PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-24 01:41:42 +02:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin Foley	db4defdfbf	feat: operator-configurable settings visibility via PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS (#11823 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The instance settings surface (Access, Plugins, Adapters, General, Experimental) assumes the person at the keyboard operates the whole instance > - Operators who host Paperclip for others — a managed cloud or an internal shared server — expose settings pages and toggles that do not apply to their deployment, and the related mutation APIs stay open > - A hosted tenant can open Plugins or Adapters, try an action, and hit a confusing failure, because only a few hardcoded platform floors exist > - This pull request adds a generic, operator-configured visibility mechanism: one env var hides declared settings surfaces in the UI and floors their mutation routes with a stable 403 code > - The benefit is a clean hosted-tenant settings surface for any operator, with zero behavior change for normal self-hosted instances ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Instance settings (server routes and UI), the shared settings registry in `packages/shared`, and the `/api/health` bootstrap payload. Problem or motivation An operator who hosts Paperclip for other people cannot hide settings surfaces that the platform manages. Tenants see Access, Plugins, and Adapters pages, backup retention, and host-level experimental toggles that do nothing useful for them. The mutation APIs behind these surfaces also stay open, so a tenant admin can attempt actions the platform must control. ROADMAP.md names a cleaner shared deployment story as a goal ("Teams should be able to run the same product in hosted or semi-hosted environments without changing the mental model"). Proposed solution Add a declarative registry of hideable settings surfaces and one env var, `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS`. The server parses the list at boot, reports it on `/api/health`, and rejects value-changing writes to hidden surfaces with a stable `settings_operator_managed` 403 code. The UI reads the list from the health payload and removes the hidden pages, sections, and toggles from navigation, routes, and page content. Unknown keys warn and are ignored, so one list can roll across a fleet with mixed app versions. With the variable unset, behavior is byte-identical to today. Alternatives considered - Hardcode the hidden set for cloud instances in this repo: rejected, because each hosting operator needs a different policy, and policy does not belong in shared code. - Deliver the hidden set through the managed-config document: rejected, because that channel is cloud-specific and fail-closed on unknown fields; a plain env var works for any operator, including self-hosted shared servers. - Lock the controls with a badge instead of hiding them: rejected for these surfaces, because they are meaningless to tenants, not merely platform-controlled; the existing managed-overlay lock stays the right tool for controlled flags. Roadmap alignment Supports the "shared deployment story" item in ROADMAP.md: hosted and semi-hosted deployments keep the same product with a settings surface that matches what the tenant can actually do. ## What Changed - New `packages/shared/src/settings-visibility.ts`: registry of hideable surfaces (every instance settings page — profile, environments, access, heartbeats, experimental, plugins, adapters; every Instance → General section; every experimental flag as `instance.experimental.<key>`), the `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS` parser, and the `settings_operator_managed` error code. The General page stays visible as the settings root and redirect target. - New `server/src/services/settings-visibility.ts`: parse-once accessor; unknown keys log one warning and are ignored. - `/api/health` reports `hiddenSettings` on every response shape; the field is omitted when nothing is hidden. - Server floors on hidden surfaces, with same-value echo tolerance (the `executionMode` precedent): field-backed general sections and experimental keys reject value-changing PATCHes, and hiding the whole Experimental page floors every toggle; plugin lifecycle and config writes, adapter management writes, and the Access admin routes (reads included) return 403 `settings_operator_managed`. Reads the app itself needs (plugin `ui-contributions`, adapter metadata, plugin job trigger) stay open. Pages without instance-scoped mutation routes are hidden in the UI only. - UI: new `useHiddenSettings` hook and `HiddenSettingsPageGate` route gate (hidden pages redirect to the settings root); the settings sidebar and tab bar drop hidden entries; remembered settings paths remap to the default page; `InstanceGeneralSettings` skips hidden sections; every `ExperimentalToggleCard` now carries its flag key and renders nothing when hidden. - Removed the dead `InstanceSidebar` component (referenced only by its own test). - Docs: `docs/deploy/environment-variables.md` documents the variable and the key registry. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run` over the new and extended suites: shared registry and parser, representative floor tests per route class (changed-value 403, same-value echo 200, unset env 200, page-level Experimental hiding), the health field, the route gate, nav filtering, and section/card hiding with one hidden example per surface kind — 168 tests pass. - Full root `pnpm typecheck` passes. - Manual: booted a server with the variable set. `/api/health` lists the keys; an unknown key logs one warning and the server boots; hidden pages redirect; hidden sections and cards do not render; hidden-field PATCH returns 403 with `details.code = "settings_operator_managed"`; a same-value echo returns 200. Unset the variable: the full settings surface returns and responses are byte-identical to master. ## Risks - Low risk for self-hosted instances: with the variable unset, the hidden set is empty, the health field is omitted, and no floor activates. - Flooring plugin config writes assumes hosted deployments configure plugins through the platform. If a future bundled plugin needs tenant-entered config, the floor needs a narrow carve-out. - Hidden-key floors tolerate same-value echoes, so API clients that round-trip full GET responses keep working. - Hiding a toggle does not change its value; operators pair hiding with the desired default where the value matters. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`) with extended thinking and agentic tool use, driven through the Claude Code CLI (file edits, test execution, and live-server verification loops). ## 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	2026-08-20 17:54:44 -07:00
Michael Nguyen	0fa318b8da	feat(artifacts): bridge Markdown work products into the document review surface (#11822 )	2026-08-20 17:28:01 -07:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 5	cb0009b097	fix: preserve recovery retries across restarts (#11817 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must keep each active issue on a clear execution or recovery path. > - A missing issue disposition can require more than one bounded repair attempt. > - A server restart could lose that repair path or move source ownership to the recovery owner. > - A parked or expired retry could also make the user interface show a false healthy state. > - Concurrent recovery loops must not schedule the same repair attempt twice. > - This pull request keeps retry state durable, makes scheduling atomic, and keeps source ownership stable. > - The benefit is that recovery continues after a restart and operators see the correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A run that ended without a valid issue disposition could lose its repair path after a server restart. Manager recovery could also change the source owner. In addition, a parked or expired retry could make the issue look healthy when no active work existed. Concurrent reconciliation could also schedule the same repair attempt twice. Expected behavior Paperclip must keep bounded source and manager repair attempts across restarts. Recovery ownership must stay separate from source issue ownership. The server and user interface must report only a live retry as active work. Each repair attempt must be scheduled at most once per company. Steps to reproduce 1. Start an agent run on an issue. 2. End the run without a valid issue disposition. 3. Let the first repair attempt schedule a retry. 4. Restart the server, let the retry time pass without a live run, or start two reconciliation loops together. 5. Observe that the repair path can stop, the issue can show a false healthy state, or duplicate retries can be created. Paperclip version or commit The problem existed on `master` before candidate head `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. Deployment mode The problem affects self-hosted servers and local builds that use automatic recovery. ## What Changed - Persist bounded source-owner and manager repair lineages with stable fingerprints and retry limits. - Resume incomplete disposition repairs after a server restart. - Keep recovery ownership separate from source issue ownership and enforce source mutation authority. - Project live retry evidence into issue and blocker summaries. - Show recovery owner, return owner, attempt count, and retry state in the board user interface. - Treat expired or parked retries as attention states unless a queued or running attempt exists. - Atomically deduplicate disposition-repair wake requests with a company-scoped partial unique index. - Reuse the winning run when concurrent reconciliation loses the uniqueness race, without duplicate scheduling activity. - Honor disabled on-demand wake policy before recovery scheduling and again before delayed retry promotion. - Keep the new index migration safe for lagging seeded databases that already contain the index. - Add server and user interface tests for recovery, restart, ownership, retry, concurrency, and blocker states. - Update the implementation and execution semantics documents. ## Verification - Focused server recovery and ownership suites: 282 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Focused user interface recovery suites: 128 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Atomic-deduplication schema and recovery suites: 111 tests passed on the first Greptile repair. - Recovery and scheduled-retry wake-policy suites: 126 tests passed at `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. - The exact lagging-source migration-order test passed after the index migration became idempotent: 1 test passed and 62 unrelated tests were skipped. - `@paperclipai/db` and `@paperclipai/server` typechecks passed at the current head. - Migration generation and migration safety checks passed for migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql`. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm build` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm test:run` passed 4,540 tests on the repaired base candidate. Four fixed-port cases met listeners that already existed on the host. - The two unchanged fixed-port files passed in an isolated network namespace: 129 tests passed and 27 tests were skipped. - Independent Security and QA reviews approved `63c0423aab54c66f2293a20b0fb3f3b013ee3ba8`; exact-head re-review is required after automated checks settle on `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. ## Risks - Recovery orchestration affects issue liveness and ownership. The new paths use bounded attempts, stable fingerprints, row locks, authority checks, and database uniqueness. - A conservative attention state can show more warnings when a scheduled retry has no queued or running attempt. It does not hide stopped work. - Migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql` creates a partial unique index on a known-large table. Migrations run transactionally, so `CONCURRENTLY` is unavailable. The matching disposition-repair key namespace is introduced by this release, so deployed databases have no matching rows before the index is added. > 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 from the GPT-5 model family used agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model ID or context window. - Anthropic Claude Opus 5 used a 1M context window, tool use, and code execution for part of the user interface repair, as recorded in the commit history. ## 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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-20 17:09:42 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	e0b64529b3	feat(auth): normalize agent login in the sandbox onto one session table and a capability contract (#11730 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Sandbox agents need a safe login path for each supported adapter > - Codex device login and Claude setup-token login used separate session stores and route logic > - Separate stores made session lookup, expiry, and login capability checks harder to keep consistent > - This pull request unifies both flows on one session table and one capability contract > - The benefit is one company-scoped login model with public session identifiers and shared lifecycle rules ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) Problem or motivation Codex and Claude sandbox login used separate session stores and different route paths. This split increased the risk of inconsistent company scoping, session lookup, and cleanup. Proposed solution Use `adapter_auth_sessions` for both login flows. Use public session identifiers for API access. Select login behavior from projected adapter capability data. Share the route spine, lease arguments, runner lifecycle, and reaper rules. Alternatives considered Keep two session tables and add matching fixes to both routes. This keeps duplicate logic and does not provide one capability contract, so this pull request uses shared infrastructure. Roadmap alignment This change supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - Unify Codex device login and Claude setup-token login on `adapter_auth_sessions`. - Return and look up sessions with company-scoped public session identifiers. - Enforce one active session for each company, owner, and adapter. - Share the login route spine, sandbox lease arguments, runner lifecycle, and missing-auth