157 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	c761282d76	feat: add private project access ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-01 22:54:01 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	d92ef1e4b4	feat: add private issue sharing grants ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-01 22:54:01 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	cd86192ca2	feat: add issue privacy ACL foundation ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-01 22:54:01 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	627728bdde	feat: add authoritative issue PATCH receipts (#10478) ... <!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents update tasks through the issue API. > - The update response did not state which values changed. > - Blocker updates also did not echo the scalar blocker IDs. > - Agents therefore used an extra GET request to confirm a successful write. > - This pull request adds an authoritative change receipt and an optional small response. > - The benefit is fewer API calls with a clear and compatible write contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and the UI issue cache. ### Problem or motivation A successful issue PATCH returned the updated issue, but it did not identify the effective changes. Blocker writes returned relation summaries without the scalar IDs. Agents could not distinguish a confirmed clear operation from missing data. The response must confirm committed field and blocker changes while existing UI clients continue to receive the full issue by default. ### Proposed solution Add a `changes` receipt. Add a conditional `blockedByIssueIds` echo. Support `Prefer: return=minimal`. Keep the full response as the default. ### Alternatives considered Make the small response the default for agent tokens. This would create different response contracts by actor type, so this pull request does not use that design. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused control-plane reliability improvement. It does not duplicate an open roadmap milestone. ## What Changed - Compute committed issue row and relation changes in the issue service. - Omit no-op fields and truncate changed long text values to 200 characters. - Echo blocker ID arrays for blocker set and clear requests. - Add the opt-in `Prefer: return=minimal` response and `Preference-Applied` header. - Keep receipt metadata out of React Query issue caches. - Add route and embedded Postgres tests for the new contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "returns authoritative update receipts for row fields and blocker relations"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low compatibility risk. The default response only adds receipt fields. - Minimal mode is opt-in. Existing clients do not receive a smaller body. - The receipt excludes `updatedAt` because the response already returns it as the freshness anchor. - Prose API and agent workflow guidance will follow after the server contract is available. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID, context window size, and reasoning mode are not exposed to the agent. The agent used repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-31 18:52:59 -07:00
3 people	fc5a30805e	feat(cli): add managed install, update, and service lifecycle (#10045) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Operators need a predictable installation path that survives beyond an ephemeral `npx` process > - A durable installation needs an owned per-user payload store, stable command shim, safe shell integration, and supported service lifecycle > - Updates must preserve recoverability by backing up data, installing side-by-side, verifying the new payload, and retaining rollback state > - Bootstrap scripts and privileged service operations must fail closed across download, filesystem, ownership, and consent boundaries > - This pull request integrates managed install, update, rollback, service, uninstall, doctor, bootstrap-installer, and runtime-serving support into one workflow > - The benefit is a recoverable, inspectable, and documented installation lifecycle with explicit safety boundaries across Linux, macOS, containers, WSL, npm, npx, and source checkouts ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Problem Paperclip lacks a first-class durable installation and lifecycle workflow. Operators currently have to assemble npm/npx installation, PATH setup, background-service management, updates, rollback, diagnostics, and uninstall behavior themselves. That makes upgrades harder to recover, creates inconsistent behavior across platforms, and leaves shell/download/service trust boundaries without one documented implementation. ### Proposed Solution Add a managed per-user install store and stable shim, a verified shell bootstrap installer, service lifecycle commands, install-mode-aware update/rollback behavior, doctor checks, and documentation. Managed updates back up the database, install and smoke-test a side-by-side payload, atomically switch `current`, and retain prior payloads. The shell installer pins registry/download trust boundaries and requires explicit consent for non-interactive privileged actions. ### Alternatives Considered - Keep recommending `npx`: simple for evaluation, but ephemeral and unsuitable for stable services, atomic updates, or rollback. - Require global npm installation only: familiar, but cannot provide the owned side-by-side payload store and retained rollback semantics. - Split the capability across multiple PRs: rejected because install, update, service, uninstall, bootstrap, and serving behavior share contracts and security boundaries that need review together. ### Related Pull Requests - Supersedes #10042 and #10044 with one integrated final diff. - Incorporates and replaces the closed preparatory work in #10032 and #10034. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai install`, `update`/`upgrade`, rollback, uninstall, service lifecycle, onboarding integration, and managed-install doctor checks. - Added a private managed payload store, verified manifest/marker ownership, exclusive mutation locks, atomic manifest/current/shim writes, retained previous payloads, and provenance validation. - Added npm and GitHub-ref install sources with exact target resolution, registry isolation, database backup, side-by-side verification, atomic activation, service restart coordination, and failure rollback. - Made managed-update backups report actionable service-start and `--no-backup` recovery guidance for unreachable databases, while clean never-onboarded instances skip an empty backup. - Added systemd user and launchd service definitions, status/health/log commands, single-instance coordination, stale-port recovery, and explicit sudo/lingering consent handling. - Added the `scripts/install.sh` bootstrap path with checked two-stage downloads, pinned public npm registry usage, platform checks, dry-run/non-interactive controls, and Docker fixtures. - Added embedded Postgres/native bootstrap integration, hot-restart/systemd-notify serving support, passive update notices, configuration contracts, README/CLI/install documentation, and focused regression tests. - Security re-review should explicitly re-verify: (1) `addManagedPathBlock`/`removeManagedPathBlock` reject symlinked or non-regular rc files, assert current-user ownership, preserve restrictive modes, and replace atomically; (2) managed shim replacement rejects unsafe parents, foreign-owned or multiply linked files, and uses checked atomic replacement; (3) the shell installer and sudo path preserve explicit consent and checked downloads; and (4) installed service/runtime serving remains bound to the validated managed shim and instance configuration. ## Verification - `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/clean-install-git.sh scripts/clean-install-npm.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/install-store.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/install-command.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/managed-install-check.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard-service.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/service-health-check.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/service-manager.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/update-notice.test.ts packages/db/src/embedded-postgres-native.test.ts` — 9 files, 66 tests passed - `pnpm --dir cli typecheck` - `pnpm --dir cli build` - Follow-up verification: `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts` (14/14), `pnpm --dir cli typecheck`, `pnpm --dir cli build`, and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Full `pnpm test:run` exercised all suites; an injected static AWS credential changed one unrelated doctor expectation, which passed when those credentials were removed. A second run cleared that case and exposed stale pre-existing adapter-utils `dist` output; rebuilding `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` made the isolated test pass. The updated PR CI is the authoritative clean-workspace full-suite run. ## Risks - Installer/update code writes executable shims, symlinks, shell rc blocks, service definitions, and managed payloads; ownership, regular-file, symlink, hard-link, marker, and path-containment checks fail closed before destructive changes. - The bootstrap installer executes downloaded tooling; downloads are staged and checked before execution, npm traffic is pinned to the public registry, and non-interactive privileged behavior requires explicit consent. - Linux lingering may invoke `sudo`; the command is surfaced and confirmed before execution, and unsupported service managers fall back to foreground-run guidance. - Database migrations remain forward-only; payload rollback does not reverse migrations, so managed updates create a backup before activation unless explicitly disabled. - Service restart and runtime serving touch process/port ownership; lifecycle locks, health/version checks, and stable-shim service definitions reduce split-brain and stale-process risk. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agents using GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6-sol, with reasoning, repository/API access, shell execution, and test tooling. The runtime did not expose a reliable context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-31 18:52:23 -07:00
Devin Foley	075951f6bd	Fix import completion UX: inbox flood, false-failure message, stale company list (#10538) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company Import/Export (#10507, hardened in #10523 and #10531) now imports a large company end to end via an async job > - A real 1,418-issue import succeeded, but three rough edges showed up in that success > - Imported issues flooded the inbox, a completed import surfaced a false "failed" message after its in-memory result expired, and the new company didn't appear in the switcher until a manual refresh > - This pull request keeps imported issues out of the inbox, treats an expired-but-completed import as success, and refreshes the company list on completion > - The benefit is that a successful import looks and feels successful, and doesn't bury the user's inbox in historical tasks ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #10507 / #10523 / #10531 (Import/Export and its hardening). No open issue; three post-import bugs described above. ## What Changed - **Imported issues no longer flood the inbox.** The inbox "mine" tab is a query: an issue is "touched" if the user authored a comment on it, and import re-attributes bundled user comments to the importing user — so every imported issue appeared. Import now seeds a per-user `issue_inbox_archives` row for each imported issue (via a batched `issues.archiveImportedInbox`), the exact table the inbox visibility query excludes. Gated on an actor user id, so agent/system imports and normal issue creation are untouched; genuine new activity still resurfaces the issue. - **A completed import no longer shows a false failure.** The in-memory job's terminal retention was 5 minutes, so a poll after that 404'd and the UI showed "failed." Retention is extended to 60 minutes — the real mitigation for a user who steps away during a long import. `watchImportJob` additionally treats a *server-confirmed* success whose full result is no longer retained (a `succeeded` status carrying only the compact summary — a cloud tenant job, or a board job whose full in-memory result aged out) as a soft success ("import completed — open the company"), navigating by the summary's company id. A 404 while the job is still being watched is *not* treated as success: a running job is never dropped by the retention sweep, so its disappearance means a restart mid-import that may not have finished, and it surfaces the honest "may have restarted while the import ran" error. A first-poll 404 (the id never existed) is likewise a real error. - **The imported company appears without a refresh.** `onSuccess` now invalidates the companies/switcher query unconditionally (covering both the full-result and expired-but-completed paths) and navigates by the job's company id. ## Verification - shared/server/ui typechecks clean; 15 UI tests in the touched spec green, plus the embedded-Postgres import batching and portability-routes suites. - New tests: embedded-Postgres test that imported touched issues are archived for the actor and excluded from the inbox query while a normally-created issue still appears; job resolvable at the old window+1 and only 404s past 60 min; UI soft success on a server-confirmed `succeeded` job without a retained full result (no error, list invalidated, navigates by company id), a running-then-gone job → honest error (restart mid-import), and a first-poll 404 → error. ## Risks - Low and import-scoped: the inbox archive only affects imported issues for the importing user; normal issue creation and non-user (agent/system) imports are unchanged. Retention extension is a constant; the async job store remains in-memory by design. A restart mid-import still 404s and is surfaced honestly as a possible failure (never masked as success); only a server-confirmed success whose full result has expired is reported as a soft success. ## Model Used - Implementation: Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic). Review hardening (the confirmed-success narrowing): Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`, Anthropic). Both via the Claude Code CLI with extended thinking + tool use; root-caused against the live import. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [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	2026-07-30 21:33:02 -07:00
Devin Foley	276ae3a75d	Harden company import: durable UI, async jobs, integrity guard, batched inserts (#10523) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company Import/Export (#10507) moves whole companies between instances as portability bundles > - Real-world use on a large company (1,418 issues, ~10.6k comments) surfaced a cluster of related failures: the import took hours and the browser connection died while the server kept running, a retry silently produced a second partial import, the progress/error UI gave no durable signal, and a cloud-tenant user couldn't even open the companies afterward > - Root cause of the slowness: importBundle inserted every issue, comment, and document as a separate round-trip to a network Postgres — an N+1-over-network pattern > - This pull request hardens the whole import path: durable progress/error UI, an async server-side job so imports survive dropped connections (with a duplicate-submit guard), a fail-closed guard against incomplete payloads, and batched inserts that cut a large import from hours to minutes > - The benefit is that migrating a real, large company actually completes, is legible while it runs, and can't half-import twice ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #10507 (the Import/Export feature this hardens). Supersedes #10513 (the progress/error-UI piece, folded in here). No open issue; problem described above (large-company import: slow, connection-fragile, silently duplicable, opaque UI). ## What Changed - **Batched inserts (perf):** importBundle pre-generates entity ids in JS and inserts in chunked multi-row statements, so children no longer wait on parents' generated ids. A 1,418-issue import drops from ~15,600 insert statements to **82** (190×); benchmark below. Import semantics — collision handling, pause-on-import, label/blocker/monitor/attachment/embedded-asset handling, blob sha verification — are unchanged (full portability suite green). - **Async import jobs for board sessions:** the existing cloud-tenant async job path opens to board sessions with per-actor job keys; the import page submits, polls, and resumes watching after a reload or dropped connection instead of holding one fragile request. A non-terminal job blocks a duplicate submit (409 returns the running job), preventing the double-import. - **Fail-closed completeness guard:** an optional `expectedFileCount` on inline imports; the server rejects (422 `import_payload_incomplete`) a body carrying fewer files than declared, so a re-framed/short payload fails loudly instead of half-importing. - **Durable progress/error UI (was #10513):** persistent progress panels with size-aware copy, persistent error panels with retry guidance, and inline explanation when the preview button is disabled; request-lifecycle guards so stale previews/imports can't publish or detach. ## Verification - `pnpm -r` typechecks (shared, server, ui) clean. - `company-portability.test.ts` (76) + `company-portability-routes.test.ts` (30) green — the import correctness net — plus new `CompanyImport.test.tsx` async/resume/409 coverage and a new batching regression test (a 50-issue import issues <50 issue-insert statements; rows land unchanged). - **Batching benchmark (embedded Postgres):** at 1,418 issues × 7 comments × 1 doc — 82 insert statements vs ~15,598 one-per-row (190×), ~1s wall-clock; a row-verifying run at that scale imports all 1,418 issues / 9,926 comments / 1,418 documents with unique identifiers and no warnings (no rows dropped by chunking). Over a network DB the round-trip reduction is the hours→minutes lever. - What is NOT directly measured here: wall-clock against a real network Postgres (that happens on a staging deploy); the local timing is network-free. ## Risks - Batching is the load-bearing change: it rewrites the import write path. Mitigated by the unchanged 106-test correctness suite, a new scale/row-integrity test, and per-writer transactions (a failure rolls back its table group; not a single outer transaction across writers — noted, correctness preserved). - Async jobs are in-memory (lost on server restart → pollers 404 and can resubmit); matches the pre-existing cloud-tenant job semantics. - `expectedFileCount` is optional (older callers unaffected); over-count is allowed, only under-count fails closed. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, extended thinking + tool use; implementation across Fable 5 subagents with live diagnosis against a running instance. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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	2026-07-30 16:52:58 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	f6ab82d490	feat(interactions): add interaction withdrawal and terminal-issue expiry (#10251) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and boards coordinate through issue-thread interactions (request_confirmation, ask_user_questions, suggest_tasks, …) that wait as `pending` cards until someone resolves them > - Two lifecycle gaps existed: an interaction's creator could not take back a card it no longer stands behind, and interactions left `pending` on issues that reached a terminal status lingered forever as live-looking approval requests > - Stale pending cards mislead humans (they look actionable), distort attention/liveness signals, and in the worst case invite acting on a proposal whose issue is already closed or cancelled > - This pull request adds an explicit withdraw route for pending interactions and automatically expires pending interactions when their issue reaches a terminal status (including a catch-up sweep for issues closed before this change) > - The benefit is that interaction cards now faithfully reflect reality: only genuinely actionable requests stay pending, and creators can retract requests that events have overtaken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #5787 Refs #7403 Related prior PRs found while searching for duplicates (all overlap partially; none combine both lifecycle paths or the route-level authorization used here): #6709 and #7312 (creator-withdraw attempts), #8169 (terminal expiry), #8081 and #5137 (generalized cancel/expire endpoints), #6094 (stale confirmation auto-resolve). Related merged context: #9568 (agent cancel for ask_user_questions), #10119 (tolerating legacy `withdrawn_by_creator` result outcomes — the reader side of the outcome this PR writes). ## What Changed - New route `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` that resolves a `pending` interaction to status `withdrawn` with a structured result (`outcome: "withdrawn"`, optional trimmed `reason`), stamps `resolvedBy*`/`resolvedAt`, touches the issue, logs activity, and emits resolved-interaction telemetry - Withdrawal authorization: board users, the interaction's creator agent, or the issue's current assignee agent (assignees additionally pass the standard issue-mutation gate); task-watchdog runs are explicitly rejected, and authorization-boundary plus low-trust control-plane checks apply - Withdrawing an already-resolved interaction returns `409`; unknown/cross-issue/cross-company interaction ids return `404` - New service method `expirePendingInteractionsForTerminalIssue`: when an issue transitions to a terminal status, all of its `pending` interactions are resolved to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"`, guarded by a `status = 'pending'` predicate so concurrent resolutions are not overwritten - The same expiry runs as a catch-up when interactions are listed on an already-terminal issue, so cards stranded by issues closed before this change also get cleaned up; expired request_confirmations are logged with a distinguishing source - Shared package: new `withdrawIssueThreadInteractionSchema` validator, `WithdrawIssueThreadInteraction` type, and `withdrawn` / `issue_closed` result-outcome support for all interaction kinds (kind-aware result shapes for `ask_user_questions` and `request_item_verdicts`) - UI helper `ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.ts` recognizes the new outcomes for card rendering - Docs: bundled skill API reference updated with the withdraw endpoint - Review follow-up: terminal expiry moved from the HTTP route hooks into `issueService.update`'s status-transition block, so direct service callers (tree control, recovery, pipelines, status cards) expire pending cards too; the list-endpoint catch-up remains for issues closed before this change - Review follow-up: withdrawing or issue-close-expiring a `request_confirmation` also settles its linked `tool_action_requests` row (withdraw -> `cancelled`, issue closed -> `expired`), so a parked tool call cannot stay approvable after its card is gone - Review follow-up: interaction cards render dedicated copy for the new outcomes ("Withdrawn" with the reason, "Expired when issue closed") instead of falling through to superseded-by-comment / stale-target variants; withdrawn plan reviews badge as "Withdrawn" rather than "Changes requested" ## Screenshots Card states rendered from a local ux-lab harness with mocked data ([full gallery](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/)): | Light | Dark | | --- | --- | |  |  | ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — clean tsc - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 22 tests pass, including new coverage for: creator-agent withdraw success, non-creator/non-assignee agent 403, watchdog-run 403, double-withdraw 409, and board-user withdraw - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` — 4 tests pass, including terminal-issue expiry writing `issue_closed` results and leaving already-resolved interactions untouched - `cd ui && pnpm typecheck` — clean - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — includes a new embedded-Postgres test proving a direct `issueService.update` terminal transition expires pending interactions and writes the activity-log entry - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx` — 32 tests, including new coverage for withdrawn / issue-closed confirmation and question cards - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — matches the pre-existing repo error baseline exactly (no new errors) - Manual: `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` with `{"reason":"superseded"}` as the creator agent resolves the card to `withdrawn`; closing an issue with a pending confirmation flips it to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"` ## Risks - Interactions on terminal issues now auto-expire (including retroactively via the list-time catch-up), so consumers that expected to resolve a pending interaction on a closed issue will get `409`; this is the intended semantics and matches how the attention feed already wants to treat dead cards - New result outcomes (`withdrawn`, `issue_closed`) are written to stored results; readers were already made tolerant of these outcome strings in #10119, so mixed-version reads are safe - No schema/migration changes; per-row conditional updates (`status = 'pending'`) avoid clobbering concurrent resolutions - Withdrawal is a new mutation surface, but it is strictly narrower than existing resolve paths (board, creator, or assignee only; watchdog runs blocked) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness); commit authored in a Paperclip-managed engineering 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>	2026-07-27 19:04:46 -05:00
3 people	7e40ed8c43	feat(status-cards): add experimental status card update view (#10101) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Operators need a board-level way to monitor a changing slice of company work without repeatedly rebuilding filters or reading raw task threads. > - Existing summaries are useful snapshots, but they do not provide a dedicated query-backed card with refresh policy, change tracking, update history, and per-update cost visibility. > - The capability needs to be safe to evaluate before it becomes part of the default product surface. > - This pull request adds end-to-end experimental Status Cards, from schema and query compilation through update orchestration and operator UI. > - The entire feature is gated behind the `enableStatusCards` experimental toggle, including its route and sidebar entry. > - The benefit is a governed, inspectable way to keep focused operational rollups current while preserving explicit controls over refresh frequency and spend. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`, `ui/`, and bundled skills/docs). ### Problem or motivation Operators cannot currently define a reusable natural-language view of company work, compile it into an inspectable query, and keep its summary current as matching issues change. Rebuilding filters and rereading task threads makes board-level monitoring repetitive and hides the relationship between source changes, refresh cost, and the resulting summary. ### Proposed solution Add experimental Status Cards that compile operator intent into a query, summarize matched work, record each update, expose manual/interval/reactive refresh policies and costs, and preserve the last good result across stale, updating, paused, and error states. The capability is off by default and fully gated behind `enableStatusCards`, including its route and navigation entry. ### Alternatives considered - Extend existing one-off summaries: rejected because status cards require persistent query provenance, refresh policy, update history, and card-specific cost controls. - Add a dashboard-only filter widget: rejected because it would not provide governed background refresh, an update ledger, or an inspectable compile pipeline. - Ship the surface by default: rejected in favor of an experimental toggle while behavior and operator value are evaluated. ### Roadmap alignment This advances Paperclip’s board-level execution visibility and output-first product goals. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate status-card initiative was found. ### Additional context No related open PR was found in the public GitHub search for status cards. The PR-only design wireframes were removed from the repository after review; the published prototype remains external to the production source tree. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped status-card schema, CRUD APIs, compile provenance, update ledger, shared contracts, validators, and OpenAPI coverage. - Added the text-to-query compile pipeline, bundled `status-card-query` agent skill, query versioning, and authorized write-back flow. - Added the experimental board, create flow, lifecycle tiles, detail/settings/debug drawers, archived view, routing, navigation, and instance setting. - Added a change-gated update engine with manual, interval, and reactive refresh policies, trigger selection, active hours, and daily token caps. - Added per-update token/cost recording, today and lifetime rollups, and policy-derived cost previews. - Added operator documentation and agent-authoring hardening for compile and update behavior. - Added PR-prep integration coverage for settings/startup wiring and replaced raw UI values with design-system tokens. - Removed the PR-only `design/pap-15023-status-cards` wireframe artifacts so the repository contains only production feature assets. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passes on the PR head; includes `ui` `tsc -b` passing. The UI compile gate was also independently recorded as passing at `6d7f3cf96b` on July 23, 2026. - `pnpm build` — passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passes with all three gates clean. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,880 tests passed and 1 skipped; the sole failure was an unrelated 10-second `afterAll` database-cleanup timeout in `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — passes on immediate focused rerun (25/25). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — passes (31/31). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardSettingsForm.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardTile.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/format.test.ts src/lib/status-card-state.test.ts` — passes (26/26). - Recorded pre-PR QA: compile-pipeline e2e PASS; full lifecycle and cost QA PASS; security re-review PASS after write-back hardening; UX approved. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` — passes; reapplies migrations `0185`–`0189` against an already-migrated embedded Postgres database. - `pnpm --filter /db check:migrations` — passes migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter /db typecheck` — passes. - Merged current `origin/master` on July 24, 2026 with no conflicts; migrations `0185`–`0189` remain unclaimed on master. ## Risks - The feature introduces five database migrations and a new background update path; all new DDL is repeat-safe after partial application, migration numbering/safety checks pass, and update execution is company-scoped and change-gated. - Natural-language compilation can produce invalid or overly broad queries; compile provenance, query validation, debug visibility, and version history make failures inspectable and recoverable. - Reactive or interval refresh could increase spend; active hours, max refresh frequency, daily token caps, per-update cost records, and budget-paused states bound and expose that risk. - The branch name contains an internal execution identifier because it is a fixed handoff branch; it was intentionally not renamed or rebased per the release handoff instructions. - Overall rollout risk is limited because the route, navigation, services, and UI are disabled by default behind `enableStatusCards`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI, and test/build execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR 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; the fixed execution-workspace identifier is documented as an authorized handoff exception - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, with the one cleanup timeout passing on focused rerun - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-24 12:26:43 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	148a5b11f5	Route blocked transitions to explicit unblock owners (#10112) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies. > - Issue status transitions determine whether work keeps moving or silently stalls. > - A blocked issue previously could rely on prose alone, leaving the intended unblock owner unstructured and unnotified. > - Existing blocker-attention classification could identify stalled chains, but the signal was not delivered to the board attention feed. > - Blocked transitions also need rollout-safe deduplication so upgrades do not notify for historical issues and repeated processing does not create notification storms. > - This pull request adds structured unblock descriptors, prospective transition timestamps, owner delivery, and board attention routing with focused authorization controls. > - The benefit is that newly blocked work has an explicit, routable next action without weakening company boundaries or allowing agents to inject arbitrary human attention items. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related documentation PR: #10094. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`. ### Problem or motivation An issue can enter `blocked` without a machine-readable unblock path. Prose-only ownership does not reliably wake the responsible agent or surface human-owned work, while the existing `blockerAttention` classifier is not delivered to an operator-facing attention feed. ### Proposed solution Require new transitions into `blocked` to have unresolved blockers, a pending interaction/approval, or a structured `{ owner, action }` descriptor. Notify an allowed owner once per prospective transition, route human-owned cases to board attention, and leave pre-rollout blocked issues untouched. ### Alternatives considered - Keep prose-only blockers: rejected because ownership remains unroutable. - Backfill all historical blocked issues: rejected because upgrades would create notification storms. - Let agents target arbitrary users or the board: rejected after security review because it creates an attention-injection channel. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` → “Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery actions, review gates)” by making blocked work carry an explicit continuation path. ### Additional context The implementation is prospective-only and deduplicated per blocked transition. Agent-authored descriptors are limited to the acting agent; board actors retain human-owner routing. ## What Changed - Added persisted unblock descriptors and prospective blocked-transition delivery timestamps with an idempotent migration. - Added shared types and validation for board, user, and agent unblock owners. - Enforced valid blocked transitions and same-company owner validation in the issue update route. - Restricted agent-authored descriptors to the acting agent itself, preventing board/user attention injection by compromised agents. - Added one-per-transition agent wake delivery and prospective-only rollout gating. - Routed human-owned blocker attention into the board attention feed. - Added focused tests for validation, prospective delivery, flap deduplication, attention routing, route authorization, and stop-relay compatibility. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routable-blocked.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` ## Risks - Behavioral shift: new `blocked` transitions without a real blocker, pending governed action, or structured descriptor now return `422`. - Notification abuse is constrained by same-company validation, agent self-only routing, prospective rollout gating, and transition-scoped deduplication. - Migration risk is low: columns are additive, nullable, and use `IF NOT EXISTS`; historical blocked issues are not backfilled or notified. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI with GPT-5.4, reasoning-enabled tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-23 15:49:28 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a17bee98f2	Allow trust-gated direct-parent issue reports (#10098) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane used to coordinate and govern AI-agent companies. > - Agent issue access must preserve company boundaries and trust-policy containment without preventing legitimate task coordination. > - Checked-out standard-trust child runs need a narrow way to report progress directly to their parent issue, but existing authorization treated that report like an arbitrary cross-boundary write. > - Low-trust review runs must remain contained, and stop propagation must not copy potentially untrusted child prose into a higher-trust parent context. > - This pull request adds an audited, one-hop direct-parent comment grant only for standard checked-out runs and a sanitized, idempotent relay for blocked or cancelled child stops. > - The benefit is restored parent/child liveness while retaining least privilege, complete mediation, and low-trust output quarantine. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? A standard-trust agent running a checked-out child issue could not post a progress comment to the direct parent issue because the authorization boundary treated it as an arbitrary cross-issue write. This could stall parent/child coordination. Low-trust review runs also need stop propagation without exposing quarantined child-authored prose. ### Expected behavior A standard checked-out child run may add a comment only to its direct parent issue. The grant must not allow grandparent or sibling access, issue mutation, document writes, reopening, or resuming. Low-trust runs remain denied unless separately mentioned, while blocked/cancelled stops relay only sanitized system metadata once. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create a parent issue and a child issue assigned to different standard-trust agents. 2. Check out the child issue in a heartbeat run and authenticate as that run. 3. Post a comment to the parent issue and observe the authorization denial before this change. 4. Mark a low-trust child blocked or cancelled and observe that no bounded sanitized parent notification preserves liveness before this change. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduces on `master` before this PR, including base commit `d36ea13e08`. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`). ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core authorization and issue-routing behavior). ### Database mode External Postgres in the focused route regression suite; behavior is database-mode independent. ### Access context Agent (bearer API key associated with a checked-out heartbeat run). ### Additional context The implementation deliberately distinguishes a direct-parent report decision from general issue mutation permission and records successful grants in the activity log. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, API keys, tokens, company names, and private instance references. ## What Changed - Adds a distinct authorization decision for standard checked-out runs commenting on their direct parent issue. - Keeps low-trust direct-parent reports denied unless an existing explicit mention grant applies. - Forces direct-parent grants to remain comment-only even when a closed parent is unassigned or assigned to the reporting agent. - Audits successful direct-parent report grants in issue activity details. - Adds sanitized, parent-scoped, idempotent system comments and parent wakeups for blocked or cancelled child stops. - Extends the low-trust red-team route suite for allowed parent reports, forbidden upward/sibling writes, closed-parent mutation suppression, and non-laundering stop relays. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — 11 tests passed after the review fix. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the review fix. - Confirmed the PR changes four files and excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, workflow changes, migrations, and unrelated branch commits. ## Risks - This is an authorization behavior change. An overly broad grant could enable cross-boundary writes, while an overly narrow grant could preserve the liveness failure. - The implementation constrains the grant to a standard-trust checked-out run, a direct parent target, and comments only; activity auditing and red-team coverage make regressions observable. - Stop relays intentionally contain only system-generated child identity/status metadata and are deduplicated; child-authored prose is not copied. - SecurityEngineer approval is mandatory before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and test execution. The runtime does 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 - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-23 13:03:04 -05:00
