain. Added comment removal preserves the full non-comment TypeScript token streams. - A populated 0409-to0410 upgrade preserves all 408 prior migration receipts and 38 companies. It appends exactly one receipt; replay adds none. The index is valid and ready on fresh and upgraded databases. - The owning audit retains earlier fixture failures, skipped checks and notice-retirement regression history. Older combined stack checks retain their original scope in their owning audits. Actual parent `73d24aa5acfcf17b3f676b4da7cd05eb70b60b99` is reconciled through a normal merge. Its tree equals the reviewed ancestor and the complete accepted child tree is unchanged. Fresh published-head CI and Greptile 5/5 remain required. No deployed sleep, fleet-cost or live provider qualification claim is made. - Inherited prefix correction: current integration `8f43c9f81fac23b50997e7f0e1d0d9cf383a8109` changes only two values in a previously unselected corpus fixture. All production code, the complete package tree and all 24 accepted test files remain byte-identical to the 2188-case source above. The additional complete 72-case corpus passes in 14.00 seconds and again on the same database in 13.08 seconds. Retained PSC/OUT and sentinel rows remain unchanged. The repeat is not double-counted. The parent audit retains the original collision and rejected cleanup attempt. - Latest parent context: integration `4d51231abe8b68c21ce896d0d2ac16865978c8ab` carries only the parent's one-argument GitHub observation correction and an independent master cleanup assertion. All production code, packages, 24 accepted suite files and the additional corpus are unchanged. The two focused native-presentation cases pass in 15.14 seconds and the complete cleanup-removal suite passes all six cases in 8.31 seconds on two fresh 0410 PostgreSQL fixtures. This does not claim the full parent workflow was rerun here. Current head `b28399babac72ba9db1c4a4ef882c5e87aded38c` has passing CI and Greptile 5/5 with no actionable findings. The first CI attempt lost runners: fourteen jobs explicitly received simultaneous shutdown signals, two reported lost runner communication, and two aggregate gates failed downstream. One failed-job retry on unchanged source passes. The underlying host shutdown cause remains unconfirmed; no code fix or extra retry is claimed. [CI run and attempts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40819408528). No Ponytail verdict is present. ## Risks - A missing future producer can delay dormant-history discovery until restart. The audit names current producers. Independent SQL writers and other server processes remain outside the process-local signal contract. - Physical ownership and uncertain operations retain retries. Time alone does not authorize taking workspace ownership. No provider turn or unsafe archive retry is added. - The recovery owner remains authoritative if state changes after discovery. Terminal UI status does not authorize resource destruction or accepted-result replay. - The partial index adds matching-row write/storage cost. It builds concurrently through the existing restart-safe migration runner. - This proves the changed worker becomes quiet. It does not prove host suspension, external wake coverage, or fleet cost savings. Other sleep migrations remain. This slice still requires fresh current-head CI and reviews. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning and code-execution tools. The exact serving model ID 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>	2026-10-29 00:13:22 -05:00
scotttongandPaperclip	71f0c0c99e	feat: add opt-in Coordinator workspace for chat, tasks, and decisions (#17983 ) <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/147/changes/paperclip/147 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People coordinate work through conversations, tasks, and requests for input. > - These surfaces must share task state and preserve the context of each decision. > - The existing workspace makes people switch surfaces to follow that context. > - This pull request adds an optional Coordinator workspace with linked conversations, tasks, documents, and decisions. > - Each person can enable it in Settings > Experimental and return to the classic workspace. > - The benefit is a coherent path from a request to an assigned task and reviewed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected UI, server, shared contracts, and database. Problem or motivation People need a consistent way to start tasks from agent conversations, answer questions, review work, and return to the source context. Decisions and task state must agree across these surfaces. Proposed solution Add a personal, default-off workspace experiment. Keep one conversation per agent. Add task proposals, compact task and decision cards, contextual document panels, and a Needs You queue with search, filters, sorting, grouping, and history. Alternatives considered Replacing the classic workspace for everyone would remove the opt-out path. Keeping separate decision state in each surface would create conflicting answers. This change uses the existing canonical task and interaction records instead. Roadmap alignment This supports the existing agent chat, task management, and human review capabilities. It is an experimental presentation choice. The user requested this isolated implementation after design review. No Discord discussion is claimed. ## What Changed - Add per-person workspace preferences, a default-off setting, and an additive migration. - Add Coordinator navigation, pinned destinations, task lists, agent switching, and contextual panels. - Link task suggestions and creation to the source conversation. Default new task ownership to the current agent unless the user specifies another owner. - Share pending questions, decision receipts, exact review targets, and history across tasks, chat, and Needs You. - Preserve task access, assignment authorization, revision binding, and required output review gates. - Add compact document links, relative timestamps, composer controls, and reduced-motion support for task and decision transitions. - Add component stories, regression coverage, and capability-map documentation. ## Verification - Final head: `4b839aae1e314bd7e8635a766f1d205ff1c03ba6`, based on master `8bc051245f77a47bee0f8ba45896b8bfa5922e0a`. Verified October 29, 2026 at 00:10 UTC: MERGEABLE, 56 checks passed, four conditional skips, no pending or failed checks. [Current CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40790639688) passed without a rerun on this head. - Fresh Greptile 5/5, zero new comments and zero open review threads; Superagent passed with no suspicious changes. [Checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17983/checks). - Local workspace typecheck/build passed after the latest rebase. The final account-read patch passed UI typecheck/build and all 12 related preference/settings tests, including a delayed real-client request across account changes. Earlier scoped checks cover review deduplication/replay, decision deep links, cross-surface state, access boundaries, and migration replay. - Local database/browser rechecks after the latest rebase were limited by exhausted macOS shared-memory IDs: `initdb` failed before database creation. The local run passed 31 UI/snapshot tests and skipped 24 database tests; those skips and the blocked local browser start are not claimed as passes. The independent Linux CI database and browser checks passed. No running dev database or host setting was changed. - Upstream migration 0403 is preserved. Preferences and durable review retry aliases are generated as replay-safe migrations `0404_tense_silver_sable.sql` and `0405_harsh_avengers.sql`; five newest snapshots are retained. Every detected conflict was rebased and pushed before waiting for CI/review, as requested. - The PR is unmerged. The active master ruleset still requires code-owner approval for the changed Paperclip skill; no approval or rule change was performed. <details> <summary>Earlier verification failures, integration history, and evidence</summary> These entries preserve prior checkpoints and failures; the current acceptance result is above. - Focused UI and server checks from the isolated build are recorded in the implementation plan. - Browser checks covered the opt-in shell, navigation, task/document links, and decision card states. No new live provider trial is claimed for this handoff. - Current acceptance head: `4b839aae1e314bd7e8635a766f1d205ff1c03ba6`, rebased onto master `8bc051245` immediately after its GitHub review-repair migration took 0403. Preferences are generated as idempotent `0404_tense_silver_sable.sql`, preserving upstream SQL/journal/snapshot history and five newest snapshots. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the immediate lease-protected push. Scott's updated instruction is to rebase and push every conflict resolution first, without waiting for CI or Greptile; verification follows the push. - The final reviewed feature tree was consolidated for repeatable single-commit rebases. The complete previous commit history remains reachable through local recovery ref `codex/coordinator-recovery-before-rebase-20261028` (resolved snapshot `0e1bbdf4e`). The actual rebase completed, and its tree hash exactly matches that resolved snapshot. The force-with-lease required the known remote head `0e6ef7c44`, protecting against concurrent branch changes. No PR merge or permission/runner setting change occurred. Fresh CI/review are in progress for the current head. - `2001132fa` received Greptile 5/5 with one nonblocking account-switch read finding. Current head detaches path-coalesced preference GETs and disables HTTP caching, retaining React Query's account-scoped sharing. A delayed real-client GET regression proves account B can load its saved choice before account A responds, and A's late response only updates A's cache. Preference/settings tests 12/12 and UI typecheck passed; its review thread is resolved. Fresh current-head CI/reviews are pending. The prior CI chat shard 3 ended with “The operation was canceled” and no assertion failure ([job 123171595631](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40789688333/job/123171595631), `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-chat3.log`); no code/timeout change is attributed to that cancellation. - `843e823b4` reached fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero comments/open threads and Superagent pass. All browser tests including the repaired YAML shard passed, and 54 checks passed. General server shard 9 ended with “The operation was canceled” and no failed assertion; its test step was marked cancelled (job [123164350893](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40787501761/job/123164350893), log `/tmp/pr17983-843e-server9.log`). A single unchanged-head rerun was started after the workflow completed, but master moved while it ran. A local nested-clone check timed out in its 30-second database-startup hook and then failed cleanup before the 20 database cases ran; this is retained as a local verification limit (`/tmp/pr17983-843e-nested-clone-check.log`), not claimed as a pass or proof of the CI cancellation cause. - Following Scott's instruction, the new conflict was rebased and pushed immediately without waiting for that rerun. Upstream's `0403_natural_cerise.sql` is preserved; regenerated preferences and retry-alias migrations are `0404_tense_silver_sable.sql` and `0405_harsh_avengers.sql`, replay-safe with five newest snapshots retained. The YAML helper conflict combines upstream's click and header behavior with the editor-selection guard and injected regression. Recovery ref `codex/coordinator-recovery-843e823b4` preserves pre-rebase work. Current head is MERGEABLE. Full workspace typecheck/build passed; UI and snapshot checks passed 31 tests, but 24 database tests were skipped by the local support probe, and the local browser server could not initialize PostgreSQL. A direct disposable `initdb` diagnostic established the host limitation: `could not create shared memory segment: No space left on device` (`shmget`, shared-memory IDs exhausted, not disk space). No dev database or host setting was changed. Diagnostics: `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-initdb-probe.