check. - Add a standalone setup-token reaper with adapter-specific row selection. - Add optional login capability projection for adapters and drive route and UI selection from that data. - Rename the provider flag to `supportsLoginPty` and validate its deprecated alias. - Remove the old Claude setup-token session table and add the required migrations. ## Verification - Server typecheck passed with `tsc`. - Database typecheck passed. - UI typecheck passed with `tsc -b`. - Codex login service and route suites passed. - Setup-token session, route, and reaper suites passed. - Adapter session schema, plugin validator, capability projection, UI render, and Daytona suites passed. - GitHub Actions must confirm the complete CI gate after pull request creation. ## Risks - The migrations remove short-lived in-flight login rows during deployment. A login that spans the migration can continue until its provider lease expires. - The Codex credential store remains company-scoped. A cross-owner credential race remains a documented, board-accepted risk. - API clients that use internal session row identifiers no longer work. The API accepts only public session identifiers. ## Model Used Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID not exposed in this handoff, large context window, reasoning, and repository tool use. The implementing engineer produced the code with AI assistance. ## 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>	2026-08-19 11:51:31 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	a2bf936f9a	feat(workspaces): sign the workspace login handoff and gate readiness (#11671 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed worktree services run isolated Paperclip instances with cloned databases. > - A reachable service was reported as ready even when its database, runtime identity, or login path was not usable. > - The first candidate added verified database seeding and managed repair in #11665. > - This pull request consolidates that candidate with signed login handoff and a complete readiness contract. > - Post-QA fixes close five defects in repair identity, repair responses, UI retry, seed journal handling, and seed-source trust. > - The benefit is a workspace that either opens safely or reports one accurate recovery action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the problem is described here. What happened Managed workspace URLs could return HTTP 200 and report ready while login failed. QA also found cases where repair used the wrong instance identity, returned a generic error, left the UI stuck, rejected a safe journal lag, or trusted a mutable workspace manifest. Expected behavior Opening a ready workspace signs the board user in to the correct isolated instance. Provisioning and repair use a registered source and report a structured recovery state. Actual behavior Entry depended on a password copied into the clone. Several failure paths could publish stale readiness, hide the repair precondition, or trust state that the workspace could modify. Additional context This pull request includes the commits first published in #11665. That pull request keeps the original base head for review history. This consolidated pull request is the merge candidate. Related open readiness work includes #11575 and #11621. ## What Changed - Adds a short-lived, signed, single-use login ticket. It binds the user, workspace, instance, and runtime origin. - Exchanges the ticket through Better Auth. It creates the session and cookie through the supported adapter path. - Adds protected workspace readiness fields for the database, clone data, login handoff, seed phase, and runtime identity. - Fails readiness closed when the guest has no company or execution-workspace binding. - Binds ticket issuance to the exact cloned user and active company membership selected for the handoff. - Verifies every current active board identity through the exact-user handoff before publication or reuse. - Gates managed runtime publication on the readiness contract and the recorded worktree instance identity. - Refreshes runtime work products from the live runtime row after a port change. - Adds one workspace access card with ready, degraded, repairing, and failed states. - Uses the runtime response identity for repair. It returns structured repair precondition errors. - Lets a valid source journal lag converge during provisioning. - Binds seed and repair manifests to a source registered outside the agent-writable worktree. - Clears recovered UI errors so a successful retry can open the workspace. - Makes runtime tests register canonical sources and avoid ports owned by live host listeners. - Keeps Vitest on source suites when compiled `dist` trees exist. - Isolates CLI and adapter tests from ambient AWS and runtime API environment variables. - Preserves a 404 response for cross-company workspace ID lookups before runtime authorization. - Makes concurrent single-flight coverage independent of path-canonicalization scheduling order. ## Verification The following checks passed on the integrated head: ```sh pnpm -r typecheck pnpm build pnpm check:token-gates pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations ``` - The server source lane passed 420 files and 4,953 tests. Five tests were skipped. - The CLI lane passed 57 files and 385 tests. - The database lane passed 26 files and 97 tests. - The shared package passed 58 files and 506 tests. - The adapter utility lane passed 640 tests. Four tests were skipped. - The Claude adapter passed 220 tests. One test was skipped. - The Codex adapter passed 323 tests. - The OpenClaw adapter passed 13 tests. - The OpenCode adapter passed 42 tests. - The plugin SDK passed 45 tests. - The workspace runtime suite passed 124 tests. - The caller-scoped readiness and handoff suite passed 52 tests. - The workspace provisioning shell suite passed 7 tests. - The runtime exposure suite passed 17 tests while live host mappings occupied fixed test ports. - `git diff --check` passed and the worktree is clean. The serialized route lane will run in GitHub CI with its normal shards. No deployment or active-workspace migration was performed. ## Risks - This is a medium-risk authentication and runtime-readiness change. - The login ticket uses exact origin, workspace, instance, and user binding. It has a short expiry and a one-time nonce. - Runtime publication is stricter. A real readiness, identity, per-user handoff, or control-plane database disagreement now blocks publication. - This pull request supersedes #11665 as the merge candidate. Close #11665 after this pull request merges. - No new database migration is included. The lockfile and workflow files are unchanged. - Deployment and active-workspace migration are intentionally outside this pull request. > 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 Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5[1m]`), 1M context, extended thinking, tool use, and code execution produced the main candidate. OpenAI GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) through Codex, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution, integrated the post-QA fixes and hardened the test gates. The Codex context-window size was not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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>	2026-08-19 02:37:02 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	120ae5428f	feat(server): add a one-click relink action for detached custom-image templates (#11641 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip environments can use captured custom images for agent runs > - A configuration fingerprint change can detach a valid custom-image template > - Operators need a safe way to confirm that the image still matches the boot source > - This pull request adds a guarded relink action with drift classification and audit logging > - The benefit is a deliberate relink without a new sandbox boot or provider snapshot ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting environment, server, and UI behavior. Problem or motivation A custom-image template detaches when the environment configuration fingerprint changes. The runtime then uses the base image, even when the boot source did not change. The only prior remedy required a full re-capture. Proposed solution Add an operator-triggered relink action. Classify configuration drift from a server-owned boot-relevant snapshot. Relink knob-only drift without confirmation. Require explicit confirmation for boot-source or unclassified drift. Guard the route for instance administrators and record a safe activity event. Alternatives considered Keep requiring a full re-capture. This adds a sandbox boot and provider snapshot for cases where the image remains correct. Roadmap alignment The roadmap has no matching custom-image relink item. This change addresses an environment operation gap. Additional context The relink response exposes raw drift values only in the transient 409 response to the instance administrator. The service never persists or logs fingerprints or configuration values. Reserved identity-path segments fail closed. ## What Changed - Add `relinkActiveTemplate` with drift classification and conditional fingerprint update. - Persist a server-owned boot-relevant configuration snapshot during capture. - Add the guarded relink route with strict request validation and activity logging. - Add the relink action and confirmation flow to the environment page. - Add service, route, UI, and OpenAPI coverage. ## Verification - Run the focused service suite: `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`. - Run the focused route suite: `pnpm vitest run server/src/routes/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts`. - Run the focused UI suite: `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx`. - Run server and UI TypeScript checks. - Confirm the OpenAPI snapshot matches the new route. - Confirm all required GitHub checks pass on commit `e46fdcfe94a719be854adf8849d30714e5b70b93`. - Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks The relink action can keep an image after configuration drift. The service requires explicit confirmation for boot-source or unclassified drift. Reserved path segments produce a safe unresolved marker and never enter stored values. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The model used repository inspection, GitHub operations, and PR preparation with tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value or a separate reasoning-mode 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>	2026-08-18 11:43:39 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	6b8e42168e	Add governed secret alias confirmation cards (#11486 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely. > - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name without an internal secret identifier. > - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not create an issue-thread approval path. > - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the binding was created. > - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards. > - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a clear failure without exposing secret material. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prerequisite: #11482. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database proposal schema, and issue-thread UI. Problem or motivation An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name. The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance without executing the binding. Proposed solution Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card. Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention resolver. Alternatives considered A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry, authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload instead. Roadmap alignment This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved user-secret ownership checks. - Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database migration. - Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned `secretProposal` metadata. - Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees. - Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock before execution. - Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment when no binding was created. - Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection, withdrawal, and expiry in both directions. - Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes. - Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed, rejected, withdrawn, and expired states. - Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical justification, expiry, and safe failure code. - Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the stitched server result. - Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests. - Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API and agent behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142 passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential variables unset. - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses idempotent guards. - The accept route performs a governed write after it records card acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as rejected. - Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct approval against card rejection. - The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints. - The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers. - The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover immediate cache replacement and every terminal state. > This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub duplicate search returned no other open related work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools 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 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>	2026-08-18 09:44:24 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	c1c46f1e4e	feat: Claude login on the new-agent page before agent creation (#11347 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Claude local adapter supports subscription login through a sandbox > - The new-agent page must show login before the user creates an agent > - Test results must not expose raw sandbox diagnostics or secret values > - This pull request adds the login UI to both Test lanes and closes the diagnostic boundary > - The branch also adds durable cleanup recovery for failed sandbox teardown > - Reusable sandboxes must retain both their recorded teardown configuration and a valid lifecycle path until destruction succeeds > - The benefit is a usable login flow with fixed public checks, redacted server logs, and recoverable sandbox cleanup ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related public work: [#9488](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9488) adds first-class recognition for `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` in headless and remote runs. Related public issue: [#2681](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/2681) requests Claude Code subscription support. This pull request adds the login transport and new-agent UI flow that those changes do not provide. Subsystem affected: Claude local adapter, server login probes, sandbox provider setup, cleanup recovery, and the new-agent UI. Problem or motivation: The Test lanes did not show the sandbox login panel in all supported cases. Test results also exposed raw probe diagnostics, and JSON escapes could end secret redaction early. Proposed solution: Surface the login capability through the bundled provider manifest. Prepare the same probe runtime in the ACP lane. Send diagnostics only to redacted server logs. Keep Test checks on fixed public messages. Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic hosts. Consume JSON escapes during redaction. Preserve failed sandbox cleanup state across retries and restarts, and prevent deletion from severing the lifecycle context of a live reusable sandbox. Alternatives considered: Keep raw diagnostics in Test checks or trust login URL text from the sandbox. Both choices increase information exposure. Keep separate probe behavior in the ACP lane. That choice would leave the two Test lanes inconsistent. ## What Changed - Surface the sandbox login panel on both Test lanes. - Reconcile the bundled Daytona plugin manifest so `supportsSetupTokenLogin` reaches the UI capability gate. - Prepare the ACP Test lane with the same probe runtime as the CLI Test lane. - Add the `claude_acp_login_probe_unavailable` warning when the ACP probe cannot run. - Send raw sandbox diagnostics only to redacted server logs. - Keep Test checks on fixed public messages in the ACP, managed-config, and CLI paths. - Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic hosts. - Redact JSON and escaped-JSON secret values, including escaped quotes and backslashes. - Preserve orphan cleanup records across provider failures, restarts, and unavailable plugins. - Atomically block environment deletion while a live reusable sandbox lease still depends on it. - Verify pending cleanup destroys plugin sandboxes with the provider configuration recorded on the lease, even after the current environment configuration changes. ## Verification - Head under review: `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241`. - Focused environment route/service/runtime coverage passes: 196 tests across 3 files. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - The full Vitest run completed with 4,754 passing and 28 failing tests. All 23 source-test failures reproduce unchanged on parent head `58cfe61a33191ce03d965d65085d26064b4888ba`; the other 5 are duplicate executions from stale `server/dist` output. The failures are unrelated macOS path/listener and scheduler-fixture failures, so there is no new bad commit for bisect to localize. - All required CI checks pass for the current head, including build, typecheck/release registry, all server and workspace shards, serialized server suites, canary, and e2e. - A fresh Greptile review for `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241` reports 5/5, “safe to merge,” with no blocking failure remaining. ## Risks - A probe or redaction change could hide useful server diagnostics. - An allowlist change could reject a valid Claude login URL. - Cleanup recovery changes could affect provider teardown ordering. - An environment with a live reusable sandbox can no longer be deleted until the owning issue or execution workspace completes teardown. - The implementation keeps public Test messages fixed and sends detail to redacted server logs. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex — exact model ID: GPT-5; tool use and code execution enabled; extended reasoning enabled. The implementation author used AI-assisted development. ## 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 documented the result - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation or confirmed no separate documentation change is needed - [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>	2026-08-17 13:42:51 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	e71ce9a9d3	feat: sandbox provider capability contract with fail-closed effective resolution (#11463 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip runs work through adapters and sandbox providers > - Providers need a clear contract so the server can use only verified capabilities > - A declared capability must not grant a method that the live worker did not verify > - This pull request adds manifest declarations and fail-closed effective capability resolution > - The benefit is safe provider reuse across execution targets and run lifecycles ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) Problem or motivation Sandbox providers expose different runtime methods. The server needs one safe capability contract that accounts for provider declarations, worker verification, and narrowing configuration. Proposed solution Add strict manifest validation for five sandbox capabilities. Resolve effective capabilities as the subset of verified, declared, and narrowed values. Store the result as a frozen execution-target snapshot. Alternatives considered Trusting the manifest alone could grant methods that the worker does not support. Trusting only a fixed built-in list would reject valid third-party providers. The intersection rule keeps the verified runtime ceiling and supports both provider types. Roadmap alignment This change supports the ACP run lifecycle track and the sandbox provider contract work in the current roadmap. Additional context The legacy `supportsReusableLeases` field remains supported. The nested capability validator rejects unknown keys. Missing or unavailable verification resolves all capabilities to `false`. ## What Changed - Add strict `sandboxCapabilities` manifest validation with legacy reusable-lease compatibility. - Carry declarations through the ready-driver projection. - Add fail-closed effective resolution from verified, declared, and narrowed capabilities. - Add narrowing for provider configuration, Kubernetes Job leases, and Daytona sessions. - Add a frozen read-only capability snapshot to execution targets. - Add focused tests and keep existing characterization baselines covered. - Add and update sandbox provider capability documentation. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-environment-driver-sandbox-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/sandbox-capability-contract.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/turn-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/settlement-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/composed-run-characterization.test.ts` - Package typechecks for shared, server, and adapter-utils pass. - Stage-2 security review suites pass with 28 tests. ## Risks The resolver fails closed when verification is absent or unavailable. Providers that rely on undeclared capabilities may see narrower behavior until they expose verified worker methods. The change does not alter the existing native-sync guard. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID `gpt-5`, tool use and code execution. The implementation author used this model to assist with the change. ## 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>	2026-08-17 10:55:40 -07:00
Dotta	f4802b1bbc	feat(runtime-exposure): least-privilege Tailscale HTTPS broker, shared contract, and persisted exposure state (#11524 ) <!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip starts and supervises managed runtime services for a project's execution workspaces, so an agent's branch can be previewed while it works > - Those services only listen on plain loopback HTTP. A person on another device, or on a phone, cannot open the preview > - A Tailscale HTTPS mapping solves this, but `tailscale serve` needs host privileges that the Paperclip server process must not hold > - This pull request adds the foundation only: a separate least-privilege host broker, the shared exposure contract, and the database columns that hold exposure state > - Nothing calls the broker yet, so there is no behavior change. The benefit is that the privileged surface is small, reviewable, and isolated before any lifecycle code depends on it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the feature request template. Subsystem affected Managed workspace runtime services, the shared type and validator package, and the database schema. Problem or motivation A managed runtime service binds to loopback only. There is no supported way to reach that preview from another device. Adding HTTPS directly to the server would mean the server process runs `tailscale serve`, which needs privileges far wider than the task requires. A compromised or buggy server could then map any port to the tailnet. Proposed solution Split the privileged work into a separate broker process with a narrow protocol, and define one shared contract that the server, the UI, the runtime, and the broker all read. Land this foundation first, with no caller, so the privileged code can be reviewed on its own. Alternatives considered - Call `tailscale serve` from the server process. This was rejected because it gives the server unrestricted mapping authority. - Use `sudo` for single `tailscale` commands. This was rejected because the argument list is the only guard, and it is easy to widen by accident. - Use a generic reverse proxy. This was rejected because it does not remove the need for a privileged Tailscale mapping step. Roadmap alignment This supports the existing managed workspace runtime capability. It adds no new product surface on its own. Additional context The broker is the security boundary of the feature, so it is deliberately the first slice. Three later pull requests build on it: the server exposure lifecycle, the runtime lease and recovery integration, and the leased-port mediator. ## What Changed - Add the `@paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker` workspace package. The broker listens on a unix socket, authorizes each peer with `SO_PEERCRED`, and answers a small request protocol. - Restrict what the broker will map. It accepts only same-number HTTPS-to-loopback pairs inside the Paperclip port range, refuses protected ports, and confirms that the loopback port belongs to a Paperclip-owned listener. - Parse every request with a strict JSON reader that rejects duplicate keys, prototype keys, and unknown fields. - Write an append-only audit record for each broker decision. - Add the shared exposure contract in `@paperclipai/shared`: the `RuntimeExposureConfig`, `RuntimeExposureState`, and `RuntimeExposureStatus` types, their zod validators, the app and HMR port rules, and the loopback-bind helpers. - Persist exposure state on `workspace_runtime_services` with the new `exposure` column, plus the server-private `exposure_handle` and `backend_url` columns that are never serialized to API clients. - Add the `execution_workspace_runtime_leases` table that the later lease slice uses. - Extend the runtime read-model test fixture for the three new columns. ## Verification Focused checks, all run on this branch: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker test` — 12 files, 82 tests pass. This covers peer credentials, port policy, protected ports, the serve config writer, the strict JSON reader, argv parsing, and the socket server. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker typecheck` — clean. - `npx vitest run --root packages/shared src/runtime-exposure src/validators/runtime-exposure.test.ts` — 3 files, 40 tests pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — runs `check:migrations` first. Migration numbering and migration safety both pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `npx vitest run --root server src/services/workspace-runtime-read-model.test.ts` — 3 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — 139 errors, which is exactly the count on `master` before this branch. All 139 come from the unbuilt `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` package. To confirm the exposure state is inert, start a managed runtime service as usual. The new columns stay null and the service behaves as it does today. ## Risks - Migration risk is low. Both migrations only add a table and three nullable columns. No column is backfilled and no existing column changes. The migration safety check passes. - Behavior risk is low. No code path calls the broker in this pull request, and the shared exposure fields are optional. - The broker is privileged, so it is the real risk surface. It is mitigated by peer-credential authorization, a fixed port range, a protected-port deny list, same-number pair enforcement, listener-ownership checks, strict JSON parsing, and an audit trail. Reviewers should read `packages/tailscale-https-broker/src/authorization.ts` and `src/port-policy.ts` closely. - The broker requires a `tailscale` version floor, which its README records. An older host CLI makes the broker refuse to start rather than map incorrectly. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes because a new workspace package is added. The diff is the new importer block, plus one duplicate `tinyexec` entry that pnpm removed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-08-17 05:54:12 -04:00