Devin Foley	429792f1f3	fix(interactions): stop wedging confirmation accept on a terminal workspace_finalize (#10099) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - When an agent finishes work in an execution workspace, the board can confirm the result through an issue-thread interaction (e.g. the "Merged" / mark-done confirmation button on a `request_confirmation`). > - That accept action is gated: it must not race a worktree sync-back (`workspace_finalize`) that is still copying the agent's commits out of the sandbox, or the board could act on a base that hasn't received them yet. > - The gate (`runWorkspaceIsFinalized`) treated the sync-back as "settled" only when the latest `workspace_finalize` op was `succeeded` — so a run whose finalize reached a terminal `failed` state, or died leaving a stale `running` op, was treated as "still syncing" forever. > - Users hit a permanent, misleading `... has not finished syncing its workspace` error and could never click "Merged", even though nothing was syncing and the run had long since ended. > - This PR fixes the settle semantics so the gate blocks only while a sync-back is genuinely pending or in flight, and treats any terminal (or stale-orphaned) finalize as done. > - The benefit is that a failed or abandoned sync-back no longer wedges the human confirmation, while a genuinely in-flight sync-back on a live run still blocks correctly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this. Describing the bug in-PR (bug report): **What happened** Clicking the "Merged" / mark-done confirmation at the bottom of an issue thread returns an error that the workspace "has not finished syncing its workspace" — but nothing is actually syncing, and the run that created the interaction has already ended. The confirmation is permanently stuck; the only workaround is to merge and mark the task done manually. **Expected behavior** Once the source run's worktree sync-back has finished — whether it succeeded, failed, or was skipped — the confirmation should be acceptable. The gate should block only while a sync-back is genuinely still running on a live run. **Steps to reproduce** Have an agent run reach `workspace_finalize` and end without a `succeeded` finalize (e.g. the sync-back fails, or the run process dies mid-finalize leaving a `running` op). Then attempt to accept the `request_confirmation` interaction it created → 409 "... has not finished syncing its workspace" with no way to proceed. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the current `master` line (server service); root cause is in `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` in `server/src/services/issues.ts`. **Deployment mode** Local / self-hosted instance (server service). **Root cause** `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` returned `true` only when the latest `workspace_finalize` operation was `succeeded`. A terminal `failed` finalize (the sync-back ran and failed; it will not retry within that run) and a `running` finalize left behind by a dead run both left the gate closed forever. ## What Changed - `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` (server/src/services/issues.ts) now treats a sync-back as **settled** when the latest `workspace_finalize` op reached any terminal status (`succeeded`, `failed`, or `skipped`), instead of only `succeeded`. - A `workspace_finalize` still marked `running` blocks only while its owning run is alive; a `running` record left behind by a terminal/missing run is treated as stale (settled), so a dead run can no longer wedge the gate. - Preserved existing behavior for the other cases: no operations recorded at all → settled; earlier phases recorded but no `workspace_finalize` yet → still blocks (the sync-back hasn't been attempted). - Extracted the run-liveness check into a shared exported helper `heartbeatRunIsTerminalOrMissing` and reused it from the existing `isTerminalOrMissingHeartbeatRun` closure (no behavior change there). - Added a short comment at the confirmation-accept gate (server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.ts) documenting the relaxed settle semantics. - The dependency-readiness / blocker barrier (`listPendingFinalizeBlockerIssueIds`) is deliberately left unchanged: an automated dependent must not proceed onto a base that never received a blocker's synced-back commits, so a failed finalize keeps that gate closed. Only the human-driven confirmation accept is relaxed. - Added regression tests for: failed finalize, stale `running` finalize on a dead run, and a genuinely `running` finalize on a live run (must still block). ## Verification - `cd server && node_modules/.bin/vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts -t "accept"` → 17 passed (includes the 3 new regression tests), 21 unrelated tests skipped by the name filter. - Manual reasoning walkthrough of `runWorkspaceIsFinalized` for each op-history shape (no ops / earlier-phase-only / terminal finalize / running-on-dead-run / running-on-live-run) confirms the intended block-vs-settle outcome. ## Risks - Low risk and narrowly scoped to the human confirmation-accept gate. The only behavioral change is that a terminal (`failed`/`skipped`) or stale-orphaned `running` finalize now settles the gate instead of blocking forever. - A genuinely in-flight sync-back on a live run still blocks (covered by a regression test), so the accept cannot race commits that are actively being synced back. - The blocker/dependency barrier for automated dependents is unchanged, so no dependent will be advanced onto a base missing a failed blocker's commits. ## Model Used - Provider/model: Claude (Anthropic), **Opus 4.8**, model ID `claude-opus-4-8`, 1M context window. - Capabilities used: extended thinking, tool use (repo inspection, local test execution). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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	2026-07-23 10:34:47 -07:00
4 people	1ba79d82a5	fix(server): preserve terminal status on issue release (#7524) ... Fixes #4206 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents on issues with checkout/release semantics for execution locks > - `POST /api/issues/:id/release` clears checkout and execution locks when a heartbeat ends without finishing the issue > - `issues.release()` unconditionally set `status: "todo"`, undoing terminal and waiting states (`done`, `cancelled`, `in_review`, `blocked`) set during the session > - Agents reported status drift after release (e.g. `in_review` → `todo`, `done` → `todo`), forcing manual PATCH recovery and risking silent stalls > - This pull request gates the `todo` re-queue to `in_progress` issues only and preserves all other statuses on release > - The benefit is lock cleanup without destroying workflow state agents already recorded ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Fixes #4206 — `issues.release()` must not downgrade terminal/waiting statuses - Related internal incident: AIT-114 status drift on terminal issue release (AI Trading Council) ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issues.ts` — `releaseStatus` is `todo` only when `existing.status === "in_progress"`; otherwise preserves `existing.status` - `server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts` — regression tests: release preserves done, cancelled, in_review, blocked keeps `done` and clears lock fields - `server/package.json` — patch bump `0.3.1` → `0.3.2` - `server/CHANGELOG.md` — documents the fix ## Verification ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test issue-stale-execution-lock-routes ``` - 7/7 tests pass (parametrized done, cancelled, in_review, blocked) (includes new `preserves terminal status when releasing a done issue` and existing `in_progress` → `todo` on release) - CI: Build, Typecheck, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run green on latest head `f31b55f` ## Risks Low risk. Behaviour change is intentional: non-`in_progress` releases no longer force `todo`. Agents that relied on release to re-queue `in_review`/`blocked` work must PATCH status explicitly (documented in agent lifecycle guidance). Rollback: revert this commit and redeploy `@paperclipai/server` 0.3.1. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 (extended thinking mode) — 200K context window, tool use enabled. Assisted implementation and PR packaging for AI Trading Council upstream port from local hotfix. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (CHANGELOG) - [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 (re-review requested on head `f31b55f`) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com> Co-authored-by: brandon <brandonburr@gmail.com>	2026-07-21 10:07:59 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	59eee4829c	fix(inbox): stop archived items from resurfacing (#9931) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to coordinate AI-agent companies and review work needing attention. > - The Inbox is the operator-facing surface that aggregates tasks requiring attention across server state and shared client polling. > - Archiving a task optimistically removed it, but ordinary background activity and stale polling responses could make it reappear seconds later. > - The server therefore needs to distinguish genuine user-attention events from routine agent/system activity. > - The client also needs a bounded local archive guard across every Inbox query path while the server mutation and in-flight polls settle. > - This pull request fixes both resurrection paths and adds race-focused regression coverage. > - The benefit is stable archive behavior without hiding a genuine archive failure after reconciliation or reload. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] Searched existing open and closed issues and pull requests; no duplicate implementation was found. - [x] Reproduced on `master` before this branch. - [x] Confirmed this is a Paperclip core bug, not adapter or provider behavior. ### What happened? Archiving an Inbox task hid it optimistically, then background refresh activity could insert it back into the list seconds later. ### Expected behavior A successfully archived task remains hidden during normal polling. A genuine failed archive may become visible again after reconciliation or reload. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open Inbox with a visible task. 2. Archive the task. 3. Wait for shared polling or routine agent activity to refresh task data. 4. Observe the archived task reappear without a hard page refresh. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` before this branch. ### Deployment mode Built from source using the local development application. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core Inbox bug. ### Database mode Not database-mode-specific. ### Access context Board (human operator). ### Additional context The failure had independent server and client causes: routine activity could resurface archived rows server-side, while stale shared-poll responses could bypass optimistic client removal. ## What Changed - Restrict server-side Inbox resurfacing to explicit user-attention events rather than any issue activity write. - Add a bounded client-side archive guard with confirmation, failure restoration, and cache reconciliation behavior. - Apply the guard to Inbox rendering, badge counts, optimistic cache updates, and shared-poll result application. - Classify the generic compact Inbox query so stale shared-poll data cannot bypass the guard. - Add server visibility-matrix tests and UI race-condition regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts src/lib/inboxArchiveCache.test.ts src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 25 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — 107 passed. - Branch rebased cleanly onto current `origin/master` before push. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: resurfacing is intentionally narrower, so the server tests cover human comments, mentions, interactions, and status transitions that must still regain attention. - The client guard is bounded and cleared on mutation failure, limiting the risk of hiding a task whose archive did not persist. - No schema, migration, public API, workflow, dependency-lock, or visual-token changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude via Claude Code (`claude_local`; prior implementation/review run, exact underlying model ID and context window were not retained in the handoff metadata), with repository tool use and test execution. - OpenAI `gpt-5.5` via Codex CLI for final review repair and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository editing, GitHub tooling, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked/described the result above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip task identifier - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation where needed; no documentation change is required for this bug fix - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip-authored commits include the required co-author trailer --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-21 08:13:14 -05:00
3 people	a59aa128a3	fix(api): sanitize createdByRunId on comment insert to prevent 500s (#9489) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue-comments API (`POST /api/issues/:id/comments`) attributes each comment to the run that created it via `created_by_run_id`, a foreign key into `heartbeat_runs` > - In multi-agent local control-plane usage, board/session clients sometimes forward an `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` that is not a real run row — a non-UUID client request id, a synthetic string, or a since-deleted run > - That value was written straight to the FK column, so the insert died with a Postgres FK violation and the endpoint returned HTTP 500, breaking agent coordination > - This PR resolves the run id defensively before insert: reject non-UUID shapes, verify the row exists for the company, and null out anything unresolvable while logging a warning > - The benefit is that a bad run-id header degrades gracefully to an unattributed comment (201) instead of a 500, so comment creation stays up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists; describing inline (bug): **What happened:** `POST /api/issues/:id/comments` returns HTTP 500 when the request carries an `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` that does not correspond to a row in `heartbeat_runs` (non-UUID value, synthetic client id, or deleted run). The value is written to the `created_by_run_id` FK, and Postgres rejects the insert with a foreign-key violation (SQLSTATE 23503). **Expected:** the comment is created (HTTP 201); an unresolvable run id is dropped to `null` rather than failing the request. **Impact:** in multi-agent usage, comment creation — and the agent coordination that depends on it — fails whenever a client forwards a run id that isn't a live run. ## What Changed - Add `resolveCommentCreatedByRunId(dbOrTx, companyId, runId)` — trims and validates UUID shape, then checks existence in `heartbeat_runs` scoped to the company; returns `null` for missing/invalid ids. - `addComment` now resolves the run id through that helper before insert and logs a warning when a supplied run id is dropped. - Add embedded-Postgres regression tests for the three cases (non-UUID header, unknown UUID, valid run id). ## Verification - `pnpm --filter server test issues-service` — the new `issueService.addComment createdByRunId` block passes. - Cases covered: non-UUID header → 201, `createdByRunId: null`; UUID absent from `heartbeat_runs` → 201, `null`; valid run id present for the company → preserved. ## Risks Low. Purely defensive — valid run ids are still preserved, only unresolvable ones are nulled. Adds one indexed, tenant-scoped `SELECT` per comment insert. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (extended thinking), via the Paperclip PR-triage cockpit, produced the added regression tests and this description. The original implementation is by @digitalflanker-ux; the author's model is unspecified. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [ ] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above (related: #4795 same fix; #8065 sibling FK-guard on the activity-log path) - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [ ] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Haiku 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>	2026-07-20 17:31:42 -05:00
3 people	1f1f545238	feat: add built-in summarizer and summary slots (#9713) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize, govern, and understand AI-agent work > - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run > - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents, routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow connecting those systems > - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned destinations for that output > - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress, failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators already work > - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent, orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting > - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. **Problem** Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth watching. **Proposed capability** Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent, governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards. **Expected behavior** - Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable. - Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and deduplicates active requests. - Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot revision. - Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft progress from project and workspace views. - The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by default. ## What Changed - Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts, validators, API paths, and service tests. - Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions, requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity logging. - Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment wakeups, and orchestration integration. - Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine. - Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states, live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace integrations. - Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, and passed when those host credentials were removed - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff ## Risks - Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent migrations and migration safety checks. - Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent configuration entry points. - Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol; final persisted revisions remain the source of truth. - The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is paused with no background token spend by default. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-17 11:03:07 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	53f09cb818	fix: prevent duplicate task creation and recovery loops (#9648) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Agents, routines, productivity review, and recovery services can all create or re-trigger work > - Repeated heartbeats or catch-up cycles can produce duplicate tasks or repeat recovery actions before prior work is visible > - The base duplicate-create and routine catch-up coalescing work has now landed on `master` via related PRs while this PR was being prepared > - This pull request carries the remaining hardening: bounded idempotency retention, recovery cooldown/throttle fixes, productivity-review query batching and ordering fixes, and regression coverage > - The benefit is fewer duplicate tasks, safer retries, and enough provenance to diagnose any future recurrence ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Agents can retry issue creation after ambiguous responses or independently recreate the same child title, while recovery and short-interval routine catch-up paths can repeat before prior work settles. This can produce visible duplicate tasks and makes the originating heartbeat difficult to identify. Related work: Refs #8356 for caller-supplied issue-create idempotency and Refs #9224 for plugin-scoped issue-create idempotency. Prior related PR: #6936. The base issue-create deduplication and routine catch-up coalescing pieces have since landed on `master` via #9650 and #9649; this PR remains as the follow-up hardening stack on top of those changes. ## What Changed - Add 7-day retention for issue-create idempotency claims with indexed, batch-limited cleanup so the claim table does not grow forever. - Preserve recovery cooldown intent after terminal recovery actions are closed, and throttle repeated source-scoped recovery work. - Batch productivity-review source-activity checks to avoid repeated per-source queries while keeping the no-action suppression behavior. - Order productivity-review no-action streak windows by review creation time, matching the window semantics even when completion timestamps are out of order. - Preserve generated issue IDs in route mocks used by backlog/assignment contract tests. - Document PR-gardening task deduplication expectations in the company skill. - Add focused regression tests for idempotency retention, liveness recovery cooldowns, and productivity-review batching/suppression/ordering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed on latest head. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts --reporter verbose` — 2 files, 23 tests passed on latest head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils build && pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils --reporter dot` — 30 files passed, 476 tests passed, 8 skipped. - `pnpm build` — passed on latest head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the rebased head before the final productivity-review ordering commit; the latest touched server code is covered by the server typecheck above. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — progressed through server, UI, CLI, shared, skills-catalog, and DB sections, then exposed an adapter-utils compiled-test fingerprint mismatch before rebuilding adapter-utils; the adapter-utils project passed after rebuild, and the GitHub split PR checks passed on the pushed head. ## Risks - Caller-supplied idempotency replay is now bounded to 7 days; reusing an old key after retention can create new work, which matches retry-oriented idempotency semantics. - Recovery and productivity-review timing changes may suppress redundant follow-up work; focused tests cover the intended boundaries. - Advisory locking and idempotency cleanup rely on PostgreSQL-compatible transaction semantics already used by the production data layer. - The migration extends the private claim table indexes without rewriting existing issue rows. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with reasoning, repository editing, shell/tool execution, and test execution. Exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-16 17:00:53 -05:00