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-db-probe.log`; checks: `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-tests.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-browser.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-types.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-build.log`. These local skipped/blocked checks are not claimed as passes; fresh CI on independent runners is in progress. - `d18f683cd` reached fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero comments/open threads and Superagent pass, but [E2E shard 7](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40785966243/job/123159719925) failed parsing an Advanced YAML clipboard read beginning with “Skip to Main Content.” The log is retained at `/tmp/pr17983-d18f-e2e7.log`. Current head hardens the test helper to verify editor focus and selection, clear stale clipboard content, and require the YAML header at the start of a fresh copy before parsing. Saved-state assertions and timeouts are unchanged. All six Advanced YAML browser journeys passed on a disposable local instance (41.0s); the exact lost-response journey also passed with a one-time injected surrounding-page copy, verifying rejection/reacquisition (17.6s). The precise browser focus/clipboard timing in CI remains unproven; the observed invalid-read path is now guarded and deterministically exercised. Logs: `/tmp/pr17983-yaml-clipboard-scope-browser.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-yaml-clipboard-injected-browser.log`. Fresh current-head CI and reviews are pending. - `19e6dcb0b` passed Superagent and Greptile 5/5, with one nonblocking deep-link finding. Current head preserves attention links using `?decisionId=`: the requested pending decision is rendered even beyond the first 40 cards, focused and scrolled into view, then only that parameter is consumed so later refreshes do not refocus. Other URL parameters remain. Needs You tests 10/10 and UI typecheck passed; its review thread is resolved. The preceding post-rebase regression run passed 45/45 tests. Fresh current-head CI/reviews are pending. - `6d772b7cc` reached Greptile 5/5 with zero comments/open threads and Superagent pass. While 32 checks had passed, master moved and caused a documentation conflict in `maps/feature-map/onboarding.md`. Rebased immediately, preserving both onboarding paragraphs. The complete four-commit branch was pushed as `19e6dcb0b` before waiting on CI/review, per Scott's instruction. A transient Git index lock interrupted the first continue; the command sequence briefly pushed intermediate `34e298c07`, then the completed rebase was immediately pushed. All feature and security/retry fixes are present; local recovery ref `codex/coordinator-recovery-6d772b7cc` preserves the pre-rebase history. The only tree differences from that ref are upstream's two smoke-test files and the combined documentation paragraph. GitHub reports MERGEABLE. Fresh current-head verification is in progress; prior-head review results are not current acceptance. - `21efa3120` passed Superagent but Greptile scored 4/5 for a valid retry-key persistence bug: an acknowledged duplicate key could reopen a resolved review. Current head adds an additive, replay-safe `0404_light_swarm.sql` migration for indexed, task-scoped aliases from acknowledged retry keys to the canonical interaction. Alias registration and retry lookup occur under the existing task lock; payload/actor mismatch still conflicts, and each canonical review permits at most 100 aliases. Original and acknowledged keys replay the terminal result rather than creating a new gate. Five newest migration snapshots are retained. Service/routes tests 165/165 passed; final quality review plus migration replay/snapshot checks 25/25 passed; server typecheck passed. The P1 thread is resolved in code; fresh current-head reviews and CI are pending. - `69c2c7543` passed 55 checks and Greptile 5/5 with no open Greptile findings, but Superagent check [123140675812](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17983/checks?check_run_id=123140675812) correctly flagged unbounded pending quality-card creation. Current head fixes that under the existing task-row lock: equivalent requests with fresh idempotency keys reuse the pending card; conflicting requests for an unresolved deliverable return the existing interaction ID; pending cards are capped at ten per task across all reviewers. Distinct outputs remain independent, and already-answered items in a partially pending batch can receive a fresh review. Added real-database concurrency, cross-card duplicate, partial-answer, and hard-cap regressions. Quality review 22/22 tests and final server typecheck passed; earlier service/routes 163/163 tests passed before the final partial-answer refinement. One added assertion initially expected a service HTTP error, but duplicate keys are rejected earlier by the existing shared schema; the assertion now verifies that validation. Fresh current-head CI/reviews are pending; the action-required security result is not treated as passed. - `c9c575e5f` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, Greptile 5/5, and Superagent pass. Its two P2 review findings are fixed in the current head: independently bound quality approvals now each remain visible in attention; changing/clearing URL-backed assignee/status filters updates the URL and survives task navigation. Both review threads are resolved. Regression evidence: attention service 34/34 tests passed, CoordinatorTasks 20/20 passed, UI and server typechecks and the full workspace build passed on `69c2c7543`. The first new UI test run caught an assertion racing React Router's transition; waiting for the navigation before asserting passes without weakening the navigation/remount checks. These older-head green checks are not claimed for the new fix commit. - Preceding `0e6ef7c44` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, fresh Greptile 5/5 and no open findings, and passed Superagent. A fifth migration-metadata collision arrived before the final Runner job finished. Those green results are preserved as prior-head evidence, not current acceptance. - Previous fully verified migration head: `0e6ef7c44696a377f35e69521b93587576374bd0`, integrating master `f8226b051` after the fourth migration-number collision. Master added terminal GitHub-response migration 0401 while the final native check ran; upstream 0401 SQL/journal/snapshot is preserved unchanged, and preferences are generated as idempotent `0402_yielding_blink.sql` on top. Exactly the five newest snapshots remain. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. All 1,155 relevant migration/review/interaction/native-execution/remote-assets tests, workspace typecheck/build, migration guards and whitespace checks pass. Fresh exact-head CI/Greptile/Superagent are pending. - Immediately preceding head `36c67cf03` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, fresh Greptile 5/5 and no open findings, plus passed Superagent security. No retry was needed for that head's CI. Master advanced and introduced only a migration-metadata conflict while its final native check ran, so that green result does not establish acceptance of the current integration. Four consecutive collisions (0398, 0399, 0400, 0401) during verification are retained as concrete integration churn; a brief pause of competing migration merges was requested, without assuming it happened or changing any repo setting. The PR has not been merged. - Prior fully verified head: `36c67cf03`, on the clean `30059c0ed` integration of master `efd65c112`. The last Greptile P2 is fixed: Needs attention retains the participant-agent scope through authoritative server membership queries for each pending task, including historical participation when another agent currently owns the task. It does not approximate participation with current assignment or enumerate every company task. The actual view-switch regression and all 31 focused task/routing/collection tests, UI typecheck/build, token gates and whitespace checks pass. Greptile completed a fresh 5/5 review on this exact head (review 19) with zero new comments and no open review threads. CI and Superagent remain in progress; no current-head CI failure has been reported. - Head `30059c0ed` received Greptile 5/5 with that one nonblocking participant finding, now fixed. Superagent passed that head. Current-base integration restored the ephemeral RunsOn fleet after a superseded workflow retained queued aggregate jobs: normal cancellation was insufficient; the single force-cancel request was interrupted but readback confirmed that obsolete run cancelled and current CI began on the trusted fleet. No cancellation retry or runner/security/workflow changes were made. Its partial CI was superseded by the necessary participant fix and is not current acceptance. - Previous compatibility/base-sync head: `30059c0ededc0eab4e04e8299a884f36db8b292f`, integrating master `efd65c112` and the Inbox/workspace compatibility fixes. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. Coordinator keeps Inbox standalone under More without rewriting the instance's Combined Inbox preference; opting out restores that preference. Saved merged-Inbox URLs resolve to their original owner, task status presets remain usable, and canonical repeated `workspace` parameters retain scoped, deduplicated pagination (including Needs attention). All 192 broader routing/Inbox/sidebar/privacy/review tests and the final 16 task-page tests pass, as do workspace typecheck/build, token gates and whitespace checks. The two review threads are resolved. Fresh exact-head CI, Greptile and Superagent results are pending. - The preceding `d5b9be5bd` remained mergeable but its CI routing gate intentionally fell back to GitHub-hosted runners: “stacked base merge commit does not contain the current base branch.” All 45 downstream jobs stayed queued. Current master was merged cleanly to refresh the pinned base; no runner/security settings or workflow logic were changed. Greptile scored that preceding head 4/5 with the two compatibility findings fixed here. Its automatic Superagent scan was inconclusive at checkout; the documented retry was still pending when superseded. Those results do not establish acceptance of this current head. - Previous approval/migration head: `d5b9be5bd3b8d6b0437e42bf48138377f34fa67d`, integrating master `ba5bba86d` and the stale-output approval correction. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. The fresh P1 finding is fixed: every submitted item now validates and locks its bound output inside the resolution transaction, whether or not it carries a required-quality-review binding. Real database regressions verify that an advanced document revision or deleted attachment refuses the entire batch without recording approvals, and current ordinary output reviews still resolve. All 272 combined migration/review/interaction tests pass; workspace typecheck/build passed. Fresh exact-head Greptile and CI are pending. The automatic Superagent scan ended inconclusive at checkout; one documented on-demand retry is pending. These are explicit verification limits, not passed security results. The P1 thread is resolved. - Master consumed the next migration slot three times during this verification pass: confirmation recovery took 0398, continuation recovery took 0399, and GitHub acknowledgement recovery took 0400. Each upstream SQL/journal/snapshot is preserved unchanged. Preferences are now generated as idempotent `0401_white_lenny_balinger.sql` from upstream 0400; exactly five snapshots remain, and replay coverage locates this migration by table content. This is recorded concurrent integration churn, not a claim that older green results apply to the latest base. - Head `ed3b68da9` fixed the two history/URL findings with 26 focused regression tests, server/UI typechecks, workspace build and token gates passing. Greptile then scored that head 4/5 with the stale-output P1 corrected in the current head. Its partial CI is superseded, not counted as current acceptance. - Previous filter-fix head: `ed3b68da9`, based on the `8458d39d9` merge of master `063cfd438`. The two fresh Greptile findings are fixed: history outcome filters now match recorded per-item verdicts in SQL before pagination (mixed reviews remain in both applicable outcomes), and same-page URL assignee changes/back/forward navigation update that filter without clearing independent filters. All 26 focused database/navigation/collection tests, server/UI typechecks, workspace build, token gates and whitespace checks pass. The two review threads are resolved. Fresh exact-head CI, Greptile and Superagent results are pending. - The `8458d39d9` migration integration also passed all 328 targeted migration/interaction/confirmation tests, workspace typecheck/build and Superagent security scan. Greptile scored that head 4/5 with the two functional gaps fixed in the current head; those prior-head checks are not current acceptance. - Migration integration head: `8458d39d9721f4cb312c2390070a0609f8cddd1a`, integrating master `063cfd43813cabf18417605fb9eefb9aacf95c8d`. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. Master advanced twice during this conflict-resolution pass: first its confirmation-recovery migration took 0398, then its continuation-recovery migration took 0399. Both upstream migrations and journal entries remain unchanged; Coordinator preferences are now generated as idempotent `0400_sad_guardian.sql` from upstream's latest snapshot. Exactly the five newest snapshots remain. The replay regression now locates the table migration by content instead of hardcoding a renumbered filename. - All 328 targeted question/review/confirmation/migration tests passed again after the second merge. Workspace typecheck/build and fresh exact-head CI/reviews are in progress. The preceding `0c46f46d6` passed workspace typecheck/build and Superagent security scan, but was superseded because master consumed migration 0399 while those checks ran. That prior-head result is not acceptance of the current head. No production settings or runner/security permissions were changed, and the PR has not been merged. - Previous integration head: `0c46f46d6f2b23417ab872ce3cb6ff2673647287`, integrating master `287b04d72f1b9fca1412e05435c75b8302ba0710`. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. The renewed conflicts were `0398_snapshot.json`, `_journal.json`, and the top imports in `issue-thread-interactions.ts`. Upstream's `0398` confirmation-recovery index and journal history are preserved unchanged; Coordinator preferences were regenerated as idempotent `0399_bouncy_miek.sql`, with replay coverage updated and exactly the five newest snapshots retained. Both terminal confirmation notifications and Coordinator task assignment/required review behavior are preserved. - All 328 targeted interaction/review/confirmation/migration tests pass, as do workspace typecheck, map validation and whitespace checks. The workspace build and fresh exact-head CI/Greptile/Superagent checks are pending. The first migration-generation attempt hit the sandbox's local IPC restriction before generating files; the unchanged authorized local generation completed successfully. Prior-head green checks below do not establish acceptance of this merge. - Previous acceptance head: `8b7dcf739ed15afc51351fdfa0e0e5fbc75ab788`, with master `1aa3a21ac` integrated and GitHub reporting MERGEABLE. Greptile completed a fresh 5/5 review on this exact head with zero new actionable findings and no open review threads. The [fresh CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40752864319) completed SUCCESS on attempt 2 at 19:40:08 UTC, including all eight E2E shards. Final completed check set: 55 succeeded, four conditional checks skipped, zero pending/queued/running checks, and one neutral/inconclusive Superagent scan. The auxiliary commitperclip review and isolated native Runner compilation/cache-reuse check both passed. This is not a claim that Superagent produced a passed security verdict. GitHub still reports MERGEABLE against current master `60b8089a44b4eaa37e627adbfdf2f130bda13335`. - Current-head E2E: all eight shards and the aggregate passed, including the previously failing YAML browser journey. Serialized server shard 9/9 failed: the protected YAML projection test exceeded its original 15-second timeout; its late update request then reached the next test's reset mock (the captured payload is the prior test's model/label update). All 88 tests in that exact unchanged file passed locally in 38.03 seconds, with no timeout or assertion changes. The original slow-request cause remains unproven. CI failure log: `/tmp/pr17983-8b7-serialized9.log`; local recovery: `/tmp/pr17983-adapter-yaml-repro.log`. The single bounded unchanged shard rerun passed, and the workflow completed SUCCESS. Rerun log: `/tmp/pr17983-8b7-serialized9-rerun.log`. The initial failure is retained; a passing retry does not establish its original slow-request cause. - Greptile scored preceding head `4873704be` 5/5 with one valid P2: opened task decision records missed company-scoped live invalidation. The current head uses the existing company decision prefix for resolution and effect-completion events, and resets private record payloads on access changes. Its thread is resolved. All 107 focused record/live-update tests, UI typecheck/build, token checks and whitespace checks pass. - CI on `4873704be` failed E2E shard 7/8 in the Advanced YAML lost-creation-response journey: its clipboard helper selected page text starting with “Skip to Main Content” instead of YAML. The exact unchanged journey passed in a disposable local browser instance (1 test, 17.1 seconds). No assertion, timeout or production behavior was weakened; the original failure cause remains unproven. Failure log: `/tmp/pr17983-487-e2e7.log`; local check: `/tmp/pr17983-agent-yaml-repro.log`. The full unchanged Advanced YAML browser suite also passed locally (6 tests, 37.8 seconds). Fresh current-head CI subsequently passed this journey and all other E2E shards. - Both the automatic and one supported on-demand Superagent scan on `4873704be` ended neutral/inconclusive: “Pinned PR scan merge-base checkout failed or timed out.” These do not count as a passed security verdict. The current head's automatic scan and one documented on-demand retry also returned the identical neutral checkout failure, with zero annotations or further diagnostics. This is an external scanner blocker, not a passed security verdict. No security settings or permissions were changed. - Recorded decision links now render and focus the full source-task record in both Classic and Coordinator, including recorded choice, submitted inputs, and the existing effect-result resolver. Fresh terminal records take precedence over older open-decision cache entries. Context and account checks keep mismatched or inaccessible records out of the DOM; no decision-history tab was added to tasks or chat. The shared company live-run feed now drives live-only filtering, including ended runs and terminal tasks with stale run entries. All 213 focused tests, UI typecheck/build, token and whitespace checks pass; the final focus follow-up passed all 188 task-detail tests and UI typecheck. The first new navigation test failed because its test host omitted company context; the host was corrected before the passing run. - Previous integration head: `375c5e89516705050d94bab99336212841b2e6e1` merges master `1aa3a21ac` after four additional upstream commits. The sole conflict was competing imports in `server/src/services/issues.ts`; both quality-review policy and inbound wake-notice notifications are preserved. The PR-specific review import now sits beside execution-policy imports instead of the frequently changing first line. GitHub mergeability is rechecked after the push. - On the combined master tree, workspace typecheck/build, all 153 affected UI tests, map validation, and whitespace checks pass. Four server suites passed 77 tests; the fifth suite's module-import hook timed out while broad verification was running. Its unchanged isolated run passed all 41 tests in 7.2 seconds with the original timeout. This records recovery without claiming the original import-timeout cause is proven. CI on `375c5e895` passed every substantive job, including all eight E2E shards and Superagent; Greptile found the two functional gaps fixed in the current head. A short-lived `669d90876` commit added the main fixes before the focused navigation follow-up. - Immediately preceding head `9d9737b49` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, Greptile 5/5 and no open findings, plus a successful Superagent scan. The signoff E2E shard passed on its single accepted rerun; its initial cancellation/timing failure is retained below. Master moved again while those checks ran, requiring this final integration rather than treating the prior head's green result as current acceptance. - Previous head `9d9737b496911a6054d0ea22d1b42b28b115e9ab` includes master `d30c8f42b842327ee1c18c41a2efd6ba623da5cd`; that head was subsequently conflicted by moving master. The master merge preserved durable account-bound writes and Coordinator UX. Workspace typecheck/build, 416 focused UI tests, and 142 affected comment-route tests passed. A stable full UI run on preceding head `938ad1665` passed all 9,833 tests across 836 files; its final full workspace build also passed. - Greptile found nested proposal project inheritance and Classic bound-revision links on `91be74952`. Both were fixed with 142 interaction-route tests, 113 focused UI tests, and UI/server typechecks. Its next review identified a valid draft-preservation bug in the new Classic loading UI. Head `9d9737b49` keeps loading/error notices outside editors and annotations while preserving dirty drafts; 115 focused review UI tests pass, including pending/failed revision loads and continued draft editing. All related threads are resolved. Greptile completed a fresh 5/5 review of `9d9737b496911a6054d0ea22d1b42b28b115e9ab` with no open findings. - CI on `938ad1665` exposed an integration regression with the newly merged durable startup saves: the personal preference gate blocked the task page before its first session lookup. The guarded title editor now mounts while that lookup is pending, with presentation-specific tools still gated. All 216 affected component tests pass. The unchanged five-test `disconnect-write-recovery.spec.ts` browser suite passes against a newly launched disposable local-trusted PostgreSQL instance on port 33219, including the exact failed startup-save journey. No live provider, hosted authentication or production proof is claimed. The helper-owned test server exited and the port has no listener. UI typecheck, built-browser assets, token and whitespace checks pass. - Initial durable-write merge tests found duplicate imports and unscoped draft fixtures, fixed before 416 focused tests passed. A sandbox typecheck could not create its IPC socket; the supported rerun passed. The first revision-link test used a wrong Return to latest button assertion, corrected before the 113-test pass. The startup E2E reproduction initially still failed because an outer shell gate also blocked the page; the subsequent fix passed all five cases without changing the test or its timeouts. A focused loading-header assertion initially used an incorrect fixture title; correcting it preceded the 216-test pass. These failures remain recorded. - Earlier routing gates fell back to GitHub-hosted runners while master was moving or conflicted. Superseded queued runs were cancelled, then the `938ad1665` routing gate explicitly selected the ephemeral RunsOn fleet. Its CI actively executed and completed most tests; only the diagnosed startup E2E shard and aggregate failed, alongside the valid Greptile finding. Auxiliary GitHub-hosted workflows also completed successfully on earlier heads, so queueing alone is not an administrative blocker. Fresh [CI on `9d9737b49`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40744012678) is the acceptance target; the previously failing startup E2E shard now passes. A different signoff E2E shard failed during executor resubmission when its fixture run was cancelled as `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`. The exact unchanged journey passed locally (1 test, 46 seconds), and the preceding head with