DottaandPaperclip	10d0555189	fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. What happened? Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. Expected behavior Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. Paperclip version or commit The problem exists on `master` before this change. Deployment mode Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal 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 - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9e9f744f58	Show blocker links in the task chat (#11456 ) <!-- 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 helps operators supervise agent work through tasks and task threads. > - The redesigned task thread shows the current work and its state. > - A blocked task did not show the dependency that prevented progress. > - Operators had to leave the thread to find the direct and final blockers. > - This pull request adds compact blocker links at the top and bottom of the task thread. > - The benefit is that operators can identify and open the relevant tasks without adding a large notice to the thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The redesigned task thread did not show which task directly blocked the current task or which task ultimately blocked its dependency chain. Subsystem affected `server/`, `packages/shared/`, and `ui/` task-blocker presentation. Current behavior A blocked task can open in the redesigned thread without a visible dependency link at the top or bottom of the conversation. Proposed behavior Show one compact amber row for the direct blocker. Show a second row for the selected final blocker when one exists. Render the rows at both ends of the thread. Reason and benefit Operators can see the reason for the blocked state and open the relevant task from the conversation. The compact rows preserve thread density. Breaking changes None. The new blocker-attention fields are optional. Existing clients remain compatible. ## What Changed - Added a compact task-chat component for direct and selected final blocker links. - Added the blocker rows to the top and bottom of populated and empty task threads. - Added link-ready blocker-attention details so an intermediate selected task stays on its correct direct chain. - Included blocker-link changes in the thread content key so pinned threads follow a newly added bottom row. - Added component, scrolling, server contract, and Storybook coverage for the new states. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` (38 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks - Low risk. The rows only render while the task status is `blocked` and an unresolved blocker is available. - Long titles are truncated to keep each blocker on one line. The full task label remains available in the link title. - Older server payloads keep the original leaf-selection behavior because the new sampled details are optional. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The run used tool-enabled reasoning and code execution. The context-window size was not exposed to the run. ## 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>	2026-08-16 13:09:17 -04:00
scotttongandPaperclip	eabecc6f77	feat(annotations): include issue document annotations in agent review context (#11332 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Reviewers annotate plans and issue documents with inline comments, and assigned agents act on that feedback > - The server already builds a bounded review context from open plan annotations and includes it in agent wake payloads > - Non-plan issue documents did not get the same treatment: their open annotation threads never reached the agent, and the properties pane did not surface their annotations > - This pull request extends the review-context path and the properties-pane UI to issue documents, at parity with plans > - The benefit is that agent feedback on any issue document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The review-context pipeline that delivers inline annotation feedback to assigned agents, and the properties pane that surfaces those annotations to reviewers. Subsystem affected The server review-context path (`server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`, wake payload assembly in `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`, `server/src/routes/issues.ts`), shared wake-payload types (`packages/shared`, `packages/adapter-utils`), and the issue properties pane (`ui/src/components/issue-properties/`). Current behavior A reviewer can annotate any issue document, not only the plan. The agent wake payload includes open annotation threads for the plan document only. Feedback left on other issue documents is invisible to the assigned agent. In the properties pane, the Artifacts tab also gives no way to see or open a document's annotations. Proposed behavior Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` beside the existing plan builder. It collects open annotation threads for all non-plan issue documents, applies the same thread, comment, and character budgets across documents, and reports truncation. Include the result as a new `documentReviewContext` field in agent wake payloads and in the issue wake-context route. Keep the plan context on its legacy builder and field so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. Render the new context in the adapter wake-payload text, and surface annotation counts and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane's Plans and Artifacts tabs. Reason and benefit The floating annotation popover and persistent highlight UI landed earlier; this change completes the loop so agent feedback on any issue document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan. Breaking changes None. The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field; the existing plan context field and its legacy builder are unchanged, so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. ## What Changed - Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` in `server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`: bounded review context (shared thread/comment/character budgets, per-document legacy limits) over all non-plan issue documents - Include `documentReviewContext` in agent wake payloads (`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`) and in the issue wake-context response (`server/src/routes/issues.ts`) - Add shared `DocumentReviewContext` / `DocumentReviewContextDocument` types in `packages/shared` - Normalize and render the new context in adapter wake-payload text (`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`), with tests - Show a `DocumentAnnotationsCountChip` and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane Plans and Artifacts tabs, with tests - Extend server document-annotations service tests to cover the new context builder ## Verification - Run `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts` from the repo root — 104 tests pass - Run `TZ=UTC npx vitest run ui/src/components/issue-properties/IssuePropertiesDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from the repo root — 75 tests pass (one pre-existing monitor-row case asserts UTC timestamps, so use `TZ=UTC` locally; CI runs in UTC) - `pnpm run typecheck` in `server/` passes - Manual: annotate a non-plan issue document, then wake the assigned agent with a comment — the wake payload lists the open document annotation threads; the Artifacts tab shows the annotation count chip and opens the panel ## Risks - The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field; consumers that ignore unknown fields are unaffected, and the plan context field is unchanged - The context is new input to agent wakes; shared budgets (same limits as the plan context) bound token cost across all documents - Low UI risk: the properties-pane changes reuse the existing annotation components > 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 - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code 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) - [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>	2026-08-13 14:23:09 -07:00
Tonio Paperclip Claude Opus 5	f0e6c0f549	feat(server): receive and apply the Paperclip Cloud onboarding seed (#11098 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud provisions a dedicated tenant stack for each customer. During signup it asks for a mission, a name and role for the first agent, and a first task. > - Cloud pushes those answers into the new stack at activation, as `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`. > - No route served that path. The tenant answered 404, so Cloud recorded the push as unacknowledged and retried on every portfolio fetch. > - The failure was soft. The answers stayed durable in Cloud and the stack still activated. But the stack opened on the empty first-run wizard, and it asked the customer again for what they had already given. > - This pull request adds the receiving endpoint. It validates the seed, applies it, and acknowledges it. > - The benefit is that a seeded stack opens with the mission, the agent and the first task already in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue covers this. The problem is described in-PR, following the feature template. Subsystem affected server/ — Express REST API and orchestration services. Also `packages/db` (one new table) and `packages/shared` (one new validator). Problem or motivation Paperclip Cloud collects onboarding answers at signup and pushes them to the tenant stack at activation. The tenant had no route for that request. It answered 404. Cloud treats a non-2xx as "not yet applied", so it kept the answers and retried, but the stack itself stayed unseeded. A customer who had already named their mission, their first agent and their first task arrived at an empty first-run wizard that asked for all three again. Proposed solution Serve `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`. Validate the body, apply it to the company, then acknowledge it. The seed is customer free text, so it is bounded and validated in `packages/shared` and read from the JSON body only. It is never read from an `x-paperclip-cloud-` header. That header set is the trusted identity envelope: every member is derived server-side from the host plus verified domain records, and that is exactly what makes it trustworthy. Mixing user content into it would remove the property. A test plants a mission on a cloud header and asserts that the body value wins. Application reuses the shapes the first-run wizard already produces, so a seeded stack and a manually onboarded one look the same afterwards: - The mission becomes the company-level goal. A multi-line mission splits into a title and a description, as the wizard does. - The agent becomes the company's first hire. Its free-text role ("Chief of Staff") lands on `title`. The structural `role` stays `ceo`, which is what the org chart and the default-instructions lookup read. - The first task becomes an issue in the Onboarding project, assigned to that agent. Cloud retries until it gets a 2xx, and it reads any 2xx as "the tenant holds this content". So the endpoint is idempotent per `revision`. A new `company_onboarding_seeds` table records the applied revision together with the goal, the agent and the issue it produced. A replay of a revision that already matches is a successful no-op. A later revision — the customer edited their answers — updates those three rows in place instead of creating a second agent and a second task. The record is written last, after every other write has landed, so a partial application cannot present itself as acknowledged. Everything is applied before the 200 is sent. This is an ordering guarantee, not eventual consistency. The tests read the database immediately after the response, with no waiting and no polling, so a lazy receiver fails them on a fast machine as well as a slow one. That matters because the redirect into the tenant dashboard is gated on this acknowledgement. Alternatives considered* Store the seed and let the tenant UI apply it on first load. Rejected: the dashboard redirect is gated on the acknowledgement, so a background apply would let the dashboard open before the agent and the task exist. The whole point is that it must not. Reuse `POST /companies/:companyId/agents` and `POST /companies/:companyId/issues` over HTTP from Cloud. Rejected: it needs three round trips with no shared idempotency key, and it moves the "did all of it land?" decision to the caller. Roadmap alignment This completes an existing Cloud-to-tenant contract. It does not add a new user-facing surface. ## What Changed - Add `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed` in `server/src/routes/onboarding-seed.ts`. It authenticates exactly as `POST /api/companies/:companyId/logo` does, through `assertCompanyAccess`. - Add `server/src/services/onboarding-seed.ts`. It applies the mission, the agent and the first task, and records the applied revision last. - Add the `company_onboarding_seeds` table: schema, migration `0216`, and journal entry. It holds the applied revision and the ids of the goal, agent and issue the seed produced. - Add `applyOnboardingSeedSchema` in `packages/shared`. It bounds mission to 2000, agent name to 80, agent role to 120, task title to 200, and task details to 2000 — the same limits Cloud enforces before it sends. - Mount the router in `server/src/app.ts` and register the path in the OpenAPI document. - Add `server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts` with 13 tests. - The seeded agent is created on `claude_local`. This mirrors the teams-catalog default for agents created server-side, where no human runs an environment test first. `PAPERCLIP_ONBOARDING_SEED_ADAPTER_TYPE` overrides it. ## Verification ```sh pnpm typecheck # whole workspace, passes npx vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts # 15 passed ``` The suite runs against embedded Postgres with migrations applied, so migration `0216` is exercised by every test. The route tests cover: - the happy path — mission, agent and task all applied, read immediately after the 200 - replay of the same revision — no second agent, no second task, no second goal, no second project - a later revision — the goal, agent and task are updated in place - a multi-line mission splitting into a goal title and description - a revision-only seed - the activity log entry written once, and not again on a replay - a caller without access to the company — 403, and nothing written - a body with no revision — 400 - each field bound past its limit — 400 - a mission planted on an `x-paperclip-cloud-` header — ignored, body wins - an existing Onboarding project — reused, not duplicated Not verified here: the full Cloud-to-tenant walk against a live stack. That needs a deployed Cloud and a provisioned tenant together, which is separate staging work. ## Risks Migration `0216` creates one new table. It adds no column to an existing table, rewrites nothing, and backfills nothing, so it is safe to apply online. The migration safety check passes. The endpoint writes to a company. Access is