3 people	59fb27ff79	feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status > - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully attributable > - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and #9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together > - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior harder to review and land as one coherent capability > - This pull request consolidates the remaining server, shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current master > - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI. ### Problem or motivation Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed for safe agent-managed cleanup. ### Proposed solution Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening. ### Alternatives considered - Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization. - Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because completion signals can still require human review or a decision. - Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed and verified together. ### Related work - Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658. - Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661. - `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization initiative. ## What Changed - Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage. - Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency, and detailed activity auditing. - Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and Paperclip skill. - Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human action. - Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane handling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed. - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing `#9627` literals outside this PR's diff. ## Risks - Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths. - Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or visibility. - The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist and disabled modes can reduce agent access. - This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new migration number or modification to an already-applied migration. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, code review, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-16 16:49:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	6ec059ab4e	fix(server): suppress stale handoff alarms during live continuation (#9695) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The control plane records a successful-run handoff when productive work ends without a durable next-step disposition > - That handoff state was derived only from the latest activity event, without checking whether a corrective run or wake was currently alive > - As a result, actively progressing issues could still show a high-severity missing-disposition alarm and blocked-inbox row > - The same stale required event could also remain indefinitely when a later successful run correctly skipped recovery because another valid continuation path already existed > - This pull request makes the derived state liveness-aware, suppresses attention only while the live path exists, and resolves stale required events on valid-path skips > - The benefit is that productive work stays calm while genuine stalls still resurface automatically when liveness disappears ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - **Bug:** An issue whose latest successful-run handoff event is `required` continues to report a missing disposition even while a heartbeat run, scheduled retry, or queued/deferred/claimed wake is actively targeting that issue. - **Expected behavior:** The API should expose current continuation liveness, the blocked inbox should suppress the alarm only while that path remains live, and a later successful run that skips recovery because a valid path exists should durably resolve the stale event. - **Related but distinct:** #9370 changes disposition freshness at detection time; #8748 adds an explicit policy opt-out. This PR preserves detection/escalation policy and fixes read-time/current-liveness state. ## What Changed - Extended `SuccessfulRunHandoffState` with `hasLiveContinuation` and optional `liveRunId` evidence. - Added bounded liveness hydration for required handoff states using active heartbeat-run and wake-request signals. - Suppressed `missing_disposition` blocked-inbox rows only while a run, scheduled retry, or live wake targets the issue. - Added durable `issue.successful_run_handoff_resolved` logging when handoff detection skips because another valid continuation path owns the next action. - Added focused regressions for live/absent derived state, self-healing attention suppression, valid-path skip classification, and resolved-event logging. - Updated UI normalization and fixtures for the shared contract without changing rendering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` — 56 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues one finish-handoff wake when a successful run leaves in-progress work without a next action"` — 1 passed - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk: no schema or migration changes, and detection, bounded correction attempts, and escalation behavior are unchanged. - Liveness lookups are limited to issues whose latest handoff state is `required`; blocked-inbox suppression reuses rows already loaded by that query path. - Suppression is read-time and self-healing: when the run or wake stops, the alarm returns on the next fetch. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.4`, tool-enabled software-engineering workflow with repository, shell, test, Git, GitHub, and Paperclip control-plane access. Context-window size is not exposed by this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-16 10:49:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	bd7c0d5f83	fix(issues): deduplicate repeated creates (#9650) ... ## Thinking Path > Paperclip already treats issue creation as a company-scoped mutation, but retries and parallel agent heartbeats can submit the same create more than once. Client instructions cannot provide at-most-once behavior under concurrency, so the guard belongs in the server transaction. This change adds an explicit company-scoped idempotency contract, a conservative fallback for recent open same-parent titles, and run attribution for auditability. Advisory transaction locks serialize competing requests before lookup/insert, avoiding the race that affected the prior attempt. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #6529. This is a clean replacement for #6936, which was closed because it mixed unrelated changes and its check-then-insert implementation was not concurrency-safe. Unlike that attempt, this PR is scoped to eight files, uses a dedicated idempotency-key table, and serializes duplicate candidates inside the create transaction. ## What Changed - Accept optional `idempotencyKey` and `allowDuplicate` fields on issue creation. - Replay the existing issue with HTTP 200 and deduplication metadata for a repeated company/key pair. - Deduplicate recent open issues with the same company, parent, and normalized title for 48 hours unless `allowDuplicate: true` is supplied. - Persist idempotency mappings in a company-scoped table and serialize competing creates with transaction advisory locks. - Populate `originRunId` from `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` for agent/manual creates when the body does not provide an origin run. - Add route integration coverage for key replay, title fallback, bypass, closed/old recreation, company scoping, and run attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 7 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 10 tests passed after the service-contract compatibility fix. ## Risks - The title fallback intentionally treats normalized same-parent titles as duplicates for 48 hours; callers creating intentionally repeated titles must send `allowDuplicate: true`. - Advisory locks use hashed duplicate keys, so an extremely unlikely hash collision can serialize unrelated creates but cannot merge their lookup results. - Deleting an issue cascades its idempotency mapping, allowing the same key to create a replacement later. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, Codex CLI with repository, shell, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API tool access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-15 21:45:11 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9af96461d5	fix(server): restore stranded recovery continuations (#9630) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work. > - Its server recovery layer classifies blocked issue graphs and restores interrupted heartbeat execution. > - A dependent issue could remain dispatch-suppressed by a cancelled blocker without producing operator-visible attention when the dependent still displayed as todo or backlog. > - Separately, a monitor-triggered run that lost its process before disposition could consume the monitor's one-shot wake without scheduling the existing bounded continuation. > - Both gaps strand useful work even though Paperclip already has the relevant blocker-attention and process-loss recovery mechanisms. > - This pull request widens the existing classification path and reuses the single process-loss retry for monitor dispatches with no future wake. > - The benefit is visible, routable recovery without weakening dependency checkout rules or introducing an unbounded retry loop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue or pull request was found. ### What happened? Two server recovery cases could leave work stranded: 1. A non-terminal, agent-assigned issue with an unresolved cancelled blocker remained ineligible for checkout, but blocked-chain liveness classification only inspected issues already displaying `blocked` or `in_review`, so the existing `blocked_by_cancelled_issue` attention was not surfaced. 2. A one-shot issue monitor cleared its next check when dispatched. If that monitor-triggered run ended as `process_lost` without a tracked local child, the existing bounded retry gate rejected it and no future monitor wake remained. ### Expected behavior - Cancelled blockers continue to be unresolved dependencies, and their dependents receive blocker attention regardless of whether the dependent currently displays as backlog, todo, blocked, or in review. - A monitor-triggered run lost before disposition receives exactly one bounded continuation when no future monitor check exists; a second loss follows the normal recovery-action escalation path. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an agent-assigned todo issue blocked by a cancelled issue and run issue-graph liveness classification. 2. Observe that no cancelled-blocker finding appears before this change. 3. Dispatch a due issue monitor, clear its one-shot `monitorNextCheckAt`, and mark the resulting untracked run `process_lost`. 4. Observe that no retry is queued before this change. ### Environment - Paperclip commit: `3e348b96b` - Deployment: built from source / local test environment - Adapter: not adapter-specific; core server recovery - Database: embedded test database ## What Changed - Inspect non-terminal, agent-assigned issues with unresolved blocker edges during blocked-chain liveness classification. - Include cancelled dependents in the existing blocked-inbox attention query while preserving company-scoped relation checks. - Allow monitor-triggered `process_lost` runs with no future monitor wake to use the existing single bounded retry. - Mark monitor recovery retries as continuation-needed context and retain the existing second-loss escalation behavior. - Document cancelled-blocker and monitor-dispatch recovery semantics. - Add focused regressions for liveness findings, attention propagation, one retry, and second-loss escalation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts` — 3 files, 126 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk and server-only. The liveness scan inspects more unresolved dependency shapes, which can produce additional existing attention entries for previously invisible cancelled blockers. - Monitor recovery remains bounded by `processLossRetryCount < 1`, and the extra path only applies when the dispatch was monitor-triggered and no future monitor check exists. - No schema, migration, authorization, API-contract, or UI changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.4` through Codex CLI, with reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and test execution capabilities. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-15 16:41:39 -05:00
3 people	b13eb5b2b5	Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-09 13:08:56 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	38cca22b09	fix(server): avoid accepted-plan workspace branch freeze before child realization (#9233) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents tackle complex tasks via *plan* flows: a planner decomposes work into child issues, which are accepted by the board and then executed > - When a plan is accepted, `createChild` in `issues.ts` inserts child issues pre-bound to the parent's already-realized execution workspace — carrying over its concrete branch ref > - If the repository's base ref advances between plan acceptance and a child's first heartbeat, the child inherits a stale branch that no longer matches the current base > - At first heartbeat the workspace validator detects the mismatch and freezes the child ("branch freeze"), blocking it from starting any work > - The real fix is to strip the concrete workspace binding when creating accepted-plan children: they should receive only the unresolved *intent* (mode, baseRef, branchTemplate) and realize a fresh workspace from the current base on their own first heartbeat > - This PR implements that strip, adds a regression test that proves a post-base-advance child realizes cleanly, and also fixes `parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings` so `environmentId` is not silently dropped on update round-trips (a latent bug that was masking the original fix) ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Bug description follows the bug-report template: **What happened:** Accepted-plan decomposition pre-binds child issues to the parent's realized execution workspace branch (`executionWorkspaceId` + `executionWorkspaceBranch`). When `origin/master` advances between plan acceptance and the child's first heartbeat, the workspace branch interlock fires and the child is permanently frozen before it can start. **Expected behavior:** Accepted-plan children should receive only unresolved workspace intent (mode, git strategy fields) and realize a fresh isolated worktree from the current base on first heartbeat. A base-ref advance between acceptance and first-run should be transparent. **Steps to reproduce:** 1. Accept a plan that decomposes into one or more child issues (isolated_workspace + git_worktree mode). 2. Allow `origin/master` to advance (new merge). 3. Observe the first child heartbeat: workspace validation fails with a branch-freeze error. **Paperclip version:** current `master` (pre-fix). **Deployment mode:** any (affects all modes that use isolated workspace + git worktree strategy). Supersedes #9227 (earlier attempt, now closed — the fix was incomplete because `environmentId` was silently dropped during `parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings` update round-trips, causing the child workspace to lose its environment binding; this PR includes that fix). ## What Changed - **`server/src/issues.ts` — `createChild` / accepted-plan decomposition path:** strip resolved workspace fields (`executionWorkspaceId`, concrete branch) when creating accepted-plan children; preserve only unresolved intent fields (`mode`, `baseRef`, `branchTemplate`, `environmentId`, runtime/provisioning settings). - **`server/src/execution-workspace-policy.ts` — `parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings`:** preserve `environmentId` through update round-trips (was silently dropped, causing environment to detach on any workspace settings update). - **`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts`:** new regression test — accepted-plan child created after `origin/master` moves realizes a fresh isolated worktree from the moved base and passes workspace execution. - **`server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`:** extended workspace-linkage and `createChild` tests covering the accepted-plan strip and the unchanged direct-child path. ## Verification ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "workspace linkage|accepted plan decomposition|createChild applies" pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck ``` All three pass on this branch. ## Risks **Low.** The change is scoped to the accepted-plan `createChild` code path. The direct child / follow-up issue creation path (normal non-plan decomposition) is unchanged and covered by existing tests. The `parseIssueExecutionWorkspaceSettings` fix is additive — it now preserves a field that was previously silently dropped, so no consumer loses data. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`), Anthropic, 200K context window, extended tool use + code generation. ## 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 (supersedes #9227) - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-08 11:07:36 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	88bf71b84e	Reject projectless isolated git worktree tasks (#9231) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source platform for orchestrating AI agents; agents run inside execution workspaces that range from a shared container to full git worktrees cloned from a project repository. > - Isolated git-worktree workspaces require a project to determine which repository to clone — without a project the worktree base path cannot be computed. > - A task pinned to `isolated_workspace` + `git_worktree` with no project was previously accepted at creation time but failed late at dispatch with the opaque `workspace_validation_failed` / `git_worktree_base_agent_home` error — only after the heartbeat attempted to provision the workspace. > - Fail-closed validation should happen in two places: (1) explicit create/update pins that contradict the requirement are rejected at the HTTP layer with a structured 422; (2) rows that reach the heartbeat dispatcher with this invalid combination (e.g. through inheritance or a retroactively-removed project) are blocked before any heartbeat run or adapter spawn. > - This PR adds the shared detection policy, the create/update guard in the issues service, and the heartbeat pre-dispatch guard, together with focused unit tests for all three layers. > - The benefit is deterministic early failure with a clear remediation message instead of a late, cryptic runtime error. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No upstream public GitHub issue — describing the problem inline (bug-report format). **What happened?** Creating an issue with `executionWorkspaceSettings: { mode: "isolated_workspace", type: "git_worktree" }` and no `projectId` was accepted without error. The issue then became blocked at dispatch time with the opaque message `git_worktree_base_agent_home` / `workspace_validation_failed` — surfaced only after the heartbeat attempted to provision the workspace. **Expected behavior** The platform should reject the invalid combination at create/update time with a structured 422 that includes a clear remediation message, before any heartbeat resource is consumed. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `POST /api/issues` (or `PATCH /api/issues/:id`) with `executionWorkspaceSettings: { mode: "isolated_workspace", type: "git_worktree" }` and omit `projectId` (or set it to `null`). 2. Observe: request succeeds (200/201). 3. Assign the issue to an agent and watch it enter `blocked` with a cryptic `workspace_validation_failed` error at dispatch. **Related prior fix** — Refs #4844 (`fix(validator): reject static cwd combined with git_worktree strategy`) — same validation area, different dimension (static cwd vs. missing project). **Paperclip version / commit** Latest `master` (pre-this-PR). **Deployment mode** Standard (app-global server). ## What Changed - **`execution-workspace-policy.ts`** — new shared `detectWorkspaceWorktreeRequiresProject` function returning a stable `workspace_worktree_requires_project` policy violation when an isolated git-worktree task has no project, project workspace, or reusable execution workspace; exports canonical remediation text used by both the HTTP guard and the heartbeat guard. - **`issues.ts`** — create and update paths check the new policy before persisting; explicit pins to `isolated_workspace` / `operator_branch` + `git_worktree` with no project are rejected with a 422 including the policy code and remediation text. - **`heartbeat.ts`** — pre-dispatch preflight checks the same policy for rows that reach the heartbeat with the invalid combination (e.g. through inheritance); such rows are marked `blocked` with a skipped wakeup request, durable issue comment, and activity log before any heartbeat run or adapter spawn. - **`execution-workspace-policy.test.ts`** — focused policy-layer unit tests for detection logic and remediation text. - **`issues-service.test.ts`** — create/update 422 guard tests for the new policy. - **`heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`** — pre-dispatch blocking test for inherited/ambiguous invalid rows; also fixes a cleanup race in the existing test suite. ## Verification ```sh pnpm exec vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck # Targeted regression pnpm exec vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts \ -t "blocks projectless isolated git-worktree issues before dispatch" ``` All three test files and typecheck passed locally before this PR was opened. ## Risks **Low risk.** The policy detection function is pure with no side effects. The create/update guard only triggers on explicit `isolated_workspace` or `operator_branch` + `git_worktree` pins combined with a missing project — it does not fire on inherited settings (handled by the heartbeat preflight), so there is no false-positive rejection risk for valid tasks. The heartbeat guard fires before any resource is provisioned; the only behavioral change for already-invalid rows is that they receive a clear `blocked` status and durable comment instead of a late cryptic error. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`), 200k context window, tool use enabled (agentic coding). Used to implement all server-side changes and tests in this PR. ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-08 10:31:37 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	555391fed7	fix: run restart recovery, workspace self-heal, quota-aware retries, failed-run metrics (#9183) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents run in heartbeat runs orchestrated by the server; run lifecycle, retry scheduling, and the dashboard's run-activity metrics are the subsystems involved > - A spike in "failed" tasks traced to three causes: server restarts killing in-flight runs and mislabeling them as failures, deterministic workspace-validation loops when a worktree's branch diverged, and provider quota/usage-limit errors being classified as generic transient failures (putting agents into error state and polluting metrics) > - Killed-then-recovered runs and quota waits are not product failures, so both the runtime behavior and the reporting needed to distinguish them > - This pull request drains runs gracefully on shutdown with idempotent restart retries, self-heals workspace branch mismatches, adds a quota-aware failure class with reset-time retry, separates recovered restart kills from true failures on the dashboard, and documents restart hygiene for operators > - The benefit is fewer spurious failures, automatic recovery instead of manual repair, and dashboard metrics that reflect real failure rates ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists; describing the bug inline per the bug-report template: **What happened?