identical server/signoff code passed that CI shard. This supports a bounded rerun but does not establish the timing failure's root cause. After the workflow finished, GitHub accepted one rerun of that failed shard and its dependent aggregate; both passed, completing all checks on that head. The failure log is retained at `/tmp/pr17983-9d9737-e2e7.log` and the local reproduction at `/tmp/pr17983-signoff-repro.log`. No assertion or timeout was weakened. - On the first merge, full workspace typecheck/build, all 9,622 UI tests, 267 tests across seven affected server suites, two migration checks, map validation, token gates, and the PR diff whitespace check passed. Greptile then found duplicate local task-search filtering and lost completed item-review detail. Both are fixed, with 42 passing focused UI tests and passing UI typecheck/build. - A subsequent Greptile review found attachment confirmations without working links and mobile history without a visible host. Confirmation layouts now derive the authenticated immutable-content endpoint from the attachment ID, and Needs You uses the existing full-screen mobile sheet. All 119 focused tests pass, including missing/stale display URLs, both review layouts, and both mobile history entry buttons. UI typecheck/build and token checks pass. Full workspace typecheck/build also pass after the second master merge. - Greptile gave head `22f69c304` a 5/5 score with one non-blocking desktop-history reopening finding. Head `6dd52b6d3` fixed it, passed all nine history tests, UI typecheck/build, token gates, and the full 9,679-test UI suite, then received a fresh 5/5 review with zero open findings. These are prior-head results; review on the master-sync commit is pending. - The chat and workspace CI jobs on head `22f69c304` were interrupted by runner shutdown signals and cancellation before completing their tests. Their logs do not report failing assertions. Those interrupted jobs are not claimed as passes. The new head starts fresh runs. - The first merge CI had a Slack session-sync idle assertion fail after an unexpected database read. Its exact isolated reproduction passes, and the chat CI shard passed on head `618c5a2a3`. The original failure's cause remains undetermined. The broader local reproduction, run concurrently with full verification, instead encountered 21 timeout failures across its two test chunks; it is not claimed as a passing full local server run. A concurrent local UI run had eight failures (seven timeouts and one delayed autosave assertion). The complete UI run on the final head passed all 9,679 tests across 830 files with two workers; no test timeout or assertion was weakened. This establishes recovery without claiming that every earlier timeout's cause has been proved. An earlier intermediate UI run also overlapped the second master merge and failed the newly added Advanced-sidebar expectation, so it is not treated as stable-tree evidence. The newly merged UI dependencies initially required refreshing the local install from the upstream package manifest; the generated local lockfile update is not committed, per repository policy. - Superagent returned neutral/inconclusive scans on the preceding heads because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. The available retry endpoint returned 404. These are not successful security verdicts. The fresh scan on `91be74952` passed (PR scan passed; no suspicious PR changes detected). The `938ad1665` scan again returned neutral/inconclusive with the same pinned merge-base checkout error; the check-suite rerun endpoint returned 404. The fresh `9d9737b49` scan completed successfully at 18:22 UTC with no suspicious changes detected. Earlier neutral scans are not counted as successful security verdicts. - Prior head `57902152ac3218096fca669d33ff18400a2a86ae` passed 9,618 UI tests across 826 files, received Greptile 5/5 with no open findings, and completed CI with 56 passes and four conditional skips. These are historical results, not acceptance of the latest merge commit. - The first full build found generated capability-contract drift. The generated outputs were refreshed. Initial sandbox runs could not open local IPC sockets; verification was rerun with local test access. - Current master was merged. The workspace preference migration was regenerated after the existing migration history. - The UI run first found two outdated expectations: early custom-answer validation and the document access error copy. Both were corrected, and the full UI suite then passed. - The local server run found three failures in unchanged tests. The Muse test passes with Python 3.13 instead of the host's Python 3.9. The two workspace tests pass when their test process uses the expected master default branch. These environment settings do not change application behavior or global machine settings. The unsharded server run was stopped after those reproductions; CI supplies the full sharded server result. No successful full local server run is claimed. - Skill inventory generation needs an external eval checkout, which is absent locally. The existing generator functions refreshed only the live skill inventory and its derived files. The checked-in eval inventory was preserved. The inventory validation gate passes. - Greptile found a dropped MCP review requirement, missing per-item output links, generic item-review summaries, and a history-refresh failure. The fixes have 32 passing database-backed server tests and focused rendered-card tests. A follow-up partial-review finding was corrected by forwarding the canonical mutation status before settling the card. Attachments open through the authenticated immutable-content route in both card layouts. The final focused UI set has 117 passing tests, including these regressions. - Both browser shards that first failed expected a disabled-chat message. The copy was restored, and those shards passed in CI on the next commit. The two journeys also passed locally. One local attempt first timed out before feature disable while waiting for the provider's initial message; its isolated reproduction passed. That earlier timing failure remains recorded and is not presented as an explained infrastructure failure. - Serialized server shard 9 first failed during pnpm setup with ECONNRESET, before dependencies or tests ran. Its single rerun passed setup and all tests. The build and production runtime boot passed on the first attempt, but that run's public-install step timed out during Pi setup. The single build-job rerun passed compilation, runtime boot, and clean public-install verification. Those setup scripts are unchanged by this PR. The successful retry establishes recovery; the earlier Pi timeout's underlying cause remains undetermined. The aggregate CI gate is green: [workflow run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40637789695). </details> ## Risks - This touches shared task, interaction, and completion paths. Regression tests must cover classic and experimental behavior, authorization, duplicate answers, and stale review targets. - The additive preference table must migrate before the setting is used. The setting defaults off. - The experiment changes navigation and message presentation. Canonical task and document records remain the source of truth. - The initial task brief and saved plan can repeat information. This change fixes chronology; a broader redundancy policy remains a design decision. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 Codex with reasoning and tool-assisted code editing, tests, and browser verification. Earlier iterations used Codex models in this task; their exact model IDs are not available in the current context. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change - [x] I have run relevant tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have documented risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open recommendations or follow-ups - [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-28 17:20:01 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	5f0da562db	fix(server): wake chat lifecycle milestones from committed changes (#17606 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connected chats show safe notices when a run starts, waits, finishes, or fails. > - A recurring scan projected these notices even when no eligible work existed. > - Eligibility depends on committed run state, conversation lineage, and current authority. > - Existing database rows can reconstruct that work after restart. > - This PR wakes a scoped worker from those writes and removes lifecycle polling. > - Native progress events keep their separate existing owner until the next migration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The chat maintenance timer repeatedly scanned run lifecycle state. Empty and settled instances still queried the database. A run-status event alone cannot replace the scan: prompt receipts, continuation receipts, identity changes, and restored authority can make a run eligible later. What did you expect? Committed changes wake projection. Startup reconstructs eligible work. A completed pass stops until another relevant change arrives. Failed work retains recovery without scanning settled history forever. Steps to reproduce Configure an automatic chat endpoint. Finish its work, or leave it unused. Observe recurring lifecycle projection queries from the chat maintenance callback. Stacked on #17592. Related foundation: #15625. This PR owns lifecycle milestones only. ## What Changed - Preserve upstream coalesced Cloud membership writes together with locked membership restoration and its committed chat notification. - Signal milestone eligibility from the real Slack account-link transaction. - Register the lifecycle worker with the existing delivery coordinator. Remove lifecycle projection from the periodic chat callback. Keep native progress in a separately named lane and preserve the explicit combined API. - Reconstruct company/issue scopes from the existing selector. Drain bounded batches with company fairness. Retry failures, retain writes through drain/resume, and disarm settled work. - Signal from supported run, presentation, interaction, receipt, lineage, conversation, recovery, and authority writers. Preserve their transaction ownership, including nested savepoints and uncertain settlement. No new table is added. - Preserve provider authorization, authored-final suppression, responsible-user continuity, deduplication, the 24-hour selection window, and raw-output restrictions. Keep provider interpretation in its owner. - Preserve PostgreSQL timestamp precision in lifecycle pagination. Rejected submillisecond candidates must not repeat the same page and starve later notices. - Document producer coverage and alternate-writer dispositions in `doc/plans/2026-10-25-chat-run-milestone-sleep-audit.md`. ## Verification Published head: `1d056f68c5b1005933b9e12de8745bf1c4cbeeca`, targeting master after #17592 merged at `7d75ae0569e41786640cf09647ae8849411d2f22`. A normal merge integrates the actual landed parent. The entire 77-path milestone patch is binary-identical to the locally verified preparation across that ancestry reconciliation; both unrelated master paths are preserved. The four earlier producer/test integration conflicts retain scoped milestone and voice notices, current onboarding completion admission, and expanded identity query/read-scope coverage. - 330 distinct selected cases pass on the verified unchanged patch: 305 across 14 complete suites (all five milestone worker suites, run identity, board claim, Cloud provisioning, auth session routes, Cloud actor authentication, stale-lock recovery, GitHub credentials, project Git authorization, and app admission wiring), plus 25 selected real chat producer cases. The remaining 1,590 chat integration cases were skipped, not passed. - The real producer cases cover saved milestone discovery, GitHub and Slack identity changes, account-link rollback/reconfirmation, ordinary ingress reactivation, post-close action/delivery receipt settlement, all ten authority-restoration paths including Cloud synchronization, and changed native review metadata. - Worker coverage verifies outer commit, rollback, uncertain-write recovery, restart, bounded