enforced by `assertCompanyAccess`, the same gate the company logo write uses, and a test covers the denial. Behavioral note for stacks that already hold data. If a company already has a non-built-in `ceo` agent, a first seed updates that agent's name and title rather than creating a second lead. Likewise a seed adopts an existing company-level goal rather than adding a parallel one. This is deliberate: the seed is the customer's own stated answer from signup, and two competing missions or two leads would be worse than one updated in place. In the intended case — a stack that Cloud has just activated — none of these exist yet. The seeded agent is created on `claude_local` with an empty adapter config. It is idle and needs the usual credential setup before it runs. Seeding it does not start it. ## Update — rebased onto master + review hardening Master moved on after this PR was cut, so it was rebased onto `master`* and the seed migration was renumbered from `0212` to `0216` (the merged #11101 took `0212_onboarding_first_task_unique`); the drizzle journal was re-stitched and `check:migrations` passes. Two things landed on top of the original receiver: - Mission-only walk contract (PAP-67 r17.4). The tenant now owns the first agent and the first task via #11101's server-owned onboarding path, which stamps `ONBOARDING_FIRST_TASK_ORIGIN_KIND` and races safely on the partial unique index `issues_onboarding_first_task_uq`. A comment in the apply path documents why this receiver leaves the first task to that path on the cloud walk, and a paperclip-cloud `node:test` (`src/onboarding/walk-seed.test.ts`) asserts the walk's seed carries no `agent`/`firstTask`. The receiver retains the agent/first-task code for its documented body contract, kept inert on the cloud path by the mission-only seed. - Three Greptile P1 fixes (`95622fa37`): concurrent application is now serialized under a per-company `pg_advisory_xact_lock` (no duplicate goal/agent/project/task on overlapping pushes); a revised first task carries its resolved `assigneeAgentId`/`goalId`; and the `company.onboarding_seed_applied` audit write is best-effort so a logging failure can't leave the entry permanently absent. Two new regression tests cover the first two. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. Used for the original codebase investigation, the implementation, and the tests. The rebase, migration renumber, mission-only contract, and the three P1 fixes were done with Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-12 22:54:07 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	e5a7fd7038	Add sandbox device-login for the Codex adapter (#11237 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Agent adapters connect Paperclip to tools such as the Codex command line tool. > - A sandboxed Codex agent may start without a credential. > - The operator needs a safe sign-in flow that does not expose credentials to the shared package or the sandbox. > - This pull request adds a company-scoped device-login flow with a temporary Daytona sandbox. > - The flow promotes the credential only after readiness checks pass and removes the temporary sandbox after use. > - The result lets an operator sign in to a sandboxed Codex agent from the agent form. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) Problem or motivation A Codex adapter that runs in a sandbox cannot authenticate when the company has no pre-provisioned Codex credential. Proposed solution Add a company-scoped device-login session. Start a temporary sandbox, run `codex login --device-auth`, stream the code and URL, verify readiness, promote the credential, and delete the sandbox. Alternatives considered Pre-provisioning a credential does not support first-time sandbox login. Keeping the credential in the login sandbox does not provide a durable company credential. Roadmap alignment This supports the roadmap item for cloud and sandbox agents. Additional context The flow uses a five-minute cleanup reaper, compare-and-set status changes, and a PostgreSQL advisory lock to protect promotion and cleanup. ## What Changed - Add the adapter login-session contract, database table, and migration. - Add company-scoped server routes and a service for sandbox device login. - Add credential promotion, readiness checks, and cleanup after login. - Add restart-safe cleanup for abandoned login sandboxes. - Add sandbox login controls to the agent creation and edit forms. - Keep device-login and vendor identifiers out of public shared and adapter UI symbols. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local exec vitest run` passed with 310 tests at the submitted commit. - The server login route, service, and reaper tests passed with 45 tests at the submitted commit. - The agent form render tests passed with 26 tests at the submitted commit. - The public-symbol leak check passed at the submitted commit. - A live Daytona sign-in flow still requires confirmation by a user with a live sandbox. ## Risks The migration adds a new company-scoped table. A promotion or cleanup race could remove a credential or leave a sandbox active, so the service uses claims, compare-and-set transitions, and an advisory lock. The live Daytona flow needs operator confirmation because local tests do not provide a real browser sign-in. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution, 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>	2026-08-12 08:58:25 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7ea2068ef8	fix(files): only highlight accessible workspace file links (#11090 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task comments can contain references to files in project and execution workspaces. > - Paperclip detected path-shaped inline code and showed it as an actionable file chip. > - The UI did not first confirm that the current board session could open the file. > - Missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, and unsupported files therefore looked actionable and failed after a click. > - This pull request adds an issue-scoped availability check and promotes only confirmed files to chips. > - The benefit is that the task thread shows a file action only when that action can succeed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Task comments promoted path-shaped inline code to file chips before Paperclip checked the file. A chip could point to a missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, or non-previewable file. The action then failed after the user selected it. Expected behavior Paperclip must show a file chip only after the server confirms that the current board session can open the exact file reference. All other path-shaped text must stay ordinary inline code. Steps to reproduce 1. Add a task comment that contains inline code with a missing or inaccessible workspace path. 2. Open the task thread as a board user. 3. Observe that the path looks like an actionable file chip. 4. Select the chip and observe that the file cannot open. Paperclip version or commit `19be4cf927` and earlier. Deployment mode Local dev and self-hosted server. Access context Board user. ## What Changed - Added shared request, response, and validation contracts for batched workspace-file availability checks. - Added an issue-scoped server endpoint that resolves file references with company, issue, workspace, and preview-access checks. - Added bounded batch concurrency and tests for missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, unsupported, and available files. - Added an issue-scoped UI availability registry that deduplicates, batches, caches, and invalidates file checks. - Changed task-comment markdown rendering so only confirmed files get chip styling and file-viewer behavior. - Bound each chip to the exact workspace target that passed the availability check. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/workspace-file-resource.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.availability.test.tsx ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-availability.test.ts` — 93 passed, 35 skipped. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — clean. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — all server and UI groups passed. One unchanged CLI test saw the run-injected static AWS credentials and expected only its local `AWS_PROFILE`. The same test passed, 8 of 8, after removing only `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` from its process environment. ## Risks - File chips now appear after an asynchronous availability check, so path-shaped text can briefly render as inline code. - Availability results use the existing 30-second file-resource cache window. File-resource invalidation forces a new check. - The endpoint limits each request to 100 references and the client chunks larger sets. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The service did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, command execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>	2026-08-11 12:11:45 -04:00
scotttong	815e49bb7c	feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101 )	2026-08-11 09:06:21 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	5da382fd59	feat(skills): require explicit merge modes (#10978 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can select company skills and synchronize them to adapter runtimes > - The skill sync API replaced the complete selection without an explicit destructive choice > - Company package import also replaced conflicting skills by default > - These defaults could remove operator edits during setup and import reruns > - This pull request adds explicit assignment merge modes and safe package conflict handling > - The benefit is that reruns preserve operator work unless the caller explicitly requests replacement ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? This change improves agent skill synchronization and company package import. Subsystem affected This is a cross-cutting change across the shared contracts, server, CLI, and UI. Current behavior Agent skill synchronization replaces the full desired skill set from a modeless request. Package import replaces a conflicting skill when the caller does not select a conflict mode. Proposed behavior Agent skill synchronization requires `add`, `remove`, or `replace`. Package import skips conflicts by default. Each imported skill reports whether it was created, renamed, replaced, or skipped. Reason and benefit Setup and import reruns must preserve operator edits by default. Explicit destructive modes make data loss less likely and make each outcome inspectable. Breaking changes Callers of the agent skill sync API must now send `mode`. Callers that need the former behavior must send `replace`. Package import now uses `skip` when `onConflict` is absent. ## What Changed - Added required `add`, `remove`, and `replace` modes to the shared agent skill sync contract. - Added actionable `422` validation for missing or invalid modes. - Updated first-party UI and CLI callers with explicit modes. - Changed package skill conflict handling to use `skip` by default. - Kept plugin-owned and built-in stock skill imports on explicit `replace`. - Added created, renamed, replaced, and skipped results to company imports. - Added regression coverage for merge modes and package conflict outcomes. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run:serialized` (128 suites passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` (20 tests passed) - Focused agent skill route, company skill service, portability, CLI, and UI tests passed. - GitHub CI passed build, typecheck, canary, all general and serialized test shards, all browser shards, policy, security, and final verification on commit `2cfbb3e4c5`. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - This change intentionally rejects modeless agent skill sync requests. - The safe package default can leave an existing skill unchanged where the old default overwrote it. - All first-party callers now select a mode. Regression tests cover each outcome. > 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-5.6-sol` through Codex. The runtime used agentic reasoning, tool use, code execution, and repository editing. The runtime did not expose the context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [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>	2026-08-07 00:42:08 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	35132af161	fix(config): preserve extensions and guard invalid repairs (#11005 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The CLI and server share a JSON configuration contract for local installations and worktrees. > - Existing config writes removed extension keys because Zod stripped unknown object properties. > - Invalid config files could also be replaced with defaults before an operator preserved the original bytes. > - Configuration updates must preserve operator edits and must not rewrite files when the effective value is unchanged. > - This pull request adds extension-preserving merges, guarded invalid-config repair, atomic writes, and focused regression tests. > - The benefit is safe setup and configuration reruns without data loss or unnecessary mtime changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Known-field updates through the CLI or server removed unknown top-level and nested config keys. Non-interactive configure and onboard paths could replace a present but invalid config with defaults. Expected behavior Writers preserve extension keys, skip semantic no-op writes, and require explicit interactive confirmation before an invalid config is replaced. Repair preserves an exact collision-safe backup first. Steps to reproduce 1. Add an unknown top-level key and an unknown nested provider key to `config.json`. 2. Update a known field through the CLI or worktree config writer. 3. Observe that the extension keys are removed on the base branch. 4. Write invalid JSON and run configure or onboard without an interactive terminal. 