** In-flight heartbeat runs are marked `failed` when the server restarts, even though a retry later succeeds. Worktrees whose checked-out branch diverges from the issue branch fail workspace validation on every subsequent run with no recovery path. Provider quota/usage-limit responses are treated as generic transient upstream errors, putting agents into an error state and retrying before the quota window resets. The dashboard counts all of these as true failures, inflating failure metrics. **Expected behavior** Graceful shutdown should interrupt (not fail) running runs and chain exactly one recovery retry. Workspace validation should repair recoverable branch mismatches automatically. Quota errors should get their own error class with the retry scheduled at the provider reset time and the agent left idle. The dashboard should report recovered restart kills separately from true failures. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a heartbeat run, then restart the server (SIGTERM) while it is in flight — the run lands as `failed` with a process-loss error code even when its retry succeeds 2. Check out an issue whose worktree branch has diverged (e.g. after a force-moved branch) — every subsequent run fails `workspace_validation_failed` deterministically 3. Drive an agent into a provider usage-limit window — the run fails as a generic transient upstream error and the agent enters an error state instead of idling until the reset time **Paperclip version or commit** master (base c07e650cd) **Deployment mode** Self-hosted dev plane (Linux, node server + embedded Postgres) ## What Changed - Graceful shutdown (SIGTERM hook) now marks in-flight runs `interrupted` instead of `failed` and enqueues an idempotent process-loss retry (pre-insert existence check on `retryOfRunId` prevents duplicates; bursts chain exactly one retry per interrupted run) - Run-liveness classification routes `interrupted` to `needs_followup` rather than `failed` - Workspace validation self-heals branch mismatch / missing-branch states instead of failing deterministically on every run - New `provider_quota` error class: session/usage-limit responses schedule the retry at the provider reset time and leave the agent idle (not errored); fixes a case where a quota-terminated run with subtype `success` was misclassified as failed; HTTP 529 remains transient - Dashboard run-activity query separates recovered restart kills from true failures via a recursive CTE over `retry_of_run_id` (ancestors of a succeeded retry count as recovered), adds a per-day failed-by-error-code breakdown, and binds the window start as a timestamptz string - Activity charts UI: amber "Recovered" segment with legend and per-day error-code tooltip; success-rate chart counts recovered runs as successes - New ops runbook: `docs/deploy/dev-plane-restart-hygiene.md` ## Verification - Greptile follow-up fixes on `992705edd`: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` (209 tests); `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`; `git diff --check` - Post-rebase CI fixes: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts`; `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` (227 tests); `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `npm test` server suites covering the changes: `heartbeat-process-recovery`, `heartbeat-stop-metadata`, `heartbeat-retry-scheduling` (95 tests), quota parse + execute/retry-scheduling suites (100 tests), workspace self-heal suites (200 tests), dashboard run-activity tests (3 tests) — all green, typecheck exit 0 - Dashboard CTE cross-checked against a real development database: two restart-burst days moved from 17 to 8 and 19 to 6 true failures once recovered kills were separated, matching manual retry-chain inspection - Screenshot verification of the real ActivityCharts component (recovered segment + tooltip) during QA ## Risks - Behavioral shift: runs killed by a restart no longer surface as `failed`; anyone consuming raw run statuses will see `interrupted` (new status value) — dashboards/queries in this repo were updated accordingly - Retry chaining on repeated restarts is bounded (one chained retry per interruption) but a pathological restart loop still delays work rather than failing it; the runbook covers operator hygiene for that case - Dashboard query adds a recursive CTE; cost is bounded by the day-window row count and was verified against production-sized data - No schema migrations; low migration risk ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — claude-fable-5 via Claude Code / Paperclip agent harness, extended thinking with tool use; implementation commits also produced with Codex CLI (GPT-5 class) agents under the same harness ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 20:30:09 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	9d5b0e3c57	Add read-only issue subtree diagnostics endpoint (#9135) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue/task orchestration subsystem tracks parent–child and blocker–dependent relationships, forming a directed acyclic (in intention) subtree below each root issue > - Agents and operators have no lightweight way to inspect the dependency and wake state across an entire issue subtree — they must walk the tree issue-by-issue, making multiple round-trips with full object fetches > - A bounded, read-only subtree diagnostic endpoint lets callers understand the health of an entire work tree (which nodes are blocked, which are cycling, which have pending wakes) from a single authenticated request > - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/subtree`, a depth/node/per-node capped traversal that reuses the blocker and wake projection helpers from the companion blocker and wake diagnostics endpoints (see Refs #9114, #9133) > - The benefit is that platform operators, monitoring, and coaching tooling can surface \"why is this subtree stalled?\" across all nodes without database access or unbounded graph walks, using only data the caller already has read permission for ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9114 (companion blocker diagnostics endpoint — blocker projection helpers reused here) Refs #9133 (companion wake diagnostics endpoint — wake projection helpers reused here) ## What Changed - **New route** `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/subtree` in `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: returns a bounded subtree traversal rooted at `:id`, with depth/node/per-node caps and explicit truncation flags - **Cycle-safe traversal**: visited-node set prevents infinite loops on any accidental cycle in the ancestry graph - **Per-node authorization**: each subtree node is individually filtered through `assertIssueReadAllowed`; unauthorized nodes are omitted from the response and do not influence aggregate counts - **Blocker and wake reuse**: per-node blocker rows and wake events are projected through the same helpers as #9114 and #9133 — raw wake payloads, raw errors, activity details, and trigger detail fields are stripped - **Low-trust filtering**: the `mention-scoped` low-trust path redacts node/blocker identifiers for unauthorized actors, consistent with #9133 - **Truncation reporting**: response includes `depthTruncated`, `nodeTruncated`, and per-node `blockersTruncated`/`wakesTruncated` flags when caps are hit - **Shared types** in `@paperclipai/shared`: `IssueSubtreeDiagnosticsResponse` and supporting node/blocker/wake types exported from the shared package - **OpenAPI tag registration** for the new route - **API reference docs** in `skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md` - **Test coverage** (`server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts`, embedded Postgres): happy path, quiet singleton (no children/blockers), node cap truncation, mention-scoped low-trust filtering, cross-company denial ## Verification ```bash # Subtree diagnostics tests only pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts # Full diagnostics suite (blocker + wake + subtree) pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts # Type-check shared and server packages pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck # Whitespace / diff check git diff --check ``` All commands passed locally (5 subtree tests, 17 total across the three diagnostics test files). ## Risks - **No schema or migration changes** — read-only projection over existing relations; no DDL risk - **Bounded traversal** — depth, node count, and per-node blocker/wake caps prevent unbounded graph walks; truncation is reported explicitly in the response - **Auth boundary** — root issue read is company-scoped and checked before the subtree is built; each subtree node is individually authorized; cross-company access is denied at `assertCompanyAccess` - **No raw payloads** — raw wake payload, raw error, activity details, and trigger detail fields are stripped from all nodes, consistent with the companion endpoints - Low overall risk; the endpoint is additive and read-only ## Model Used - **Provider:** Anthropic - **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) - **Tool use:** yes (file reads, edits, bash execution, Paperclip API calls) - **Reasoning mode:** standard (no extended thinking) ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-06 22:39:34 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	31a0080e61	Fix wake diagnostics low-trust identifier redaction (#9133) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open-source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The task/issue lifecycle subsystem tracks when agents wake up, are suppressed, or are deferred, recording each wake request in `agent_wakeup_requests` and each defer/suppression event in `activity_log` > - When an agent appears stuck or doesn't resume after a dependency resolves, there is currently no read-only API surface to inspect its wake history — operators must query the database directly > - Making wake history queryable via a first-class endpoint lets operators, support, and monitoring tools diagnose "why didn't this agent wake up?" without database access > - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/wakes`, returning a bounded 14-day/50-row projection of wake requests and defer/suppression activity events, with a deterministic `diagnosis` field and a `likelyReason` inference — including a Case-B inference ("no wake enqueued because a visible blocker is not done") that reuses the blocker readiness data from the companion blocker diagnostics endpoint (see Refs #9114) > - The benefit is that platform operators can answer "why is this agent not waking up?" from a safe, read-only HTTP endpoint rather than needing direct database access, and CI/monitoring can assert expected wake behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9114 (companion blocker diagnostics endpoint, already merged — this PR extends the same diagnostic surface to wake/activity history) ## What Changed - **New route** `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/wakes` in `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: returns a bounded (14-day window, 50-row cap) projection of `agent_wakeup_requests` rows and wake-relevant `activity_log` rows (defer/suppression events) - **Sanitized projection**: raw `payload`, `details`, `error`, and `triggerDetail` fields are stripped; unknown free-form `source`, `reason`, and `status` values are projected to `"other"` to prevent schema bleed - **Deterministic `diagnosis` and `likelyReason` fields**: includes Case-B inference ("no wake enqueued — visible blocker not done") that calls the existing blocker-readiness helper from Slice 1 (#9114) so the wake surface can explain missing wakes caused by outstanding blockers - **Auth**: `assertCompanyAccess` + `assertIssueReadAllowed`; cross-company requests are denied; Case-B blocker inference filters by caller trust level so hidden (low-trust) blockers are mentioned but not identified - **Types in `@paperclipai/shared`**: `IssueWakeDiagnosticsResponse`, `WakeEvent`, `ActivityEvent` exported from the shared package - **OpenAPI tag registration** for the new route - **Skill reference docs** in `skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md` documenting the endpoint contract - **Test coverage** (`server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts`, embedded Postgres): happy path, empty/null diagnosis, Case-B inference, low-trust hidden blocker, cross-company denial, raw blob minimization, cap behaviour, combined blocker+wake test run ## Verification ```bash # Wake diagnostics tests only pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts # Wake + blocker diagnostics together (integration) pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts # Type-check shared and server packages pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck # Whitespace / diff check git diff --check ``` All commands passed locally. ## Risks - **No schema or migration changes** — this is a read-only projection over existing tables; no DDL risk. - **Bounded queries** — 14-day window + 50-row cap limit per call; no unbounded scans. - **Auth boundary** — cross-company access is denied at `assertCompanyAccess`; Case-B inference uses the same per-node trust filtering as the blocker endpoint so low-trust blockers are acknowledged but not identified. - Low overall risk; the endpoint is additive and read-only. ## Model Used - **Provider:** Anthropic - **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) - **Tool use:** yes (file reads, edits, bash execution, Paperclip API calls) - **Reasoning mode:** standard (no extended thinking) ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 04:45:23 +00:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	295294d7ce	Add read-only issue blocker diagnostics endpoint (#9114) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents block each other with `blockedByIssueIds` relationships to express dependencies > - Users and tooling have no lightweight way to inspect *why* an issue is blocked or whether its blockers are themselves ready to resolve > - A read-only diagnostic endpoint over the existing blocker graph lets callers understand dependency chains without requiring a full issue-tree traversal > - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` — a bounded, read-only projection over each blocker's readiness state > - The benefit is that callers can surface blocking-chain diagnosis (e.g. "waiting on N blockers, M of which are themselves blocked") from a single authenticated request, using only data they already have read permission for ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Feature description: **Subsystem affected:** `server/` — REST API & orchestration services; `packages/shared` — types, constants, validators, API paths **Problem or motivation** There is no API endpoint to inspect *why* an issue is blocked or to get a per-blocker readiness summary. Clients must walk the issue graph manually or fetch full issue objects, which requires multiple round-trips and is expensive. **Proposed solution** A single `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` endpoint returns a bounded projection: root issue summary, an ordered blocker list with per-blocker `readiness` state, and a top-level `diagnosis` field summarizing overall blocking status. Authorization mediation omits blockers the caller cannot read, so `diagnosis` only reflects visible data. **Alternatives considered** A general graph-walk query (too broad/expensive for a targeted diagnostic call); enriching the existing `GET /api/issues/:id` response (too coupled to the main response shape and adds weight for callers that do not need blocker detail). **Roadmap alignment** Read-only observability surface over existing data; no database schema changes. This aligns with tooling that helps users understand dependency state without mutating anything. ## What Changed - Added `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` route to the server - Returns per-blocker `readiness` state and a top-level `diagnosis` field summarizing overall blocking status - Enforces `issue:read` authorization per-blocker: unauthorized blockers are omitted and do not influence `diagnosis` or `readiness` values - Added shared TypeScript response types in `@paperclipai/shared` - Added route-level tests using embedded Postgres - Added API documentation in the `paperclip` skill ## Verification ```sh ./node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck ``` All three commands pass locally. ## Risks - Read-only endpoint over existing relations — no writes, no schema or migration changes — low risk - Authorization mediation intentionally omits unauthorized blockers from both the list and from `diagnosis`/`readiness`; callers with partial access will see a narrower picture than the full blocker graph ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) - Context window: 200k tokens - Mode: Tool use, code generation, 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-06 20:42:40 -07:00
3 people	ad961227f5	feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-05 05:58:20 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	2c4c110e90	Fix issue create response relation summaries (#8901) ... Return blockedBy and blocks relation summaries from issue create paths after blocker relations are synced. Refresh child relation summaries after blockParentUntilDone adds a parent blocker relation. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-02 15:49:18 -07:00
Dotta	2f94a66ba1	Show live descendant status in inbox rows (#8876) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The inbox is where operators quickly scan which issues are active, blocked, or waiting for attention > - A blocked parent can still have active descendant work, but the inbox previously depended on only loaded rows to infer that state > - That made collapsed or partially loaded issue trees look more stuck than they really were > - This pull request carries live descendant summary data through the issue list API and inbox UI > - The benefit is a more accurate blocked-inbox signal, so operators can distinguish truly stalled work from blocked parents that still have live child activity ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this exact inbox descendant-status polish. Feature request fields: **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, plugin/MCP API surfaces, and `ui/` inbox rendering. **Problem or motivation** Inbox rows need to show when blocked or collapsed parents still have live descendant work, even when the live child row is not loaded in the current client tree. Without a server-provided descendant summary, a parent can look stalled even though active work continues below it. **Proposed solution** Expose an optional live descendant count on issue list results, request it from inbox views, and use it to render covered blocked status and live-below indicators. Keep the field opt-in so other issue list callers keep their existing payload shape and query cost. **Alternatives considered** Relying only on client-loaded subtree state was ruled out because it misses collapsed or unloaded descendants. Always returning the count was also avoided because most list callers do not need this extra summary. **Roadmap alignment** This is scoped operator-visibility polish for the existing inbox. It does not duplicate a named `ROADMAP.md` milestone. **Additional context** The recursive summary query is guarded against parent cycles, and the UI still falls back to loaded subtree live counts when server summary data is absent or stale. ## What Changed - Added optional `includeLiveDescendantSummary` support to issue list contracts, SDK surfaces, MCP tools, routes, services, and tests. - Added `liveDescendantCount` to issue list results when requested. - Updated inbox and blocked-inbox queries to request live descendant summaries. - Updated inbox row status rendering so blocked parents with live descendants show covered blocker treatment without duplicating the live-below chip. - Hardened live descendant summary traversal against parent cycles and preserved the loaded-subtree fallback path for blocked inbox rows. - Added focused tests for the API parameter, service behavior, helper logic, cycle handling, and inbox UI query/rendering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox-live-descendants.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueColumns.test.tsx ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Rebased cleanly onto current upstream `master` before pushing. - Confirmed the branch diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The new descendant count is opt-in on list requests, but it adds query work when the inbox asks for it. The recursive traversal now tracks visited ancestors to avoid cycle failures. The UI uses the server count as a supplement to existing loaded-tree state, so stale or absent counts fall back to the prior behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled with local shell and git access. Reasoning mode and context window are managed by the Paperclip/Codex runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-07-02 10:22:33 -05:00