batching/fairness, timestamp precision, retries, drain/resume, and settled SQL quiet. Authorization and existing publication deduplication remain with their owning services. - Server production typechecking, build, and module-boundary checks pass. The tests above were executed separately. Production typechecking excludes `src/__tests__` and does not replace those runs. Each database owner uses its own newly created and app-migrated PostgreSQL fixture. - [Current-parent acceptance and preserved failure ledger](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/1d056f68c5b1005933b9e12de8745bf1c4cbeeca/doc/plans/2026-10-25-chat-run-milestone-sleep-audit.md#current-parent-integration-and-acceptance-october-28) records commands, counts, producer scope, conflict dispositions, and limits. Earlier combined-stack counts and failures keep their original revision scope; local acceptance does not erase old CI failures. - No new migration, queue table, dependency, workflow, or shared scheduler contract is introduced. Parent migration 0397, bounded consent recovery, voice cleanup/retention repairs, and runner checkpoint restoration remain present. - Exact-head Greptile is 5/5 and all 55 current checks are clean. No Ponytail review is present, which is an explicitly authorized nonblocker; no failing review is waived. Older reviews and parent checks are not current passes. Actual failing Ponytail findings must be fixed; an absent/stopped/paused turn without a verdict is an authorized nonblocker. Active unfinished Ponytail uses its original request/start timer, with a 25-minute monitor cutoff respecting the user's 30-minute maximum. - No complete local repository matrix, live provider tenant, external alarm, physical host/database suspension, or fleet savings claim is made. Native progress remains a separate following slice. ## Risks - A future eligibility writer must notify the existing projection boundary. Independent SQL writers or another active server process are outside this process-local signal contract. - Authority and lineage remain sensitive. The worker uses the existing selectors and publication policy; it does not grant execution or disclosure authority. - Native progress and other publication maintenance still have recurring work. This PR removes one reason, not the entire chat maintenance timer. - Worker quiet does not prove database suspension, host sleep, or external alarm coverage. Cloud sleep blockers remain unchanged. - Merge eligibility requires passing current-head CI and Greptile 5/5 after this actual-master reconciliation. Subsequent stack slices retain their own gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed. Used repository inspection, reasoning, shell execution, PostgreSQL tests, browser E2Es and GitHub tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details available in this session) - [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 the documented focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-28 11:07:54 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2ee36a4c0a	test: add chat feature scenarios and real task workflow evals (#17794 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat lets a person assign work through a conversation. > - Feature and API maps do not prove that a natural request produces the right saved result. > - Product E2E already owns isolated fixtures, browser runs, evidence and cleanup. > - This pull request adds a chat scenario catalog and two real task workflows in that framework. > - Independent checks verify the task, its author, the saved output and the reply in chat. > - The benefit is a small executable foundation for broader chat coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? It adds real task creation and delegation coverage for Agent Chat. Current behavior Existing maps describe features and agent access. Existing chat evals cover specific protocols and handoffs. They do not connect a broad human-request catalog to independent saved-state checks. Proposed behavior Keep 244 planned scenarios across 35 feature areas. Promote two requests into the explicit-only `chat-features` suite. One saves a backlog task without starting work. The other delegates an announcement and returns the saved result to the original chat. Reason and benefit A successful tool call or confident reply does not prove the requested result exists. These evals check public API state, attribution and browser access after a real model run. Breaking changes No API or data schema changes. Chat instructions now require actual relative task links. The local E2E private-state scanner recognizes Codex account ownership metadata while continuing to reject credentials and model-visible identity leaks. Additional context Related prior work: #13969 and #13762. This improves verification of the existing Agent Chat roadmap item. It does not add a new core product feature. ## What Changed - Add YAML scenarios with capability IDs, starting context, user requests and expected outcomes. Validate all area files against their schema, global ID uniqueness and exact feature-map capability coverage. - Add two local native Codex subscription cells. Send the exact catalog request once through Chromium. - Seed only prerequisites through public APIs. Use shipped agent instructions and explicit disposable budget policies for unpriced subscription usage. - Check task ownership, creation audit, no premature execution, current worker-authored output, automatic completion delivery and usable links after reload. - Keep private Codex account ownership metadata distinct from bearer credentials. Scan rollout message content, all tokens and published evidence as before. - Teach normal chat instructions to use relative task links instead of invented hosts. Update tests, maps and the runbook. - Repair existing E2E contract drift: include the active Copilot identity in the image digest and update Pi profile expectations. Keep global catalog cardinality in its owning catalog test. Product E2E owns the new flow and grader. Its existing launch and report paths remain in use. The shared scanner change is limited to owner-private temporary Codex runtime metadata. Other callers retain the full secret scan. No UI, endpoint, schema or permission behavior changes. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed: 35 areas and 191 capability IDs. - Product E2E typecheck and focused tests passed before rebase: 225 Vitest tests and 137 Node tests. Conversation service tests passed 40/40. Five existing runner turn-binding regressions passed. - Historical live measurement used real Chromium, server, database and native Codex with no automatic retries. The initial same-definition batch passed 5/6 cells. Backlog passed 3/3; delegation passed 2/3. One CEO startup failed because the runner did not receive a provider turn identity. The cause is unresolved. - An unchanged follow-up passed delegation three times and backlog twice. Combined evidence is backlog 5/5 and delegation 5/6. Each attempt passed cleanup. Later passes do not erase the earlier failure or prove a runner repair. - Earlier failed revisions exposed an invented task hostname, private account metadata false positives and missing funding for unpriced subscription usage. Those led to the specific changes above; the failed records remain retained locally. - The runbook records campaign identifiers and definition provenance. Generated result artifacts are not committed. Historical live results predate this branch rebase; fresh PR-source live evidence and final validation are recorded below. - Full workspace typecheck and production build passed on the rebased branch. Product E2E typecheck passed. - The full Product E2E support suite first reproduced four baseline failures: two missing active Copilot image-identity inputs and two stale Pi/catalog expectations. The narrow contract fixes above resolved them. The full rerun passed 4,282 Vitest tests plus 137 Node tests, with two skipped. Image checks verify mutation changes the hash, unchanged input stays stable, and an input closure without Copilot is unaffected. Original failed logs remain retained. - The repo-wide local Vitest run has reported two failures in unchanged service files. The Workspace connection test passed an isolated recheck and its full file passed 469/469 unchanged. The recovery test hit a 15-second timeout; its full file passed 89/89 unchanged. The run later hit explicit PostgreSQL `semget` resource exhaustion and was interrupted after those observed failures; no final aggregate counts or full local pass are claimed. Its complete available log is retained. No assertion or timeout was weakened. Matching remote server CI passed on the same source. - On clean PR head `39ad80b523ce194c90aafafd077d48dd9a36b4c5`, backlog passed in `local-2026-10-26T19-24-13-014Z`. The parallel delegation fixture failed during PostgreSQL initdb, before browser or model execution; its failed cleanup grade is retained. A disposable standalone initdb probe then passed. No semaphore sets or kernel settings were changed before that probe/recheck. After confirming no remaining fixture process, its private temporary files were removed. - One separate delegation recheck passed in `local-2026-10-26T19-29-24-800Z`, with one attempt, zero automatic retries and successful cleanup. Both passing current-source cells use definition `3f2c9ba2d03e3dcddde47ddab3b43bc52de977f25e256fceae0a24c9128e204b`. The earlier bootstrap failure and the historical provider startup failure remain distinct. These local results omit automatic source-SHA metadata; the clean checkout SHA is recorded here from the execution session. - The later broad local run reported `could not create semaphores: No space left on device`. A bounded cleanup removed 32 current-user PostgreSQL sets with 17 members, marker 537, a dead recorded creator and zero waiters. No live process or kernel limit was changed by that cleanup. The test process group was subsequently stopped; no broad rerun is planned. This direct later resource failure does not prove the precise cause of the earlier live initdb failure. - Review follow-up adds only static catalog validation and documentation of the existing five-minute journey bound. The executable definition is unchanged. Focused catalog/oracle tests passed 28/28; no redundant live run is claimed. - Final head `30fcb36ac9ae1f0270a589dbfafcec91ca6a03f3` passed all required and underlying CI checks in [run 40391402347](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40391402347), including `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Greptile and Paperclip Review both scored this head 5/5, with all review threads resolved. The static follow-up leaves every executable definition input byte-identical to the live-tested source at `39ad80b`. Normal squash auto-merge is enabled. Actual merge is pending eligible code-owner approval for the owned dependency manifest; no protection is bypassed. ## Risks - Live model behavior can vary. One missing turn-start event remains unexplained; this PR does not claim provider reliability or broad catalog qualification. - Subscription costs are unpriced. Explicit fixture funding admits that usage. Run counts and deadlines remain bounded, but the dollar limit cannot cap unknown cost. - Account identity exceptions apply only to known private Codex runtime files. Token reuse, unknown files and model-visible rollout content remain blocking findings. - Deterministic checks establish saved state, output structure, required brief facts and access. They do not score all prose quality. Initial samples also require human inspection. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution, browser and repository tools. The precise model revision and context window are not exposed to this session. Live eval agents used `gpt-5.6-sol`; that is the evaluated model, not a claim about the authoring model. ## 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 local tests; focused suites pass and the interrupted full-run failures are documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-26 16:19:39 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	9f3a5456ac	perf(server): bound run reads in authentication and conversation recovery (#17663 ) Read compact run identity during authentication and compact turn state during conversation recovery. Preserve fresh checks, durable steering and reply evidence, locking, and complete stored payloads. Validate 184 targeted PostgreSQL and lifecycle tests, workspace typecheck, server build, full CI, and Apex 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-25 15:53:18 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	a7dd5284b5	feat: add company fast-response acknowledgements (#15748 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Human messages start agent work through task, chat, and external-channel intake. > - Agent startup can delay the first visible response. > - A small direct model call can acknowledge the request while normal work starts. > - This response must remain separate from evidence that the agent answered or completed work. > - This pull request adds optional company-wide fast responses with durable receipts, access checks, and cost accounting. > - Users receive prompt acknowledgement without changing the agent execution path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: database, shared contracts, server orchestration, connections, and UI. Problem or motivation Users can wait for an agent to start before they receive a contextual response. Generic progress messages do not confirm what the user asked. An acknowledgement must not falsely complete work or satisfy an unanswered turn. Proposed solution Add a disabled-by-default experimental fast-response model using an existing shared API connection. Generate one short acknowledgement for each accepted human turn. Use the existing agent identity and external publication outboxes. Retain platform provenance and account for the inference independently. Alternatives considered Running the acknowledgement through the agent runtime adds startup latency. Restricting implementation to OpenRouter leaves other existing API connections unsupported. This change supports all existing API connections and uses OpenRouter for live verification. Roadmap alignment This extends existing agent communication and connection settings. ROADMAP.md and open pull requests were checked. No duplicate fast-response implementation was found. The maintainer supplied the feature plan directly. ## What Changed - Add Experimental fast responses to instance settings. Keep the feature off by default. Enforce the flag at intake, dispatch, and publication. - Move Decision model and Fast response setup to company Settings → Connections when the experiment is enabled. Place Connections below Environments. Separate the model sections with clear headings and a divider. Keep Decision model in General when the experiment is off. Route Costs setup links to the available settings page. - Make the acknowledgement prompt a multiline template string. Ask for a brief, positive response in the user’s language. - Add settings, connection/model selection, sponsorship, fixed-sample testing, and Costs history. - Add a Vercel AI SDK text service for existing native, routed, Bedrock, and local API connections. - Add durable per-turn requests, a bounded worker, a three-second admission deadline, and one inference attempt. - Integrate task creation, task and agent chat, steering, queued follow-ups, experimental board chat, shared chat intake, and email. - Preserve receipt provenance and exclude receipts from completion, recovery, interaction resolution, and agent wakeups. - Recheck authorization, source validity, real replies, budgets, and destination binding before publication. Preserve accounting for suppressed or uncertain outcomes. - Add provider contracts, database race tests, channel outbox tests, UI tests, Stories, and documentation. Keep decision-model execution unchanged. ## Verification - Local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after rebase. The UI typecheck and build also pass after the final navigation fixes. All 37 focused navigation tests pass. The first full local `pnpm test:run` invocation reported seven chat failures. All seven passed in isolated reruns after fixture updates and host cleanup. This invocation was stopped after the full final-head CI suite passed. - Initial local database tests hit macOS shared-memory exhaustion. A diagnostic confirmed `shmget: No space left on device` with the system limit of 32 IDs. Three abandoned, unattached PostgreSQL IPC headers were reclaimed. The isolated rerun passed all 31 fast-response and channel tests. The two additional Slack regression cases also passed in a separate rerun. No active database was stopped. - UI token gates pass. Provider contract tests cover all supported API connection types. Fast-response tests cover uniqueness, authorization, budgets, expiry, cancellation, restart, real-reply races, and the experimental flag. - The test drive verified that disabling the experiment hides Connections and redirects its direct URL. Enabling it restores the saved OpenRouter setup. After restart on the final commit, the OpenRouter settings sample returned “Sure, I’ll take care of fixing the border around the settings panel.” in 428 ms. It used 260 input and 31 output tokens and recorded $0.0000576 in reported cost. - Earlier live OpenRouter verification produced a receipt in 1.013 seconds for a new task. The real agent then supplied its substantive answer. A separate settings test took 1.34 seconds, used 246 input and 23 output tokens, and recorded $0.0000361. - Live Slack verification on final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` passed for a fresh initial task and a follow-up in a disposable bot DM. The initial acknowledgement appeared 2.405 seconds after the Slack message and 1.413 seconds after durable acceptance; the follow-up appeared in 2.322 seconds and 1.160 seconds respectively. The recorded generation/settlement durations were 898 ms and 697 ms. The initial call used 291 input / 39 output tokens and cost $0.00006705; the follow-up used 281 / 47 and cost $0.00007035. - The Slack acknowledgements retained the assigned agent identity and `origin: fast_response`, source-turn references, and no fabricated run ID. A status snapshot after the initial receipt showed the task still `in_progress` with its real execution run. The agent then read the CSV fixture and correctly reported two ready items, two blockers, and their owners. Both replies stayed in the originating DM, and no duplicate generic working message followed the delivered contextual acknowledgements. The `new` command started a fresh conversation session without generating a fast response. - An earlier eligible Slack turn generated a response but suppressed publication. Its reported cost was retained, generic progress remained, and the real agent completed the requested result. This is recorded separately from the two delivered acknowledgements; the history did not expose a precise suppression reason. - Slack verification used real signed provider events, the existing intake/publication paths, and a user-approved temporary webhook-only HTTPS tunnel. Subscriptions were limited to direct-message events. The test bot was paused and the tunnel stopped afterward. Live channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified; their mocked tests cover intake, destination binding, publication, and continued underlying work. - Greptile reviewed final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` at 5/5. Both new review findings are fixed and all threads are resolved. [Final-head CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38060015730) passed. This includes grouped server/chat/workspace tests, serialized suites, runner checks, browser journeys, typecheck, build, release registry, policy, and the canary dry run. - Manual check: enable Experimental fast responses. Open company Settings → Connections. Select a shared API connection and model. Save and use Test response. Submit a task message and confirm that its receipt does not complete the task. ## Risks - The migration adds receipt and configuration tables plus accounting references. It uses idempotent statements and follows the current migration sequence. - A slow provider, authorization change, or real-agent reply can suppress an acknowledgement. Existing progress feedback remains available. - Unknown provider billing retains a reservation until reconciliation. External deliveries with uncertain outcomes must not be blindly repeated. - Live Slack initial-task and follow-up DM journeys pass. Live Slack channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified. The PR remains a draft and records these gaps. Final-head repository CI and automated review pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose an exact model snapshot ID or context-window size; these are not asserted. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-10 13:09:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4039d4f06b	fix(auth): allow scoped low-trust work and owner-chat instruction edits (#14870 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust agents must work within their assigned scope. > - Task creation currently rejects these agents before checking assignment permission or scope. > - Persistent instruction saves also reject direct requests from authorized chat owners. > - This PR checks the requested action and its recorded authority instead of denying all such work. > - Agents can organize permitted work and follow their owner's instruction-edit requests while outside work stays restricted. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Low-trust agents cannot create self-assigned tasks or subtasks, even within their allowed scope. An authorized user also cannot ask an agent in their own Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`. Agent-folder collection can hide the permission rejection behind a generic save failure. Expected behavior Allow task creation when assignment permissions and project or root-task scope permit it. Allow instruction self-edits during authenticated owner-chat execution, subject to the user's current edit permission. Outside tasks, subtasks, connector messages, and peer agents do not inherit that instruction authority. Explain the actual denial when a save fails. Steps to reproduce 1. Configure an active agent with `low_trust_review` and a project or root-task boundary. 2. Ask it to create an in-scope task assigned to itself, or a subtask of its own task. 3. As a user with permission to configure that agent, ask it in your Agent Chat to update its managed `AGENTS.md`. 4. Observe blanket permission denials rather than action-specific checks. Paperclip version or commit Rebased onto master at `8ec4b84e1`. This is a core authorization change, independent of adapter choice. Deployment mode Authenticated server. Regression coverage uses the server services, HTTP routes, native tool authority, and embedded PostgreSQL. Related work: #14775 adds human-directed task execution. #13599 concerns instruction-path configuration; this PR leaves that configuration restricted. #11988 proposes separate active-review instruction protection. #10693 reports unclear authorization denials on a different API surface. ## What Changed - Apply task-assignment checks to both HTTP creation routes and native task creation, including unassigned work. Preserve low-trust policy and source attribution on the created task and its initial plan. - Allow self-assigned decomposition within the permitted project or root-task tree. Resolve workspace-derived project scope before authorization, and reauthorize existing tasks before duplicate detection returns them. Keep cross-project and peer-assignment checks. - Derive instruction self-edit authority from the accepted run identity and authenticated owner-message wake. Recheck current permissions at save time. Bind retries to the same request and chat session. - Reject inherited instruction authority from outside tasks, subtasks, plugins, connectors, stale sessions, cancelled runs, and peer edits. - Surface permission errors in instruction and agent-folder save receipts. Tell chat agents to explain the rejected action and the specific restriction. - Update the low-trust policy and implementation documentation. ## Verification - All 297 tests in 11 focused server suites pass after the rebase. These cover owner-chat saves, private copies, warm agent directories, reset and retry boundaries, permission revocation, task creation routes, and native tool authority. - After review fixes, all 126 tests in the four affected authorization/chat suites pass. Workspace scope regressions and 146 existing creation/ownership/workspace-route tests also pass. - The final duplicate-task and CI fixes pass all 39 tests across chat-project tools, duplicate creation, environment-selection guards, and assignee-invokability routes. The duplicate-task test reproduced an unauthorized response before the fix and verifies denial plus permitted reuse afterward. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes after rebasing; `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passes after the review fixes. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes. - Final head `7e73270b86748792649e4ae6fbc6879f73b42b73`: all 54 checks passed, with two expected skips and no pending or failed checks. This includes builds, typechecking, the full test matrix, end-to-end tests, runner verification, the canary dry run, and security scans. - Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head, with no unresolved review threads. This change has not been deployed to staging. ## Risks This changes authorization behavior. The instruction exception must not become an inherited task permission. The check uses server-owned execution records, requires the agent's own chat and instructions, and keeps normal protected-change and responsible-user checks. Saves fail closed when current provenance or permission is missing. Owner chat grants a turn-scoped capability; the server does not classify the message intent or require approval of the exact new file bytes. Prompt injection within an authorized owner-chat turn remains a model-level risk. This is the requested owner-chat trust boundary, without a new per-edit confirmation flow. No database migration or broad trust-preset change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and test execution. The exact runtime model ID 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>	2026-10-01 15:42:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3c561642b4	fix(chat): resolve approvals and preserve unanswered questions (#14613 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents ask for decisions and optional details through cards in chat. > - A clear approval in a message can leave the matching card pending. > - An unanswered question can also block an unrelated later reply. > - Decisions need a saved source message, while optional questions need to remain answerable in history. > - This pull request records conversational decisions and lets users move on from questions and answer them later. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Native Claude and Codex could act on approval in chat while the original approval card stayed pending. Pending question forms stayed above the composer, were absent from history, and could suppress later chat replies. A late native question answer could wait for a finished run to reconnect. Expected behavior The active agent records a clear approval or refusal against the exact card and user message. Ambiguous replies do not grant consent. Users can send another message without answering a question. The question remains pending in history and can be reopened and answered later. The saved answer reaches the agent. Steps to reproduce 1. Ask an agent to propose work with a confirmation card, then approve it in chat. 2. Check that the original card records that approval before work starts. 3. Ask an interactive question, send an unrelated message, and reload. 4. Open the unanswered question from history and submit an answer. Related work: #14408 added completion delivery. #14607 tests completion reporting turns. Neither records conversational answers on approval cards. ## What Changed - Add a confirmation endpoint backed by a user comment, with schema validation, OpenAPI discovery, and native Plan-mode access. Ask mode remains read-only. - Check company, active run, actor, current session, message provenance, revision, and resolver policy. Save the decision and audit in one transaction. Retries do not repeat effects. Emit resolution telemetry after commit. - Give fresh and resumed chat turns the actual pending confirmation identities. Teach agents to save clear conversational decisions before acting and to clarify ambiguity. - Keep unanswered Agent Chat questions as compact history entries. A newer user message closes the old form. Question cards never contribute to composer pending counts or navigation, including after dismissing a fresh form. The history card is the sole reminder; clicking it restores that exact form and draft. - Preserve Agent Chat questions when later messages or questions arrive. Historical ordinary inputs no longer gate later chat replies. Current-run requests, task execution, and governed approvals keep their gates. Remove the special acknowledgement-publication proof helpers that this rule replaces. - Route answers to finished native runs through durable fresh-wake delivery, with existing idempotency and source-question context. Settle late replies against contiguous completed conversation turns and freeze their history replay; failed, unhandled, and newly arriving messages remain actionable. - Add real-component Storybook scenarios, database and UI regressions, and a three-turn native Claude/Codex E2E case. Capture distinct, UI-ready screenshots and report the individual assertions. ## Verification - Focused decision/publication/UI regressions after merging master: 288 passed; subsequent UI draft, failed-send, and conversation checks: 199 passed. - Native question and durable delivery regressions: 106 passed, including all four terminal run states and exactly-once late delivery. Seven targeted regressions fail against the original implementation and pass with the fix. - Latest conversation/decision/native-delivery regressions after the master merge: 121 passed. Covers completed progress, missing or failed intervening turns, new messages during a late reply, stale sessions, and frozen retry/replay boundaries. Four new assertions fail before the ordering fix. - E2E support suite after the master merge: 792 passed. Negative controls reject expired cards, wrong questions/answers, stale or missing replies, unrelated clarification forms, and unexpected tasks. - The embedded-browser walkthrough caught one additional defect: dismissing a fresh question still showed a composer badge. Both Cancel and close-button regressions failed before the fix. The fix at `65f2ade12` passes 170 chat-thread tests and 792 E2E support tests. After merging master, 232 chat-thread/confirmation tests, server/UI typechecks, and token gates pass. The preview and two-provider live E2E pass at `e5512a206`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads at that commit. All 55 checks are now successful at `e5512a206` (four conditional checks skipped), including the aggregate verification gate and clean-install canary test. The first attempt was interrupted by simultaneous CI worker shutdowns; one failed-job rerun passed without code changes. - [Published Storybook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/storybook/branches/codex~2Fchat-approval-resolution/?path=/story/chat-comments-agent-chat-unanswered-questions--moved-on): nine real-component scenarios. Manually exercised move on, reopen, preserve draft, answer later, answer one of multiple questions, and a custom mobile answer in the embedded browser. Retested fresh Cancel and close-button dismissal in the updated build, then reopened and submitted the preserved Green selection and inspected its answered receipt. Static preview has no live model/backend; its callbacks are fixture responses. - [First live campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36714504406-1/) reproduced the late-answer completion-state defect on both providers despite correct saved answers and acknowledgements. It also exposed a valid imperative clarification rejected by the old oracle. Both issues are fixed with regression controls; this failing run is retained as evidence. - [Four-cell qualification](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36717804064-1/) passed 4/4 at `2bf8a1009`: unanswered-question return and ambiguous confirmation, each on native Claude and Codex. Inspected saved state, source-message decisions, visible cards, and agent replies. Both late-answer chats settled to waiting; no unrequested tasks were created. [Final branch rerun](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36719666238-1/) passed 2/2 at `142630720`: the same unanswered-question journey after merging master, plus an additional screenshot and browser assertion for the actual late-answer acknowledgement. - [Composer-reminder E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36727006818-1/) passed 2/2 at `5b62c52d9`: native Claude and Codex, three turns each, with explicit no-badge assertions before and after reload. Inspected saved pending/answered state, both screenshots with a clear composer, and actual Blue acknowledgements; all five behavioral matchers passed per provider and neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial; this is bounded workflow qualification. - [Fresh-dismissal E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36742773318-1/) passed 2/2 at `e5512a206`: native Claude and Codex, including fresh Cancel, clear composer, reopen, unrelated message, reload, late Blue answer, and actual agent acknowledgement. All five behavioral matchers pass per provider. Inspected the fresh-dismissal screenshots and saved pending/answered identity; neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial (4/6 runs). - Prior evidence remains available in [the earlier campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36642252725-1/). Its early loading screenshot and overwritten final capture prompted the UI-ready, distinct screenshot fixes. ## Risks - The model interprets intent. The server verifies permission and provenance; it does not infer consent from text. Ambiguous and unrelated replies are not approvals. - Historical questions can accumulate. They remain visible, pending, and answerable; no automatic answer or expiry is invented. - The change to completion gates is scoped to Agent Chat and ordinary historical inputs. Current-turn and governed approvals retain their existing controls. - Live qualification is limited to the selected stories. Broader native onboarding finalization remains separate work. - No database migration. Telemetry adds no fields or values; the contract and README document the commit boundary. Privacy review was requested on the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser-test orchestration. The exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-30 11:46:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	83076d7e7c	feat: return completed handoffs to Agent Chat (#14408 ) Return completed Agent Chat handoffs through a durable outbox and scope each generated update to its supplied tasks. Add recovery, browser delivery, result access, and calibrated quality coverage. Validated with two consecutive ten-case Claude/Codex campaigns, all CI checks, and a 5/5 review. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-29 10:25:52 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	36dbb7ed1c	fix: harden agent chat runner tools and recovery (#13678 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat turns discussion into plans, tasks, reviews, and hires. > - These workflows need reliable tool results and task context on the native runner. > - Live Claude and Codex tests exposed lost retry requests, invalid project inputs, and a child startup crash. > - Recovery also exposed a misleading retry action and missing child task context. > - This pull request fixes those paths and adds regression coverage. > - Agents can continue the original request and operators can inspect a stopped run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A failed Agent Chat retry could lose the user's question. Project creation accepted unsupported icons in its tool schema. Codex could stop when a helper's MCP startup event arrived before its thread lineage. A stopped task offered Retry even when the server required execution reconciliation. Resumed agents could miss existing delegated tasks. Hiring and review instructions did not describe the native runner's available tools and source requirements. Expected behavior Retries retain the selected request. Tool schemas match the API. Child startup information does not gain authority over the parent or stop it. Recovery actions match the server's requirements. Task context exposes existing child work. Handoffs contain the material the assignee needs. Steps to reproduce 1. Enable experimental Agent Chat in an isolated development instance. 