5. Observe that the original file can be replaced without a durable invalid-file backup on the base branch. Paperclip version or commit `master` at the pull request base commit. ## What Changed - Accept unknown properties at each extensible config object boundary while keeping every known field validated. - Merge known-field updates into the parsed source config and preserve only unknown extension data. - Warn about near-match key names without deleting or changing them. - Skip writes when the effective config is unchanged, which keeps file mtimes stable. - Write config changes through a temporary file, file sync, rename, and directory sync. - Distinguish a missing config from an invalid config in configure and onboard. - Back up invalid bytes as `config.json.invalid-N` and verify the source still matches that backup before repair. - Require interactive repair confirmation and reject non-interactive replacement with an actionable message. - Document the config preservation and repair behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/config-schema.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/config-store.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/configure-repair.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/configure.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts server/src/__tests__/config-file.test.ts server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= VITEST_MAX_WORKERS=1 pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Confirm all pull request checks are green on the latest commit. - Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved comments. ## Risks - Passthrough keeps misspelled keys. Near-match warnings make this visible without destructive cleanup. - Merge behavior must distinguish unknown extension keys from optional known keys. Schema-aware regression tests cover preservation and known-key deletion. - Repair must not overwrite bytes that changed after backup. The writer compares the current source with the selected backup before atomic replacement. - The change does not alter database schema, company scoping, or activity logging. > 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 model family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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>	2026-08-07 00:41:19 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Fable 5	03cfad7ceb	feat(apps): connect Notion through MCP OAuth (#11009 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give agents governed access to external tools. > - The Apps gallery lists Notion, but the server required manually configured OAuth credentials. > - Notion's hosted MCP server supports OAuth discovery and dynamic client registration. > - Notion also requires HTTPS or a loopback HTTP redirect URI. > - This pull request adds a direct Notion MCP OAuth path with PKCE and reusable dynamic clients. > - It also adds the current Apps UI states for connect and reauthorization. > - The benefit is a secure Notion connection with no manual client credential setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The Apps gallery, Apps connect route, OAuth token lifecycle, and managed MCP gateway. Subsystem affected `server/`, `packages/shared/`, `scripts/`, and `ui/`. Current behavior The Notion gallery cards are disabled. The server uses the classic Notion OAuth endpoints and requires operator-supplied client credentials. It does not register an OAuth client from provider metadata. Concurrent refreshes can also replay a rotating refresh token. Proposed behavior Enable the Notion Apps flow. Discover OAuth metadata from `https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. Register and reuse a public RFC 7591 client with PKCE. Require HTTPS or loopback HTTP callbacks. Serialize refreshes, store each rotated refresh token before the new access token can be used, and show a reconnect state for `invalid_grant`. Reason and benefit Operators can connect the built-in Notion MCP app without creating or copying OAuth credentials. Paperclip keeps dynamic clients and rotating tokens in the company secret store. Breaking changes None. Explicit environment client credentials still take priority. Existing Slack and Linear OAuth endpoint hints remain unchanged. Other OAuth apps remain disabled unless they are allowlisted. Additional context PR #10910 is a related, broader Connections v3 wizard replacement. This PR is the focused current Apps flow. The MCP Tool Gateway and Connected Apps items in `ROADMAP.md` cover this planned capability. ## What Changed - Classify all 20 reviewed Notion MCP tools with provider-scoped read and write defaults. - Require approval for selected Notion mutations, including move, duplicate, and convert actions that generic verb matching missed. - Preserve company-scoped connection and catalog resolution for Notion profiles and policies. - Add RFC 7591 dynamic client registration with `token_endpoint_auth_method=none` and mandatory PKCE. - Store the dynamic client ID on the connection and store any returned client secret in the company secret store. - Reuse the registered client for later connects and keep explicit environment credentials as the first choice. - Discover protected-resource and authorization-server metadata from the Notion MCP endpoint. - Add `redirectConstraints: "https-or-loopback-http"` to the generated Notion app definition and shared contract. - Reject non-loopback plain HTTP callbacks before network access with a TLS setup error. - Serialize client registration and token refresh operations within the server process. - Store a rotated refresh token before publishing the refreshed access token. - Treat `invalid_grant` as terminal and move the connection to a clear reauthorization state. - Add focused coverage for registration reuse, callback constraints, refresh rotation, and terminal grants. - Enable the Notion Apps route and add connect, redirect, success, error, and reconnect UI states. - Keep non-allowlisted OAuth apps blocked and cover the UI policy with regression tests. ## Verification - The focused Notion policy integration test passed with embedded PostgreSQL. - The focused 20-tool classification test passed. - The server typecheck passed on the governance head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the security follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t \u0027DCR\|refresh tokens\|invalid_grant\|abandoned lease\u0027` passed 10 focused security tests. - `pnpm build` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t 'OAuth\|oauth'` passed 14 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts` passed 5 tests. - The complete server group passed 3,686 tests with 4 skipped. - The complete UI group passed 3,656 tests. - The full local runner found one environment-only CLI failure because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials into a test that expects `AWS_PROFILE` only. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests. - The prior UI verification passed 55 focused tests, `pnpm check:token-gates`, the Storybook build, and review of six 1440 x 1000 screenshots. - OAuth request sequence: protected-resource metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp`; authorization metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`; dynamic registration `POST https://mcp.notion.com/register`; authorization `GET https://mcp.notion.com/authorize`; token exchange and refresh `POST https://mcp.notion.com/token`; MCP traffic `POST https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. - The live metadata and registration probe confirmed that Notion accepts HTTPS and loopback HTTP redirects. It rejects a plain HTTP private hostname. - A later QA task owns the full browser consent and managed gateway tool-list dry run against a configured HTTPS deployment. ## Risks - Notion can add tools. Unrecognized names use the generic classifier, and new or changed risky tools stay quarantined after connection activation. - A deployment that uses a private non-loopback hostname must configure HTTPS before it can connect Notion. - Dynamic registration creates a provider-side client. Paperclip reuses it because registration does not provide a standard delete operation. - Refresh coordination uses a database CAS lease across service instances. An unclean crash leaves an uncertain lease and requires reconnect instead of risking refresh-token replay. - The current Apps surface overlaps with PR #10910. Merge order can require a small conflict resolution if that PR lands first. > 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 on a GPT-5 runtime. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. The runtime used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and network tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [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>	2026-08-06 22:18:08 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f554d67377	fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI 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>	2026-08-05 23:12:41 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Fable 5	e43f187cad	feat(secrets): add human-approved secret proposals (#9934 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents can encounter credentials during work. > - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human governance. > - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret resolution until an authorized human approves them. > - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected agent-config write paths. > - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject lifecycle. > - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-on to #9921, which established run-bound agent secret access. Problem / motivation: Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in work artifacts or immediately creating live access. Proposed solution: Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy. Alternatives considered: We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human permission gate. Roadmap alignment: This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in #9921 with a governed proposal workflow. ## Security Verdict Q0 SecEng verdict: PASS-with-required-changes. The review accepted the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to: - fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction registration succeed; - scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with audit-visible state; - treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action, target, provenance, and approver permissions; - snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at approval to prevent org-chart laundering; - make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation or binding authorization fails; - deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources consistently; and - execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths, including protected-change gates. Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service, route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a value that leaked before the propose call. ## What Changed - Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject, withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing. - Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks, approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails. - Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal values remain redacted on later read surfaces. - Added the Secrets Proposals tab and agent configuration Proposed access rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight, supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades. - Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation, and focused server and UI regression coverage. - Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal migration after `0206`. ## QA Acceptance Results Q5 QA verdict: PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met, with one Minor non-blocking follow-up. - AC1: proposed values never echo, never appear in live lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board reviewers. - AC2: restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward allowed; upward/lateral denied. - AC3: secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext. - AC4: approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target agent's runtime list/fetch routes. - AC5: pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied. - AC6: reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state. - AC7: token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live checks plus focused route tests. - AC8: proposal lifecycle events and reused `secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail; origin-issue notification and wake are queued. - AC9: both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI approval materializes the binding. QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level `bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking. ## Verification - Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass. - Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass. - Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the documented 30-second timeout. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean. - Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It verified 9/9 acceptance criteria. ## Risks - Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove server-compromise risk during that window. - The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable. A separate follow-up owns that change. - A new migration can require another renumber if another migration lands before maintainers merge this pull request. > 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its commit trailers. ## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-05 21:49:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	72b509c895	Recognize delivered workspaces and reap terminal worktrees (#10908 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether the work was actually delivered. > - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into a branch other than the workspace base. > - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger delivery evidence for those cases. > - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing persisted workspace schema. > - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered work, and no active run checkout are all required. > - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent. > - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and the fail-closed reaper guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace cleanup. Current behavior Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active` and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does not contain their original commits. Proposed behavior Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery, unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout. Reason and benefit Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged work retains its warning. Breaking changes The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required. What happened? A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull request. Expected behavior Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run holds its checkout. Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base. 2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target branch. 3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close readiness. Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged” warning indefinitely. ## What Changed - Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`, `merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`. - Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks. - Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has ground-truth merged-PR evidence. - Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal, active-run, and delivered-work guards. - Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions, inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup. - Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their committed HEAD was delivered. - Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries with oldest-entry eviction. - Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal. - Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior, reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose` after review hardening — 43 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the final local head — 73 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15 passed - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` — server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared 415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality, pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or agent can re-provision explicitly. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-05 16:34:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	6ffe9df842	fix(auth): clarify protected-agent assignment blocks (#10893 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task assignment policies control which agents can receive work. > - Protected-agent policy flags currently stop assignment. > - The existing error says that the assignment requires approval. > - Paperclip has no approval workflow for this policy. > - This pull request models the policy as a hard block and gives the operator an action that exists. > - The benefit is accurate API guidance without weakening the existing fail-closed behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6386 What happened? A protected-agent assignment denial said that approval was required. No approval record or approval action existed for this policy, so the message sent agents and operators to a dead end. Expected behavior The authorization result must state that protected-agent policy blocks assignment. It must tell a company administrator to remove the block before retrying. Steps to reproduce 1. Set `authorizationPolicy.protectedAgent.requiresApproval` to `true` on a target agent. 2. Give another agent the `tasks:assign` permission. 3. Preview or attempt assignment to the protected agent. 4. Observe that the old response promises an approval step that does not exist. Paperclip version or commit `c54936e2e9` on `master`. Deployment mode Built from source. The behavior is in the core authorization service and is not deployment-specific. Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Added canonical `protectedAgent.blockAssignment` and `protectedAgent.blockReason` policy fields. - Kept the legacy approval-named flags as fail-closed compatibility aliases. - Changed denial copy to name the hard block and the administrator action. - Added authorization and plugin-host regression coverage for canonical and legacy policy data. - Updated the V1 implementation contract with the protected-assignment rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 61 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. The repository-wide local wrappers exceeded the execution host resource limit before they printed a final summary. The PR check loop will use GitHub CI as the complete test and build authority. ## Risks - Low: assignment remains fail-closed. The change corrects the policy name and denial guidance. - Low: legacy fields remain supported, so existing plugin-owned policy data does not change behavior. - Low: the new policy schemas allow unknown keys for forward compatibility, as the existing authorization policy schema already does. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5`, tool-enabled coding agent with reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub CLI access. 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>	2026-08-05 10:09:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ef33c1d9ed	fix(decisions): retire completed-target decisions and link targets from the card (#10892 ) <!-- 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 > - The decisions desk shows pending decisions that need an operator response > - A strict decision cannot apply its effects after its target task changes > - A decision still remained pending when every target task finished after proposal > - The card also linked only the origin task, even when the decision acted on another task > - This pull request expires those moot decisions and links their target tasks > - The benefit is an accurate queue and a clear path to the work that each decision affects ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10801 removes the issue-page decision strip, which makes clear queue provenance more important. What happened? A strict decision stayed pending until its time-to-live limit after every target task reached `done`. The decision card linked only the origin task. The origin task is where the agent proposed the decision, and it can differ from the task that the decision affects. An operator could therefore open a finished task with no visible decision and no explanation of the real target. Expected behavior Paperclip must expire a strict decision when all of its targets finish after the decision is proposed. The card must show and link every target task that differs from the origin task. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a strict decision that targets an active task from a different origin task. 2. Move the target task to `done` without resolving the decision. 3. Run the decision expiry sweep. 4. Observe that the old code keeps the decision open until its time-to-live limit. 5. Observe that the old card links only the origin task. Paperclip version or commit The bug reproduces on upstream `master` before this pull request. Deployment mode Local dev and self-hosted server modes are affected because the behavior is in the shared decision service and board UI. ## What Changed - Expire an open strict decision with reason `target_completed` when every strict target reached `done` after proposal. - Keep decisions that intentionally target an already-finished task. - Keep lenient-only decisions open. - Keep continuation delivery consistent with other expiry reasons. - Add target-task links to the decision card provenance line. - Use one shared target-ID helper across signing, execution, expiry, card provenance, and resolver preloading. - Add service and UI regression tests for primary, secondary, and target-completed cases. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low migration risk. This change does not alter the database schema. - The expiry sweep performs the existing strict-target query and adds a snapshot comparison before expiry. - A decision remains open if any strict target is active or if a target was already `done` at proposal time. > The roadmap lists work queues as planned. This pull request fixes the existing decisions desk. It does not add a new queue subsystem. ## Model Used - Implementation: Anthropic Claude through Claude Code. The runtime did not expose the exact model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. - PR preparation: OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, 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>	2026-08-05 09:55:01 -05:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5	e8ae5286eb	feat(issues): explain cross-task agent writes with attribution, audit receipts, and actionable denials (#10843 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents write to tasks they do not own. They comment, they change fields, and the control plane now permits this by default for standard-trust agents on any task they can read > - This makes a task thread ambiguous. A reader sees a comment from an agent that is not the assignee, but no surface says whose authority that write rode > - The same gap applies to field edits. The activity stream named the verb, but it did not show the before value, the after value, or the reason the write was permitted > - The remaining refusals are also opaque. An agent that hits a wall receives a 403 with no boundary name, no actor who can act, and no sanctioned path. One real incident spent a full detour to find the workaround > - This pull request adds the three surfaces that make open cross-task writes legible: an attribution chip, a field-level audit receipt, and an actionable denial contract shared by the API and the UI > - The benefit is that a reader can answer "who did this, on whose authority, and was it allowed?" on the task itself, and a blocked writer is told what to do next ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this work, so the enhancement is described here. What existing behavior does this improve? Cross-task agent writes are permitted, but they are not explained. A task thread can hold comments from agents that are not the assignee, and the activity stream can hold field changes made by those agents. Neither surface names the responsible user behind the write. When a write is refused, the error text does not name the boundary or the way forward. Subsystem affected Issue detail UI (comment thread and activity stream), the issue write authorization responses in the server, and the shared copy contract that both consume. Current behavior - An agent comment on a task the agent does not own looks the same as an assignee comment. - An `issue.updated` activity row states the verb only. It does not show the field-level before and after values, the responsible user, or the authorization reason. - A refused write returns a short message such as an ownership error. The message does not state which rule fired, who is able to perform the action, or which alternative path is sanctioned. Proposed behavior - An agent comment on a task the agent does not own carries a chip that reads "for {user}". The chip names the responsible user. Its tooltip states that the author is not the assignee and cannot exceed that user's permissions. - Each `issue.updated` row shows a receipt: the changed fields with before and after values, the responsible user, and the authorization reason. This applies to board edits as well as agent edits. - Each refusal states three things: the boundary that fired, who is able to act, and the sanctioned path. The API error body and the in-app notice use the same words, because both read one shared contract. Related pull requests, found by searching this repository: - Refs #10837 — merged. It added the default-open cross-task write rule, the comment attribution data, and the per-run containment cap that this pull request makes visible. - Refs #10114 — open. It proposes a narrower authorization change in the same area. - Refs #7998 — open. It proposes append-only cross-assignee comments as an alternative to opening writes. ## What Changed - Adds `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts`. This is one copy contract for eight ways an issue write can be refused: not visible, responsible-user ceiling, responsible user unavailable, excluded actor class, assignee run lock, per-run cross-task cap, missing run context, and rejected attribution. Each entry names the boundary, who can act, and the sanctioned path. - Maps server authorization decisions onto that contract in `server/src/routes/issues.ts` and `server/src/services/cross-issue-influence-limit.ts`. The flattened `error` string carries all three obligations, and `details.code` lets the UI render the same words. The two cap codes keep the names they already ship under. - Adds `CommentAttributionChip`. It renders "for {user}" beside the author name on agent comments where the author is not the assignee. It renders nothing when no responsible user is recorded, so older rows stay clean. It is wired into both `IssueChatThread` and the flagged `TaskChatThread` redesign. - Adds `IssueFieldChangeReceipt`. It renders the change receipt under `issue.updated` rows in the activity stream. Ids resolve to agent and user names where the directory is loaded. Server-truncated text is labelled as a preview, so the receipt never implies that it shows a whole value. - Adds `IssueWriteDenialNotice`. It renders the shared copy in the app, keyed off the denial events the server logs on a task. - Adds a public `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration` page. It renders all three surfaces and their edge cases for review without a seeded thread. This follows the existing `ux-lab` pages. ## Verification Automated, all green: ``` pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/issue-write-denial.test.ts # 17 tests pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueWriteDenialNotice.test.tsx \ src/components/IssueFieldChangeReceipt.test.tsx src/components/CommentAttributionChip.test.tsx \ src/lib/issue-change-receipt.test.ts src/lib/comment-attribution.test.ts # 46 tests pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts \ src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts \ src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts \ src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts # 98 tests ``` `tsc --noEmit` passes for the shared, ui, and server packages. Manual, in a browser: 1. Start the UI only: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vite`. 2. Open `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration`. No session is needed, because `ux-lab` routes are public. 3. All three surfaces were captured at 1440x900 in light mode and dark mode, and at 390x844. The page reported no errors. 