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8	fb2b760915	fix(issues): attribute agent-authored comments instead of rendering them as "Board" (#8833) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Task/issue threads render each comment as a chat bubble; the author determines whether it shows as a left-aligned agent bubble (name + icon) or a right-aligned "Board" bubble > - Comments posted by an agent from a local execution environment are written with a non-human author id (`local-board`/system), so they were mis-rendered as blue "Board" bubbles instead of being attributed to the authoring agent > - This misattribution is confusing (it looks like the human board said something an agent actually said) and it can drive false wake/reconciliation behavior on the affected threads > - This pull request adds server-side attribution derivation (lossless run-id join first, then an explicit run-log post marker), persists the derived agent so the read path stops re-scanning run logs, and stops the client from labeling agent-derived comments "Board" > - The benefit is agent comments render as the correct agent, genuine human board comments are never reattributed, and reads get cheaper after a one-time persistence ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue — describing the problem in-PR (bug report shape). --> **What happened?** In a task/issue comment thread, comments authored by an agent from a local execution environment are stored with a non-human author id (`local-board`/system). The UI renders these as right-aligned blue "Board" bubbles, implying a human board member authored them. The mislabeling is also a wake/reconciliation hazard: an agent comment that reads as "Board" can look like human board input. **Expected behavior** Such comments should render as the authoring agent (left-aligned bubble with agent name + icon). Genuine human/board comments must continue to render as "Board" and must never be reattributed to an agent. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Have an agent post a comment on an issue from a local execution environment (author id `local-board`). 2. Open the issue comment thread in the UI. 3. Observe the agent's comment rendered as a right-aligned blue "Board" bubble instead of the authoring agent. **Root cause** The read path did not resolve the authoring agent for these comments, and the client fell back to a "Board" label for the `local-board` author. ## What Changed - **Server derivation (`server/src/services/issues.ts`):** - Resolve the authoring agent from the comment's run id first (`createdByRunId`/`derivedCreatedByRunId` → `heartbeatRuns.agentId`) — lossless when present. - Second tier `run_log_comment_post`: read the run log lazily (only for still-unresolved comments) to match the explicit `comment id:` post marker. - **Guard:** never reattribute a comment whose author maps to a genuine user profile. Only the non-human sentinel (`local-board`, which is itself a `user` row) and authors absent from the `user` table are eligible. - Pure timing-overlap tiers are intentionally **not** used (Option A) — an agent comment and a human board comment posted during the same run are indistinguishable rows, so any timing guess risks mislabeling a real human comment. - **Persistence (`packages/db/src/migrations/0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution.sql`, `packages/db/src/schema/issue_comments.ts`):** add stored `derived_*` attribution columns and write the resolved agent back with a single bulk `UPDATE ... FROM (VALUES ...)`, so reads stop recomputing from run logs. Migration is additive (new nullable columns) with a batched, idempotent backfill of the lossless run-id tier over historical rows. - **Types (`packages/shared/src/types/issue.ts`):** expose the persisted attribution fields and the `IssueCommentDerivedAuthorSource` union. - **Client (`ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts`):** the message builder already prefers a resolved agent id (`authorAgentId ?? runAgentId ?? derivedAuthorAgentId`), so once the server persists the derived agent the bubble renders as the agent automatically — no client code change needed. Adds a regression guard confirming a genuine board comment with no derived agent is still rendered as "Board". - **Tests:** derivation + message-building tests, including assertions that genuine board/user comments are **not** reattributed. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run issues-service` — 94 tests pass: run-id resolution, no-attribution on timing overlap alone (Option A), multi-run ambiguity, same-agent multi-run, and the genuine-user guard. Exercises the real persistence path (bulk UPDATE) against the test DB. - `cd ui && npx vitest run issue-chat-messages` — 27 tests pass; client no longer labels agent-derived comments "Board", and a genuine board comment with no derived agent is not re-labeled. - `cd server && npm run typecheck` — passes (exit 0). - Manual: on a thread containing old agent-authored comments, the blue "Board" bubbles render as the authoring agent; a genuine board comment on the same thread still renders as "Board". ## Risks - **Mis-reattributing a genuine board comment made during an agent run** → mitigated by the human-profile guard (only `local-board`/system authors are eligible) and by dropping pure timing tiers (Option A): only the lossless run-id join and the explicit run-log post marker attribute history. - **Backfill volume / run-log reads** → the migration backfill is batched (5000 rows/loop) and results are persisted so reads stop recomputing; the read-path persistence is a single bulk UPDATE rather than per-comment round-trips. Migration adds only nullable columns (no destructive change). - The persistence/backfill has **not** been run against any production database as part of opening this PR. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, via Claude Code with tool use. ## 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 — related open PRs (#6006 narrow attribution run scan, #4729 attribution roll-up, #7014 reaped-run attribution) address different attribution paths; none fix the `local-board` "Board" bubble rendering this PR targets. Supersedes #8832 (same change; branch renamed to drop an internal ticket id per CONTRIBUTING → Branch Naming) - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-01 17:45:30 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	746e287e33	feat(control-plane): add annotation and workspace controls (#8229) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - The control plane coordinates issues, workspaces, documents, routines, and board review flows across company-scoped data. > - The local source branch contained related schema, service, and UI changes for workspace issue scoping and document/routine annotations. > - These changes need to move together because db schema, shared types, server services, and UI consumers form one contract. > - This pull request extracts the migration-bearing control-plane work from the source branch onto `origin/master`. > - The benefit is a standalone branch with deterministic migration order and focused review for the highest-risk part of the split. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No GitHub issue exists for this branch split. Internal source task: [PAP-11234](/PAP/issues/PAP-11234). Problem/motivation: - Workspace operations need explicit issue scoping so readiness and blocker handling can be derived correctly. - Document annotations need reliable live updates, save failure surfacing, normalized activity keys, and better comment panel behavior. - Routine descriptions need the same annotation contract as issue documents so operators can discuss and edit routine text without special-case infrastructure. Proposed solution: - Add the workspace-operation `issueId` migration and readiness scoping. - Add routine document/annotation schema, shared types, services, routes, and UI editing support. - Keep the related migrations in one PR so the renumbered `0106` and `0107` migrations land in a deterministic order after current `master`. Alternatives considered: - Split migrations into separate PRs, rejected because that would create migration-numbering conflicts and make each branch less standalone. - Merge this with UI polish, rejected because this branch needs deeper server/db review. Roadmap alignment: - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; the roadmap mentions future recurring routine capabilities generally, but no duplicate implementation PR for these annotation/workspace changes was found. ## What Changed - Added `0106_workspace_operations_issue_id.sql` and `0107_routine_description_annotations.sql`, plus schema exports. - Scoped workspace readiness to blocker issues and attached workspace operation issue ids. - Scoped issue-thread interaction accept finalization to the source run. - Added routine document annotation contracts across db/shared/server/UI. - Improved document annotation live updates, activity-key normalization, save failure surfacing, and comment panel behavior. - Added issue workspace property controls and compact blocked-by/quick-control UI updates. - Added focused server and UI regression tests for the new contracts. ## Verification - `CI=true NODE_ENV=development pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --prefer-offline` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routine-document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts --run` — 10 files, 273 tests passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed, including db migration numbering check. ## Risks - Migration-bearing PR; merge this branch before any later PR that adds migrations with higher numbers. - Cross-layer contract risk across db/shared/server/ui, mitigated with targeted tests and affected-package typecheck. - Review should pay special attention to company scoping in new routine/document annotation paths. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` / CodexCoder, GPT-5-class coding model with tool use and shell execution. Exact runtime snapshot and context-window setting were not exposed by the Paperclip run context. ## 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 from the run context) - [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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A per source task: do not add screenshots/images unless specifically part of the work) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A; no public docs changed) - [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>	2026-06-23 12:00:03 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e68188c438	fix: upstream deployed document-comment, routine-annotation, workspace & board-polling fixes (#8536) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - This change touches several already-shipped subsystems — document-comment annotations, the selected-agent Conference Room chat surface, routine description annotations, workspace-operation tracking, and the board polling/inbox UI > - A batch of incremental fixes and two small backend additions had accumulated on a local mainline and were deployed to a live instance, but never landed upstream — so each `origin/master` sync kept re-diverging > - Leaving them un-upstreamed means the same delta has to be re-merged on every sync and risks being lost or silently reverted > - This pull request rebases that delta cleanly on top of current `origin/master` (preserving recent upstream work such as reusable sandbox leases and the relation-list collapse controls) and brings it up for review > - The benefit is that mainline and the deployed instance converge, and these fixes/additions get normal review + CI + Greptile coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No single GitHub issue tracks this; it is a bundle of bug fixes and two small feature additions. Following the issue-template fields: **Bug fixes (what was wrong → what this does):** - Document comments rendered out of document order, didn't live-update across clients, swallowed save failures, and lost the markdown text selection on re-render. Now: doc-order sort, live updates, surfaced save-failure state, stable selection across re-renders. - The board polling hot path returned oversized payloads on every poll. Now: an opt-in `summary` projection trims the heartbeat-run list payload. - Assorted UI fixes: sidebar nav peek/streamlining edge cases, markdown file-viewer re-mount/line-height issues on iOS Safari, inbox badge/skill deep-link tab selection, and `⌘.` work-mode cycling on iOS. **Feature additions:** - `workspace_operations.issue_id` — associate a workspace operation with the issue that triggered it (new migration `0106`, schema, service, shared type). - Routine **description annotations** — comment threads on a routine's description document, mirroring issue document annotations (new migration `0107`, `routine_documents` schema, routes/service, editable-sections UI). - Selected-agent **Conference Room chat** surface wiring and live issue-thread updates. **Related PR:** #8229 (`feat(control-plane): add annotation and workspace controls`, draft) covers overlapping annotation/workspace-control territory — flagging it so a reviewer can reconcile the two rather than double-merging. ## What Changed - `feat(workspace)`: `workspace_operations.issue_id` migration + schema/service/type; issue workspace property controls reconciled with upstream's evolved "Service" row. - `feat(routines)`: routine description annotations — `routine_documents` schema, migration `0107`, routes/service, `editable-sections` UI. - `fix(document-comments)`: doc-order sort, live updates, save-failure surfacing, stable markdown selection (+ storybook story, rerender test). - `feat(chat)`: selected-agent Conference Room chat surface and live issue-thread updates (`LiveUpdatesProvider`, `issue-chat-messages`, interactions service). - `perf(board)`: opt-in `summary` projection for the board polling/heartbeat-run list payload, plus assorted sidebar / file-viewer / inbox / IssueProperties UI fixes. Organized into 5 logical commits. Migrations are numbered incrementally after upstream's latest (`0105`) — `0106` then `0107`, no journal collision. ## Verification - Built by 3-way merging the deployed delta onto current `origin/master`; the only merge conflict (`IssueProperties.test.tsx`, two adjacent test blocks) was resolved in favor of upstream's evolved "green service link above the workspace row" layout, which matches the merged component's rendered output. - Confirmed recent upstream work is preserved post-merge: reusable sandbox lease teardown (`#8513`), the IssueProperties relation-list collapse controls, and the sidebar streamlined-nav default. - Confirmed the net diff vs `origin/master` is exactly the intended feature delta (65 files) and that overlapping server files (`issues.ts`, `agents.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`) only add feature code without disturbing upstream logic. - This delta is already running on a live deployed instance. - Full typecheck/test suite + Greptile to run in CI (see checklist). ## Risks - Two new migrations (`0106`, `0107`). Both are additive (new table / new nullable column) and ordered after upstream's `0105`; no data backfill, low risk. If another migration-bearing PR merges first, renumber before merge. - Largest blast radius is in the merged overlapping UI/service files; covered by the existing test suites for those files plus CI. - Overlaps thematically with draft PR #8229 — reviewers should reconcile rather than merge both blindly. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use (git, shell). Agentic coding workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-23 09:00:14 -05:00
Svetlana Zolotenkova	9ac24317e6	fix(issues): ignore cancelled child blockers in attention (#7577) ... Fixes #7578 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Blocked issue health is surfaced through blockerAttention so operators can see whether blocked work has a live path. > - The blockerAttention graph uses both explicit blockedBy edges and direct child issue edges. > - Done children were already ignored, but cancelled direct children still appeared as unresolved blockers. > - Explicit cancelled dependencies should remain visible as dependency problems, but terminal direct children should not inflate a parent blocker count. > - This pull request narrows child-edge traversal to non-terminal children and adds a regression test for the observed case. > - The benefit is that cancelled child issues no longer make blocked parents look like they have extra unresolved blocker attention. ## What Changed - Added terminal child status filtering for blockerAttention parent-child traversal so cancelled direct children are ignored with done children. - Added a server regression test where a blocked parent has active explicit blockers plus a cancelled direct child; the cancelled child no longer increases unresolved counts or becomes the sample blocker. ## Verification - `perl -e 'alarm shift; exec @ARGV' 300 pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` -> 19 tests passed. ## Risks - Low risk: the change only affects implicit direct-child blockerAttention edges. - Explicit blockedBy edges to cancelled issues are intentionally unchanged and remain represented as attention-required dependency problems. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5, Codex coding agent in tool-enabled CLI environment; reasoning and code execution used for repository inspection, patching, git operations, and targeted test verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (not applicable; no UI change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (not applicable; bugfix covered by regression test) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-06-21 00:29:44 -07:00
Devin Foley	547463d3a2	refactor(environments): make execution environments instance-scoped (#8375) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution environment selection has to stay inspectable and predictable across companies, agents, and runs. > - The environment subsystem decides where an agent heartbeat actually runs and how remote sandbox state is realized and restored. > - That subsystem previously mixed company-scoped environment catalogs with issue-level environment stamping, so a reassigned issue could keep executing in the previous assignee's sandbox. > - That behavior breaks the control-plane contract: changing the assignee should change the executing agent/environment path unless there is an explicit current override. > - Fixing it cleanly required more than a narrow patch; the environment model had to move to instance scope with a single inherited default and per-agent override semantics. > - This pull request rewires the schema, server/API surface, runtime resolution, and UI around that model, then adds regression coverage for cross-company inheritance and per-agent isolation. > - The benefit is that environment choice now follows the approved instance/agent configuration path instead of stale issue state, while shared environments only need to be configured once per instance. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No directly matching public GitHub issue or PR was found while searching for this refactor. ### What happened? Reassigning work between agents with different execution environments could keep running in the previous sandbox because environment choice was stamped onto the issue and outranked the current assignee. The same subsystem also forced environment catalogs to be duplicated per company even though the underlying execution environments were instance-wide resources. ### Expected behavior Execution should resolve through the current instance and agent configuration path, with one instance-scoped environment catalog, one instance default, optional per-agent override, and no stale issue-level environment authority surviving reassignment. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure two agents to use different execution environments. 2. Assign an issue to the first agent so the issue records execution state in that environment. 3. Reassign the same issue to the second agent and run another heartbeat. 4. Observe that the pre-fix runtime can still sync or execute in the original sandbox instead of the second agent's environment. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master` before this PR. ### Deployment mode Self-hosted server. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved - Claude Code - Not adapter-specific (core bug in environment authority / resolution) ### Database mode External Postgres. ### Access context Both board reassignment and agent heartbeats were involved. ## What Changed - Moved environments and their default selection contract to instance scope in DB/shared types, including the migration that dedupes legacy per-company environments and seeds the instance local default. - Reworked environment CRUD/auth flows to use instance-scoped APIs and added route/service coverage for instance-level environment management. - Changed runtime resolution to prefer `agent default -> instance default -> built-in local`, removed issue-level environment stamping from the active execution path, and isolated sandbox/plugin leases by `(executionWorkspaceId, agentId)`. - Added environment env-var runtime precedence so environment-provided values act as the baseline for agent execution. - Moved the environment UI into instance settings and updated agent configuration surfaces to reflect inherit/override behavior. - Added regression coverage for instance-default inheritance across companies and for the new runtime resolution behavior. - Fixed a rebase-only duplicate `enableTaskWatchdogs` flag regression in instance settings types/validators/services so the branch typechecks cleanly on current `master`. - Updated stale server tests so CI matches the shipped instance-scoped environment contract. ## Verification - `git diff --check` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime-driver-contract.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-instance-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` ## Risks - The migration changes environment scope and dedupes existing rows, so installs with unusual legacy environment combinations should be reviewed carefully during upgrade. - Remote execution behavior now depends on instance-default inheritance semantics instead of issue-level stamping, so any remaining code paths that still assume issue-scoped environment authority would surface as follow-up bugs. - This PR includes both server/runtime behavior and UI relocation, so reviewers should watch for authorization edge cases around instance settings and environment management. > I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This work fits the existing Cloud / Sandbox agents direction as a bug-fix/refactor to current behavior, not a new parallel product surface. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent in this Paperclip/Codex session; GPT-5-class tool-using model with code execution and shell access. The exact backend model ID is not exposed to the session runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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	2026-06-20 09:42:53 -07:00