2. Configure native Codex and ACPX Claude agents on Paperclip Runner. 3. Ask for a plan, revise it, approve task creation, and request a hire and status report. 4. Retry a failed chat turn and check that it answers the original request. 5. Start a Codex helper before its thread lineage arrives. 6. Resume a delegated task and inspect its existing children and saved output. Paperclip version or commit The live failures were found at `f2c5e54dc`. This branch is rebased onto `86b7ee992`. Deployment mode Isolated local development instance with native Codex and ACPX Claude. No database migration or default permission change. Related work: Refs #13284 for Agent Chat. Refs #13438 for the server-side API receipt fix, which this branch preserves. The transport also accepts the earlier HTTP receipt format. Refs #13655 for the current Codex continuation and helper lineage handling, which this branch also preserves. ## What Changed - Preserve failed Agent Chat wake-comment IDs and session generation from the authorized source run. Reject pre-reset retries. - Wrap API receipts with the correct semantic call identity. Test current and earlier receipt formats through real HTTP and runnerd. - Classify early child MCP startup notifications as information. Keep foreign completion and result events rejected. - Constrain project icons on both tool surfaces and regenerate the protocol contracts. - Include bounded, company-scoped visible direct child tasks in task context. Filter hidden tasks before applying the limit. - Replace the rejected Retry action with Inspect run for native continuation reconciliation. - Update hiring, review handoff, status reporting, and development guidance. ## Verification - Live tests covered Claude and Codex questions, plan revisions, approval, task creation, hiring, status, chat reset, failures, and recovery. - The recovered task produced its saved checklist and example. A later follow-up read the existing child tasks and document without creating more work. - Full build, repository type checks, token gates, 142 focused tests, 188 runner TypeScript tests, and the Rust notification/descendant regressions passed after rebase. The separate local full-suite run was stopped after the complete CI suite passed. - Review fixes passed the updated route, tool-authority, and icon regression tests plus server type checking. - Required commands: `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, `PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm check:token-gates`. - At `4ce8047b0`, all 55 applicable GitHub checks pass (two Storybook checks are intentionally skipped), including the complete general/serialized test matrix, runner tests, browser tests, build, type checks, Docker checks, and canary dry run. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on `4ce8047b0`; all three findings were fixed with regressions and there are no unresolved review threads. - Two initial CI service-startup timeouts passed unchanged in local reproductions and in the latest CI run. ## Risks - The new event classification is limited to MCP startup information. It does not authorize foreign task completion, results, or tool requests. - Task context returns at most 100 direct child tasks and reports truncation. It excludes hidden tasks and other companies. This improves delegation context but does not enforce semantic duplicate detection. - Native reconciliation still requires an operator to inspect and record prior outcomes. The new link does not replace the recovery API. - API tools remain opt-in. Claude permission choices remain explicit. No default permission, schema, or workflow changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, code execution, API tools, and browser testing. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Live acceptance agents used OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol` and Anthropic `claude-sonnet-4-6`. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-19 09:11:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	43acbcc398	fix(runner): preserve sessions and complete question and approval continuations (#13655 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner connects task state to provider sessions. > - Follow-up turns must retain provider memory and carry new user direction. > - Lost session IDs caused repeated context and extra input tokens. > - Native question answers and approval races could leave valid work blocked. > - This pull request repairs those paths and adds regression coverage. > - Agents can continue accepted work without repeating the conversation or losing the user's answer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13574. That merged PR shortened continuation prompts and moved question instructions into tool documentation. This change preserves sessions and fixes failures exposed by broader testing. Related runtime work: #13408 and #13410. What happened? Native follow-up turns could lose the provider session ID. Completion guidance could replace the original task with its latest comment. Claude native questions could remain pending after the user answered. Approval during a running tool call could suspend the run before the tool response arrived. Onboarding and chat handoff instructions also caused repeated planning or missing plan documents. Expected behavior Reuse a valid provider session. Send only new events when that session already has the history. Preserve the task requirements and apply later user direction. Store the question answer and deliver it to the waiting run. Finish governed tool responses before suspending. Execute the accepted plan without asking for the same approval again. Steps to reproduce Run the continuation, local-session-integrity, first-task, and agent-chat suites with native Codex and Claude. Include provider-question-bridge, accept-while-running, and plan-handoff. Paperclip version or commit This branch is based on master `d54b75011`. The active full catalog run tests `4e75881db`. Later review fixes have separate regression coverage. Deployment mode Isolated local instances and Daytona sandboxes in the existing Runner full-stack E2E harness. ## What Changed - Retain provider session identity across turns and late usage snapshots. Send new continuation events on session reuse, with full context available for a fresh session. - Preserve task requirements and later direction in completion guidance. Return the current contract revision after a stale completion submission. - Bridge native Claude questions to saved Paperclip cards. Submit answers through the saved card and resume the same run. - Delay governed suspension until tool results settle. Add a deterministic test barrier for approval during an active run. - Clarify free-text question examples, explicit onboarding plans, and execution of accepted chat plans. - Fix continuation readiness, verified output evidence, and declared screenshot collection. - Qualify the legacy Claude test CLI at 2.1.277. The old 2.1.19 CLI did not discover mounted skills. Update the existing workflow pin and isolated launcher together. - Refresh the Daytona image lockfile integrity pin after reviewing master patch updates. - Carry continuation mode as runtime metadata instead of inferring it from user-visible text. Install the test Claude CLI without lifecycle scripts. ## Verification - Targeted paid verification: 20/20 cases passed across local-environment campaigns before the rebase. [Report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-seven-fixes-35397904249/). - Harness checks: 379 unit tests passed; harness typecheck passed. - Latest-head PR checks: 55 passed, two intentionally skipped. Greptile is 5/5; the security scan passes. - Review regressions: 350 executor tests and 204 session/driver tests passed. A script-free Claude install was verified with the actual CLI. - Full catalog, including the explicit-only everyday suite: [run 35417932353](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35417932353). Completed: 164/205 passed; 41 failed. [Full dashboard and failure investigation](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-full-catalog-35417932353/). Includes 204 case artifacts and one pre-case GitHub authorization timeout; missing evidence is not scored as a pass. The full run tested `4e75881db`; Final-head metadata/CLI smoke cases both passed. In the separate [six infrastructure retries](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35419769343), the GitHub timeout case passed and all five Docker preflight failures repeated. [Follow-up dashboard](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-full-catalog-35417932353/follow-up/). - Full local typecheck and build passed on the rebased branch. The full local unit run completed with 657 passing files, two test timeouts and one suite setup timeout. All three affected files passed when rerun in isolation (84 tests). The first full local run was not clean. - Focused regression coverage includes the live question bridge, same-run response delivery, UI routing, stale revisions, approval overlap, and session reuse. ## Full-catalog follow-ups - Test infrastructure: 14 Claude everyday cells probe an absent host CLI; six cells failed pre-task GitHub/Docker qualification (GitHub passes on retry; all five Docker cases repeat; the workflow preflight allowlist omits their case IDs); five ACPX Codex cells cannot create sandbox namespaces. - Runtime: four OpenCode completion-criteria mismatches masked by shutdown errors, one service-approval suspension failure; three Daytona recovery failures encounter existing skill files; one duplicate completion wake. - Confirmed test defects: question pagination and a noncanonical plan document key. - Product/behavior: mismatched visible/required question sets, an attachment instead of the requested task document, one lone-option onboarding question, early completion instead of review, and a Codex Mini completion-schema failure. - The report job itself fails on trusted master’s stale patch/lock configuration. The linked report is rebuilt with the shared renderer from original cell results and public fixture screenshots; it excludes private snapshots, logs and traces. These are investigated follow-ups, not silently regraded passes. First-task passed 51/52. The PR checks are green independently of the broader catalog’s behavioral/infrastructure failures. ## Risks - Session reuse depends on a valid provider identity and context coverage. Fresh-session fallback and reset tests cover this boundary. - Native question delivery spans saved interaction state and a live provider run. Tests cover duplicate events, closed runs, and same-run answers. - Provider behavior varies. The full paid catalog may expose failures beyond these targeted fixes; those results will be reported without relaxing valid approval or output checks. - The legacy Claude version update is limited to test infrastructure. No database migration is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser/E2E tools. 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 (targeted checks and all three timeout-file reruns pass; full-run timeout caveat 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>	2026-09-19 07:42:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ab15aff390	feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. Problem or motivation Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. Proposed solution Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. Roadmap alignment This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-12 08:56:04 -05:00