3 people	a71c4b6782	[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is still productive, stalled, or ready for review. > - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review permissions. > - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable work. > - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration surfaces, and docs. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`. > - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making stalled work easier to route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task: [PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275). ## Problem or motivation Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link approvals, or submit approval comments. ## Proposed solution Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under explicit boundaries. ## Alternatives considered Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable scoped-review issue for stalled task trees. ## Roadmap alignment This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core item. ## What Changed - Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators, CRUD API, and service support. - Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate guidance. - Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks, viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting. - Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and implementation semantics. - Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to `0104_issue_watchdogs`. - Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind constant. - Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes, scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility, settings, and new issue dialog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task configuration. - Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and production agents. - The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local migration number should not get duplicate-object failures. - CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest review-fix push. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool use and local command execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-19 15:38:52 -05:00
3 people	3fbab2e6db	fix: resolve orphan-sweep null-assignee filter regression (#8018) ... > Resubmits #5925 by @digitalflanker-ux (rebased onto current `master`; original commit authorship preserved). ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issues list API powers orphan-sweep and board inbox views that filter by assignee > - `assigneeAgentId=null` is a valid query-string sentinel for "unassigned issues" > - A regression caused that sentinel to throw 500 instead of filtering correctly > - This pull request restores null-sentinel parsing in the route and service layers > - The benefit is reliable orphan-sweep and unassigned-issue queries without server errors ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #5891 (paired fix — land together) **Bug:** `GET /api/companies/:id/issues?assigneeAgentId=null` returned HTTP 500. Expected: HTTP 200 with only unassigned issues. Malformed UUIDs should return 4xx, not 500. ## What Changed - Parse `assigneeAgentId=null` in the issues list route and pass a JS `null` filter to the service - Handle malformed assignee IDs with HTTP 422 in the route layer - Extend `issueService.list` to treat `assigneeAgentId: null` as `IS NULL` SQL filter - Add route-level and service-level regression tests ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - result: 2 files passed, 79 tests passed ## Risks Low risk — scoped to query-parameter parsing and list filtering; no schema or API contract changes beyond fixing the regression. ## Model Used None — human-authored original fix by @digitalflanker-ux; rebased and test-harness adjustments by Paperclip cluster cleanup. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] 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 ## Cross-references and status (maintainer) - Pairs with #5891 — both fix the `assigneeAgentId=null` issues-list regression and should land together. - Supersedes #5925 (fork branch could not be force-pushed; this is the operator-mergeable resubmission). --------- Co-authored-by: openclaw <digitalflanker@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-12 09:20:00 -07:00
Vasu YadavandDevin Foley	d7049e0cae	fix(server): adopt stale checkout run ownership (#5413) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies. > - Issue checkout ownership is part of the execution-control layer that prevents two runs from mutating the same task at the same time. > - The current lock model should preserve `409` conflicts for live competing owners, but it should not strand the rightful assignee behind a stale terminal run. > - A same-agent follow-up run can encounter an existing `checkoutRunId` from a failed, timed-out, succeeded, or missing heartbeat run. > - In that case, the new run should safely adopt ownership instead of failing with an ownership conflict. > - This pull request makes stale checkout adoption transactional and keeps live checkout owners protected. > - The benefit is safer run recovery without weakening single-owner checkout semantics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Fixes #5350 - Closes #1508 - Closes #1970 - Closes #2083 - Closes #3158 - Closes #3190 - Related stale-lock PRs reviewed during dedup search: #7536, #6658, #5660, #5442, #6223, #7048, #6824, #6799 ## What Changed - Updated issue checkout ownership recovery so the current assignee can adopt a stale terminal or missing checkout run. - Added row locking around stale checkout adoption to avoid races while replacing `checkoutRunId` / `executionRunId`. - Preserved `409` behavior when a different live checkout owner is still active. - Prevented terminal actor runs from reclaiming an unowned checkout lock after the newer eager stale-checkout clear path. - Fixed the stale checkout test fixture so same-assignee cases do not insert duplicate agent rows. - Added/kept focused coverage for stale checkout adoption and live-owner conflict behavior. - Fixes #5350. ## Verification - Focused tests: ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts ``` Result: ```text 2 passed, 84 tests passed ``` - Server typecheck: ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck ``` Result: ```text passed ``` - Live curl smoke confirmed same-agent stale checkout adoption returns `200` instead of `409`. ```text old_run_status=succeeded checkout_http=200 patch_http=200 ``` The PATCH response showed `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId` updated to the new run id. ### Live curl smoke result <img width="1498" height="570" alt="Live curl smoke showing stale checkout adoption returned 200" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4bf834de-e3cd-4495-ac5a-74767b439eeb" /> ### Server request log <img width="631" height="131" alt="Server logs showing heartbeat, checkout, and patch requests succeeded" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ceaaa403-110e-44e8-bac8-5d8506e79cc3" /> ## Risks - Low to medium risk: this touches issue execution lock ownership. - The behavioral shift is intentionally narrow: only the current assignee can adopt stale terminal or missing checkout ownership. - Live checkout owners remain protected with `409`. - No database migration or API contract change. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use, shell execution, code review, and local verification. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] 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 ## Cross-references and status (maintainer) - Closes #1508 - Closes #1970 - Closes #2083 - Closes #3158 - Closes #3190 - Status: rebased onto current master; focused tests and server typecheck pass locally; all required CI is green; Greptile is 5/5; master drift verified. --------- Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-11 22:03:07 -07:00
3 people	9e81067678	fix: clear stale executionRunId on release, reassignment, and checkout (#2482) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issues are the unit of agent assignment; each assignment queues a heartbeat run, and the agent claims ownership via a `checkout()` that sets `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId` on the issue row. > - When a queued run never starts (crash, deploy, lost heartbeat) or a different run picks up the work, the issue is left with a stale `executionRunId` pointing at a terminal/missing run. > - The next checkout attempt fails with "Issue checkout conflict" because the fast-path `UPDATE` requires `executionRunId` to be null or equal to the requester's run id, so the row is permanently locked until an admin clears the column by hand. > - This pull request closes that lifecycle gap in three places — `release()` and `update()` clear the execution lock fields alongside the existing `checkoutRunId` clear, and `checkout()` gains a guarded stale-`executionRunId` adoption path that mirrors the existing `adoptStaleCheckoutRun` pattern. > - The benefit is that assignment-triggered issues self-heal after a lost run instead of paging an admin to unlock them, while the adoption path keeps the caller's `expectedStatuses` guard, preserves any pending `assigneeUserId`, and preserves the original `startedAt` for issues already `in_progress`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Closes #759 - Closes #1015 - Closes #1276 - Closes #1298 - Closes #2265 - Closes #2661 - Closes #2964 - Closes #3559 - Closes #4033 - Closes #4131 ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issues.ts` — `release()` now clears `executionRunId`, `executionAgentNameKey`, and `executionLockedAt` alongside `checkoutRunId`. - `server/src/services/issues.ts` — `update()` clears the same execution-lock fields on status change (away from `in_progress`) and on assignee change. - `server/src/services/issues.ts` — `checkout()` gains a stale `executionRunId` adoption block that runs only when the row's `executionRunId` points at a terminal/missing heartbeat run, the caller's `expectedStatuses` still hold, and the requester is either the existing assignee or the assignee is null. The `SET` clause preserves `assigneeUserId` and only resets `startedAt` when the issue was not already `in_progress` (matches `adoptStaleCheckoutRun` semantics). - `server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — two regression tests covering the new adoption guards: (1) checkout refuses to promote a `done` issue when `done` is not in `expectedStatuses`, even with a lingering `executionRunId` pointer; (2) checkout adoption of a stale `checkoutRunId` preserves the issue's `assigneeUserId`. ## Verification - `vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — 75/75 tests pass, including the two new regression tests. - `tsc --noEmit` clean. - Manual repro of the original stuck-lock case: queue a run, mark the heartbeat run terminal without releasing the issue, attempt a new checkout — the adoption path now succeeds with the caller's `expectedStatuses` guard intact instead of returning a checkout conflict. ## Risks - Low risk. The `release()` and `update()` changes are additive field clears alongside the existing `checkoutRunId` clear and follow the same conditions. The `checkout()` adoption block is gated by the same status / assignee / expected-statuses constraints as the fast-path `UPDATE` and only fires when the prior run is verifiably terminal via `isTerminalOrMissingHeartbeatRun()`. No migration. No public API change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended-thinking mode, tool-use enabled (file reads, edits, shell, gh CLI). Used to address review feedback on the original commit by Allen Lu (`alcylu`); follow-up fix commit preserves the `expectedStatuses` guard, `assigneeUserId`, and `startedAt` and adds regression tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — server-only) - [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 ## Cross-references and status (maintainer) - Closes #759 - Closes #1015 - Closes #1276 - Closes #1298 - Closes #2265 - Closes #2661 - Closes #2964 - Closes #3559 - Closes #4033 - Closes #4131 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-11 21:58:04 -07:00
LempkeyandDevin Foley	e1e2cef928	fix(issues): accept array-form ?status= filter and stop crashing on repeated keys (#4628) (#4890) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Boards, agents, and the public REST API all read issue lists via `GET /api/companies/:cid/issues`, with `?status=` as the most-common filter > - Express's default `qs` parser binds repeated keys to a `string[]` — the conventional URL form `?status=todo&status=in_progress` is therefore valid input > - The service layer treated `filters.status` as a string and called `.split(",")` unconditionally, returning HTTP 500 with `TypeError: filters.status.split is not a function`. The same buggy pattern lived at a second call site in the same file > - This PR adds a small `parseStatusFilter` helper that normalizes all four shapes the route can receive, routes both service-layer call sites through it, and widens the `IssueFilters.status` type so the contract stops lying about runtime reality > - The benefit is a passive 500 disappears for any client (curl, board, agent code) that builds `?status=` with array-style binding, and the type system now forces every future caller to handle both shapes correctly ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #4628 - Closes #4084 - Related earlier attempt: #1964 ## What Changed - **`server/src/services/issues.ts`** — Added exported helper `parseStatusFilter(input: string | readonly string[] | undefined): string[]` that normalizes single strings, CSV (`?status=todo,in_progress`), array (`?status=todo&status=in_progress`), and mixed array+CSV; trims and filters empties. Widened `IssueFilters.status` from `string` to `string | readonly string[]`. Replaced inline `.split` call sites in `list()`, blocked-count filtering, `count()`, and `countUnreadTouchedByUser()` with helper-driven branching. - **`server/src/routes/issues.ts`** — Replaced dishonest `req.query.status` casts with `string | string[] | undefined` at both issue-list and blocked-count entry points so the route contract matches Express `qs` runtime behavior. - **`server/src/__tests__/parse-status-filter.test.ts`** (new) — 10 unit cases: undefined, empty string, single, CSV, array, mixed array+CSV, whitespace trim, trailing/extra commas, no-mutation guarantee, hostile non-string entry guard. - **`server/src/__tests__/issues-list-query-parsing.test.ts`** (new) — 5 supertest cases against a minimal Express app whose handler mirrors the route cast/forwarding pattern: single, CSV, repeated-key array, mixed array+CSV, and no `?status` param. - **`server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`** — Added embedded-Postgres service coverage for array-form status filters through `list`, `count`, and `countUnreadTouchedByUser` on current master. **Why service-layer, not route-layer:** the bug is the service contract. Fixing only at the route would leave other service-layer call sites latent, keep `IssueFilters.status` inaccurate, and let future internal callers reintroduce the same crash. Widening the type is the forcing function that prevents recurrence. **Why `parseStatusFilter` is exported, not file-local:** the helper has direct unit coverage and keeps the normalization logic colocated with its only current call sites. ## Coordination with prior work - Supersedes **#4084** (thanks to @adlai88 for the original report-and-fix). This PR additionally fixes the extra current-master service call sites, widens `IssueFilters.status` so the type contract is honest, replaces the incorrect route casts, and ships direct regression coverage. - **#1964** bundles unrelated route/service changes; this PR keeps scope tight per CONTRIBUTING.md's one-PR-one-change guidance. ## Out-of-scope finding While verifying all query-string status parsing sites, I found a sibling bug in `server/src/services/execution-workspaces.ts:409` reachable from `routes/execution-workspaces.ts:48`, where repeated `?status=` keys can still hit the same `.split(",")` assumption. I left that out of this PR to keep the review surface small. ## Verification ```bash pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run \ src/__tests__/parse-status-filter.test.ts \ src/__tests__/issues-list-query-parsing.test.ts \ src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts \ --testNamePattern='parseStatusFilter|issue list status query parsing|accepts array-form status filters in list and count|excludes plugin operation issues from unread inbox counts' ``` Result on the rebased head: `3` files passed, `17` tests passed, `72` skipped. GitHub CI on PR `#4890` is green on the rebased head `805731d3270783d0b80b33ee1dccdc6771febef6`, including `verify`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, `Build`, `e2e`, general tests, serialized suites, Socket checks, Snyk, and `Greptile Review`. Local workspace typecheck commands still encounter unrelated current-master baseline errors under `packages/plugins/sdk` and `server/src/services/company-skills.ts`; no failures were produced from the `issues` files changed in this PR. ## Risks - **Type widening blast radius:** `IssueFilters.status` widens from `string` to `string | readonly string[]`. Any direct caller that still assumes `.split()` on the input now gets a useful typecheck failure instead of a latent runtime crash. - **Behavior change:** `?status=todo,in_progress&status=done` previously returned HTTP 500; it now returns HTTP 200 with the union of matching statuses. Single-string and CSV behavior remain unchanged. - **No migration. No breaking API changes. No new deps. No UI changes.** > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. — Confirmed: this is a bug fix, not a feature. ROADMAP.md grep showed no overlap. ## Model Used - **Claude Opus 4.7** (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-7`, 1M context, extended thinking. Used for problem scoping, implementation, and test authoring; the final rebasing, PR prep, and verification updates were handled in the maintainer workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] 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 ## Cross-references and status (maintainer) - Closes #4084 --------- Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-11 21:52:43 -07:00
4 people	7058d7b6c3	fix: auto-complete approved review comments (#5839) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue lifecycle and review handoff rely on a comment-driven "approve" gesture from the active reviewer to transition `in_review` → `done` > - The original auto-completion path matched approval markers loosely and split the comment insert from the status transition, which let `NOT APPROVED` close issues and let a 422-on-status-change leave an orphan comment behind > - That broke the safety expectation that a rejection comment can never auto-complete an issue, and that observable state (comment+status) cannot diverge from intended state > - This pull request tightens the approval regex against negated phrasings and wraps the comment insert + status transition + execution decision in one transaction so a failed transition rolls the comment back > - The benefit is that reviewers can post negated phrasings safely, and any failure in the auto-approval transition leaves the thread unchanged instead of in a half-applied state ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? The comment-driven auto-approval path in `routes/issues.ts` had two latent safety bugs surfaced during review: 1. The approval-detection regex matched negated phrasings such as `NOT APPROVED`, `NOT APPROVED.`, `Do not approve`, `Not approving this`, so a reviewer comment intended as a rejection could auto-complete the issue. 2. The auto-approval insert + status transition + execution decision were not atomic. If the post-comment status update returned 422 (`unprocessable`), the persisted approval comment was left behind without the corresponding state change, leaving the thread half-applied. ### Expected behavior - Negated approval phrasings (`NOT APPROVED`, `not approved.`, `I do not approve`, `not approving this`, etc.) must never trigger auto-completion. Positive controls (`Approved`, `LGTM, approved`) must continue to trigger it. - A failed status transition must roll back the corresponding approval comment so observable state and intended state never diverge. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open an `in_review` issue assigned to a reviewer. 2. As the reviewer, post `NOT APPROVED` as a comment. 3. Prior to this fix: the issue auto-transitions to `done`. After this fix: the issue stays `in_review`, the comment lands, and no transition fires. 4. Separately, induce a 422 on the post-approval status update (e.g. concurrent delete). Prior to this fix: the approval comment is persisted but the issue stays `in_review`. After this fix: the comment is rolled back along with the failed transition. ### Paperclip version or commit Branch tip `ca60f00276` at the time of this submission. Targets `master`. ### Deployment mode Affects both hosted and self-hosted deployments. Behavior is server-side only. ## What Changed - Tightened the review-marker approval regex in `server/src/routes/issues.ts` so it rejects negated phrasings while preserving positive controls. - Required structured `kind: review` / `decision: approved` metadata adjacent to the markdown approval marker (rejects blank-separated structured approval and mismatched actor kinds). - Wrapped the auto-approval comment insert, status transition, and execution decision in a single drizzle transaction in `server/src/routes/issues.ts`, threading the transaction handle through `addComment` in `server/src/services/issues.ts` so a concurrent delete or 422 transition rolls back the comment. - Added a dedicated activity log entry for the post-approval status transition and skipped stale `issue_commented` wakes that arrive after the auto-approval transition. - Added 61 regression tests in `server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts` covering negated phrasings, positive controls, structured-metadata adjacency, actor-kind matching, atomic rollback on transition failure, and stale-wake suppression. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts` → 61/61 passing locally. - Typecheck on changed files passes locally. - All required CI checks expected to be green on this branch tip. ## Risks - Low risk. Changes are localized to the comment-driven auto-approval path; existing `addComment` callers are unaffected (the new transaction handle parameter is optional and defaults to the top-level `db`). - The transaction wrapper changes observable timing very slightly (single tx vs. two-step), but the only externally visible effect is atomicity — failures now leave no orphan state. - Regex tightening is opt-out safe (positive controls still match) but if a reviewer in the wild used a creative phrasing not covered by the regression set, they may need to repost as `Approved`. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`) - Capabilities: extended thinking, tool use, code execution ## Checklist - [x] I searched for similar open/closed PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [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 either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above --------- Co-authored-by: Tommy <tommy@Mac-mini-Anton.local> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-11 17:54:07 -07:00
3 people	f3db7b88ea	Clear stale checkoutRunId on run finalization and add backstop sweeper (#6008) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue subsystem holds per-row lock columns (`checkoutRunId`, `executionRunId`, `executionAgentNameKey`, `executionLockedAt`) that gate checkout, ownership, and release > - When a heartbeat run terminates, `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote` clears the execution-lock columns but stale checkout locks could remain attached to dead runs in edge paths > - The original fix closed the finalization, checkout, release, and sweeper paths, but PR CI exposed one more process-loss retry path where a queued retry advanced `executionRunId` while leaving `checkoutRunId` pinned to the failed run > - This pull request closes the asymmetry: terminal-run cleanup and process-loss retry recovery release dead checkout locks while preserving live execution ownership > - The benefit is permanent, automatic self-heal of stale lock columns and fewer false checkout 409s requiring board intervention > - Related upstream issue: #6007 ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6007. Duplicate/related PR search performed on 2026-06-10 with query `checkoutRunId process loss retry stale checkout lock repo:paperclipai/paperclip`. Related PRs found and reviewed for overlap: - #7727 `fix(heartbeat): atomically advance checkoutRunId on process-loss retry` - #7707 `test: cover same-agent stale checkout adoption` - #3068 `fix: clear checkoutRunId when releasing issue execution lock` ## What Changed - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote`: extend the per-issue update to also null `checkoutRunId` when it matches the terminating run id. WHERE clause scoped to `executionRunId = run.id OR checkoutRunId = run.id` for idempotence. - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` process-loss retry: when queuing the retry run, move `executionRunId` to the retry and clear the failed run's `checkoutRunId` so the dead run no longer owns checkout. - `server/src/services/issues.ts`: add `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal` helper, symmetric to `clearExecutionRunIfTerminal`. No assignee/status precondition. Wired into `checkout`, `assertCheckoutOwner`, and `release`. Exported on the issue service. - `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: add `sweepStaleIssueLocks`. Scans `issues` where `checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT NULL`, joins each referenced run, and clears all lock columns on issues whose referenced runs are all terminal or missing. Emits one `issue.stale_lock_cleared` activity log row per cleared issue. - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: re-export the sweeper on the heartbeat facade. - `server/src/index.ts`: invoke `sweepStaleIssueLocks` in both the startup recovery sequence and the periodic heartbeat timer chain. - Tests: route-level coverage of the new self-heal path on the next checkout attempt, service-level sweeper coverage, and heartbeat recovery assertions that terminal process-loss cleanup releases `checkoutRunId`. ## Verification ```bash pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run \ src/__tests__/recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts \ src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues exactly one retry when the recorded local pid is dead|does not block paused-tree work when immediate continuation recovery is suppressed by the hold" NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ``` All listed local checks pass. The new and updated tests cover: - Run termination clears `checkoutRunId` when it points at the terminating run. - Process-loss retry clears the failed run's `checkoutRunId` while assigning `executionRunId` to the queued retry. - A different agent calling `POST /api/issues/:id/checkout` on an issue whose prior owner died self-heals via `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal` and succeeds. - Sweeper clears stale lock columns for issues whose run row is terminal. - Sweeper leaves issues alone while the referenced run is still running. - Sweeper leaves issues alone when `executionRunId` is still running even if `checkoutRunId` is terminal. - Sweeper is idempotent; second pass clears nothing. Manual reproduction of the original bug shape: 1. Create an issue assigned to agent A, set `status='in_progress'`, `checkoutRunId=R1`, `executionRunId=null`, where `heartbeat_runs.status = 'failed'` for `R1`. 2. Reassign to agent B and move to `status='todo'`. 3. Before this PR: agent B `POST /checkout` returns `409 Issue checkout conflict` indefinitely. After this PR: succeeds, lock columns rewritten to agent B's current run id. ## Risks - Low. All clears are scoped by run id, so they only fire when the lock column unambiguously points at the terminating or terminal run. No schema change. No migration. No API surface change. - Behavioral shift: an issue that previously stayed `in_progress` with a dead `checkoutRunId` after run termination now self-heals. Downstream code that reads stale `checkoutRunId` as a proxy for recent run history should already be reading `executionRunId` or the `heartbeat_runs` table. - Sweeper cost: one indexed scan per recovery tick over rows where `checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT NULL` plus a single batched `heartbeatRuns` lookup per candidate. Negligible at expected cardinality; further bounded by the existing recovery cadence. > 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`. This is a bug fix, not a feature. No roadmap overlap. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-4-7`, extended-thinking off, tool use enabled. - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool use enabled, used for the follow-up process-loss retry fix and PR body update. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>	2026-06-10 09:33:21 -05:00
3 people	67b22d872f	[codex] Clarify interrupt handoffs and scoped wake semantics (#7855) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread is the operator surface where comments, assignee changes, pauses, resumes, and wakeups turn human intent into agent execution. > - Interrupting a live run and handing work to another assignee needs clear semantics so the product does not accidentally keep work alive, wake the wrong participant, or hide why an agent stopped. > - Comment-driven wakes also need strict boundaries so closed, blocked, and dependency-driven work only resumes when there is real actionable input. > - This pull request codifies the interrupt handoff contract, implements backend scheduling behavior, and gives the UI clearer handoff/pause language. > - The benefit is a more inspectable and predictable task lifecycle for both operators and agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Paperclip issue: `PAP-10664` / `PAP-10751`. Problem: interrupting or reassigning live agent work could be ambiguous in the UI and backend. Operators needed clearer feedback about whether a handoff wakes an agent, what pause/cancel affects, and when comments should revive execution. The backend also needed stronger tests around comment wake boundaries, retry supersession, and structured agent mention dispatch. Related GitHub PR search found broad workflow-adjacent PRs #5082, #6359, and #4083, but no exact duplicate for this head branch or interrupt-handoff scope. ## What Changed - Added an interrupt handoff semantics document covering destination behavior, wake expectations, and live-run interruption states. - Implemented backend interrupt handoff behavior and comment wake/reopen handling in issue routes/services and heartbeat scheduling. - Hardened structured agent mention dispatch so mentions resolve through the intended dispatch path. - Added UI helpers and components for handoff chips, wake rows, interrupt banners, pause-affects summaries, and composer guidance. - Updated the issue properties assignee picker and issue chat/composer surfaces to make interrupt/reassign behavior clearer. - Added backend, UI utility, component, and Storybook coverage for the new behavior. - Stabilized the new UI component tests with a local `flushSync`-backed act helper matching existing repo practice in this dependency set. - Addressed Greptile feedback by threading historical run `errorCode` through issue-run data and operator-interrupted chat labels. - Addressed Greptile's cancel ordering concern by terminating/deleting in-memory heartbeat processes before cancellation status persistence, with regression coverage for DB update failure. ## Verification - `git diff --check $(git merge-base HEAD origin/master)..HEAD` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/interrupt-handoff.test.ts src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/interrupt-handoff/InterruptHandoffViews.test.tsx --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 4 files / 91 tests passed before the Greptile follow-ups. - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 6 files / 191 tests passed before the Greptile follow-ups. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 24 tests passed after the historical `errorCode` follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 2 files / 11 tests passed after the historical `errorCode` follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 52 tests passed after the cancel ordering follow-up. - Greptile is green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`; the old inline P2 is resolved/outdated. - GitHub Actions, Socket, security-review, and Greptile checks are green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`. The external `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` status was still pending at `https://app.snyk.io/org/cryppadotta/pr-checks/85b3e8f4-04e1-4f8e-9362-899c8148c23c` after a bounded wait. ## Risks - Medium: changes touch issue comments, wake scheduling, and live-run interruption semantics, so regressions could affect when agents resume or stay stopped. - Medium: UI copy and state grouping for assignee changes may need reviewer tuning after product review. - Low migration risk: no database schema migration is included. - The branch was created before the latest `origin/master` commits; reviewers should confirm CI merge-base behavior and resolve any merge conflicts if GitHub reports them. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool use and local command execution enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] 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 Screenshot note: this PR includes Storybook coverage for the new interrupt handoff UI states rather than captured before/after browser screenshots in this PR-creation heartbeat. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-09 21:57:21 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	71a8464fee	[codex] prevent invalid agents from receiving assignments and runs (#7663) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The control plane owns agent lifecycle, issue assignment, routine dispatch, heartbeat wakeups, and recovery paths > - Terminated, paused, pending-approval, or otherwise invalid agents should not receive new work or new execution attempts > - The old behavior left eligibility checks spread across routes and services, so assignment and run paths could drift apart > - This pull request centralizes agent lifecycle eligibility and applies it consistently to assignment, invocation, routines, recovery, and UI affordances > - The benefit is safer autonomy: terminated agents stay paused, invalid org-chain agents are surfaced, and active agents keep receiving valid work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #5103 Related: #1864 Bug fix context: - What happened: agent assignment and heartbeat/run paths did not share one eligibility contract, so invalid lifecycle states could still be considered in some paths. - Expected behavior: terminated agents must never receive new assignments or heartbeat runs, and paused or otherwise invalid agents should be treated as non-invokable consistently. - Steps to reproduce: create or select an agent in an invalid lifecycle state, then attempt assignment, routine dispatch, or heartbeat/recovery wake paths. - Paperclip version/commit: fixed on top of `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` at the PR base. - Deployment mode: applies to the server control plane in local and authenticated deployments. ## What Changed - Added shared agent lifecycle eligibility helpers and exported the related shared types. - Centralized server-side assignability and invokability checks for issue assignment, agent routes, heartbeat dispatch, routines, recovery, and liveness logic. - Hardened issue assignment so invalid assignees are rejected instead of queued for work. - Hardened heartbeat/routine/recovery paths so terminated and otherwise invalid agents are not woken for new runs. - Updated board UI affordances to disable invalid agent actions and surface org-chain warnings where relevant. - Added targeted shared, server, and UI tests for the new eligibility behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/agent-eligibility.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-invokability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-archived-company-guard.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/company-members.test.ts ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx` — 8 files, 144 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Checked the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a targeted control-plane safety fix and does not duplicate a planned core feature. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs/issues; closest related items are linked above. - CI and Greptile verification are pending on the opened PR and will be followed up before requesting merge. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The intended behavioral shift is that invalid agents are refused earlier and more consistently, which could expose existing data with paused, pending, terminated, or broken org-chain assignees. The added tests cover the critical assignment, heartbeat, routine, recovery, shared helper, and UI paths. No database migrations are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via the Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode and context window are managed by the adapter runtime and not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (not applicable: no design screenshots requested; UI behavior is covered by tests) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (not applicable: no user-facing command or schema docs changed) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending CI) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending Greptile) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-06 12:45:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7428fb956f	[codex] Guard git-sensitive adapter workspaces (#7644) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The affected subsystem is the heartbeat execution path that turns issue assignment into adapter-backed work in a selected workspace. > - PAP-10409 and sibling follow-ups failed before useful adapter output because project/workspace identity became incoherent. > - A project-workspace-linked child issue could keep `projectWorkspaceId` / execution workspace state while losing `projectId`, then a git-sensitive local adapter could fall through toward an invalid fallback cwd. > - Paperclip needs to treat coherent workspace identity as part of the live-path contract, not only as post-failure cleanup. > - This pull request documents that rule, repairs issue inheritance, and blocks git-sensitive adapter launch before it can run from the wrong cwd. > - The benefit is a bounded recovery path: affected issues are repaired explicitly, future malformed workspaces fail fast with a clear recovery action, and the UI surfaces that reason. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7646 Bug report fields: - Summary: adapter-backed follow-up issues can fail before doing work when issue creation/inheritance preserves workspace ids but drops project identity. - Affected issues: internal Paperclip issues PAP-10408 through PAP-10412, especially PAP-10409. - Steps to reproduce: create a project-scoped parent/follow-up tree where a child issue keeps `projectWorkspaceId` or an inherited execution workspace but has `projectId: null`, then launch a git-sensitive local adapter such as `codex_local`. - Expected behavior: Paperclip derives or preserves coherent project identity during issue creation, and heartbeat refuses malformed git-sensitive workspace launches with one clear recovery action. - Actual behavior before this PR: the run could reach adapter bootstrap with an incoherent workspace context and fail with git errors such as `fatal: not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /srv)`. - Root cause: child/follow-up issue inheritance preserved workspace execution context without coherent project context. That let heartbeat workspace resolution/adapter launch reach a fallback cwd instead of refusing the malformed workspace state up front. ## What Changed - Documented the adapter workspace-coherence live-path precondition in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Updated issue creation/inheritance so workspace-inheriting issues preserve or derive project identity, while existing mismatch validation still rejects incoherent project/workspace combinations. - Added a heartbeat preflight guard for git-sensitive local adapters that validates effective cwd, persisted workspace identity, project workspace identity, and required git metadata before launch. - Added `workspace_validation` recovery actions for this failure class and ensured the source issue gets a visible, idempotent recovery comment. - Surfaced workspace-validation recovery state in issue rows, blocked notices, and recovery action cards, including the manual-repair wake policy label. - Added focused regression coverage for issue inheritance, all heartbeat workspace-validation guard branches, recovery display helpers, and UI recovery components. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - Result: 1 test file passed, 68 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx` - Result: 1 test file passed, 12 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx` - Result: 2 test files passed, 18 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Result: passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/recovery-display.test.ts` - Result: 7 test files passed, 200 tests passed before the final guard-branch additions; the changed server file was re-run above. - UI coverage: `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx` contains rendered scenarios for the generic recovery chip, workspace-validation recovery chip, blocked notice indicator, recovery action card, and issue-row chip. - Screenshot capture attempt: Storybook started successfully on `http://127.0.0.1:6016/`, but screenshots could not be captured in this runner because `agent-browser` launched an unusable Chrome binary and Playwright Chromium failed on missing system library `libatk-1.0.so.0`; the runner is non-root and lacks passwordless sudo for installing browser dependencies. - Hosted CI on final commit `969594e7` is green, including `verify`, `Build`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, `General tests (server)`, workspace suites, serialized server suites, `Canary Dry Run`, and `e2e`. - Roadmap checked: no duplicate roadmap item; this is a tightly scoped reliability fix for existing heartbeat/workspace behavior. - Duplicate PR search checked: no open PR matched `workspace coherence adapter cwd`. ## Risks - Medium risk: heartbeat launch is stricter for git-sensitive local adapters and can now block malformed workspace states before adapter execution. - Mitigation: the guard is limited to local git-sensitive adapters and records a source-scoped recovery action with structured evidence instead of retrying indefinitely. - Compatibility: valid project/workspace execution paths continue normally; explicit project/workspace mismatches remain rejected. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based `codex_local` coding agent with terminal/tool use. Work was produced through Paperclip issue execution with focused 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] 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>	2026-06-06 09:39:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	dbebf30c89	Add low-trust review containment (#7530) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 16:48:02 -05:00
Dotta	3657854e5e	Merge pull request #7554 from paperclipai/codex/pap-10343-comment-redaction ... [codex] Redact deleted issue comments	2026-06-05 05:32:08 -10:00
DottaandPaperclip	9aa065a38c	Make deleted-comment cleanup atomic ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 03:56:39 +00:00
Dotta	39e0fba65f	Filter issues by plan document	2026-06-05 03:28:07 +00:00