4. The chip tooltip was opened by a hover and by a keyboard focus. Rendering the page found defects that the tests had missed. Three copy and contrast defects were fixed, and two of them are now pinned by a test. A design review then found three layout defects, which are also fixed: the denial notice orphaned its label when a value wrapped, the receipt icon wrapped onto its own line at narrow widths, and the chip tooltip was reachable by hover only. ## Risks Low risk, and additive. - Every new surface renders nothing when its data is absent. Comments without a recorded responsible user show no chip, and activity events without a receipt show no receipt, so existing rows do not change. - No migration is included. The data these surfaces read already ships. - The wire values of the two per-run cap denial codes are unchanged. Only the human-readable text changes, plus six codes that had no `details.code` before. - The denial copy is read by agents as well as people. If wording must change later, one shared module is the only place to change it. - Roadmap check: this extends the completed "Activity log & action attribution" area rather than duplicating planned core work. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. It ran as an agent in Claude Code and drove a real browser to capture the review screenshots. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 23:02:51 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	678728f650	feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. Subsystem affected The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. Problem or motivation Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. Proposed solution Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. Alternatives considered A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. Roadmap alignment This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - Server — maintained review-path invariant: when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - Server — `reviewAttention` surface: a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - Server — inline stalled-review decisions: secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - Server — resume-intent wake: an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - Server — user-entry symmetry: user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - UI — review panel: a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - UI — decisions card actions: the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - UI — responsive fix: the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - Migration: adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - Behavioral shift: `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - Authz: the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] 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>	2026-08-04 13:54:40 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Fable 5	ded813ad6f	feat(interactions): add governed agent addressees (#10252 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of AI agents. > - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions. > - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another agent for a response. > - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI behavior. > - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering. > - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or audit invariants. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API docs, and UI governance surfaces. ### Problem or motivation Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely. ### Proposed solution Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity, enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback. ### Alternatives considered Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work objects. ### Additional context Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only returned this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and persistence. - Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity, withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior. - Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization, persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill guidance. - Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or is deleted. - Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed resolution paths. - Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention, adapter, CLI, and UI coverage. - Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials and warned instead of passing. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161` completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully. ## Risks - Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent, and migration safety checks pass. - Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries, resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal, expiry, and attention fallback. - Attention routing depends on current agent invokability; reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from retaining visibility or resolution authority. > 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-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane tools. Context-window metadata was not reported 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 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>	2026-08-04 12:51:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ba396c608c	feat(server): configure shared workspace concurrency (#10759 ) <!-- 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. > - The heartbeat service starts agent runs in local, SSH, sandbox, plugin, or Kubernetes environments. > - Runs can share one project working tree. > - PR #10699 made every shared working tree single-file, including trusted local and SSH hosts that support coordinated concurrent work. > - Operators need a policy that keeps remote environments safe and restores local multi-agent work. > - This pull request adds an `auto`, `serialize`, or `allow` concurrency policy and applies it to the final execution environment. > - The benefit is safe serialization by default for sandboxed targets and useful concurrency by default for persistent local targets. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #10699 introduced the busy gate that this change makes configurable. #7852 covers a separate environment-lease race and does not provide this dispatch policy. Subsystem affected `server/` heartbeat orchestration and `packages/shared/` workspace policy contracts. Problem or motivation The shared-workspace busy gate always defers a second run. This behavior prevents local multi-agent projects from running concurrently even when operators expect agents to coordinate through commits. Proposed solution Add `sharedWorkspaceConcurrency` with `auto`, `serialize`, and `allow` values. Default `auto` permits local and SSH concurrency. It serializes sandbox, plugin, and forced Kubernetes execution. Alternatives considered Keeping unconditional serialization is too restrictive for persistent host working trees. Always allowing overlap removes the protection that sandboxed and remote targets need. Roadmap alignment This is a focused correction to the shipped cloud and sandbox execution milestone. It does not add a new roadmap feature. ## What Changed - Added the optional tri-state field to project policy and issue override contracts and validators. - Added a pure resolver with issue override, project policy, and `auto` default precedence. - Moved final environment and Kubernetes resolution before the shared-workspace busy gate. - Kept the existing deferral and retry behavior for every path that resolves to serialization. - Added a task-context warning and a structured log when a run dispatches beside a live holder. - Added policy and heartbeat coverage for all requested policy and environment combinations. - Documented the new policy and its default behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 32 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false PAPERCLIP_DATABASE_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false PAPERCLIP_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false pnpm test:run` — all 3,528 server tests passed. The later UI/workspace phase passed 3,384 tests and hit one unrelated `CompanyEnvironments` navigation timing failure. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx -t "opens the edit form on a standalone page with existing values and closes after save"` — the unrelated UI test passed in isolation. - `pnpm build` — passed. Policy matrix: \| Policy \| Final target \| Expected result \| Result \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| `auto` \| local \| Dispatch with holder note \| Passed \| \| `auto` \| sandbox \| Defer with `workspace_busy` \| Passed \| \| `auto` \| instance-forced Kubernetes \| Defer with `workspace_busy` \| Passed \| \| `serialize` \| local \| Defer with `workspace_busy` \| Passed \| \| `allow` \| sandbox \| Dispatch with holder note \| Passed \| Existing serialization, retry, and stale-holder tests also pass. ## Risks - `auto` changes the post-#10699 local and SSH behavior back to concurrent dispatch. Concurrent agents can mutate the same working tree, so each dispatched run receives an explicit coordination warning. - `allow` is an operator override and can permit overlap in sandbox or plugin environments. - Unknown environment drivers serialize in `auto` mode. This keeps the fallback conservative. - There is no database migration. An absent field resolves to `auto`. > 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). The exact API snapshot and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. Reasoning, repository editing, terminal tool use, and local code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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>	2026-08-03 14:25:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	717684ad8f	Add project folder browsing to skill imports (#9930 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane teams use to manage AI agents and their reusable capabilities. > - Skills Manager lets operators discover and import skills from project workspaces. > - Automatic discovery only surfaces skills in conventional locations, so valid skills stored elsewhere in a project are invisible. > - Operators need a safe way to navigate project folders without exposing paths outside the selected workspace. > - This pull request adds company-scoped workspace folder browsing and selection to the project skill import flow. > - The benefit is that operators can find and import valid skill folders regardless of repository layout while preserving workspace boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Subsystem affected: Cross-cutting (`server/`, `ui/`, and `packages/shared`). - Problem or motivation: Project skill imports rely on conventional directory discovery, which prevents operators from selecting valid `SKILL.md` folders stored in atypical locations. - Proposed solution: Add a company-scoped browse endpoint and a folder browser in the import dialog. The server resolves real paths, rejects traversal outside the workspace, skips symlinks and high-noise directories, identifies skill directories/files, and caps listings at 250 entries. - Alternatives considered: Expanding the automatic scan to every directory would be slower and noisier, while accepting arbitrary filesystem paths would weaken project/workspace scoping. - Roadmap alignment: This extends the completed “Skills Manager, Skill Studio & Skills Store” capability in `ROADMAP.md` without duplicating planned core work. - Additional context: GitHub search found no duplicate or closely related public issues or pull requests. ## What Changed - Added shared browse request/result contracts and validation for project workspace navigation. - Added a company-scoped API route and service that safely lists local workspace folders and detects `SKILL.md` entries. - Added project workspace/folder navigation to the import dialog, including parent navigation, workspace switching, truncation feedback, and direct skill selection. - Added service and route regression tests for browsing, skill detection, company isolation, and traversal rejection. - Added shared response schemas and OpenAPI documentation for the browse endpoint. - Hardened explicit skill selections with realpath containment so symlinked directories cannot escape the project workspace. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills.test.ts` — 64 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3 tests passed. - Focused post-review reruns: `company-skills-service.test.ts` — 45 tests passed; shared/server typechecks passed. - GitHub latest-head checks — all green after one transient e2e rerun; no pending or failing checks. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean on the rebased head. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate risk: this adds a filesystem browsing surface. Realpath containment checks prevent workspace escape, symlinks are excluded, remote-managed workspaces are rejected, and directory listings are capped. - The browser intentionally hides `.git` and `node_modules`; skills inside those directories cannot be selected through this flow. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.5`, reasoning-enabled with terminal/tool use and code execution; runtime context-window size is not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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 — the execution harness requires preserving the assigned branch name. - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — no user-facing docs changes are needed beyond this PR description because the flow is self-explanatory UI behavior. - [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>	2026-08-02 10:55:36 -05:00
Dotta Claude Opus 4.8 Paperclip	0a09e4d975	feat(decisions): add desk workflow and retention (#10672 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision > - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work > - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle old work > - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and reversible retention > - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set > - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts. Problem or motivation Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that does not delete work. Proposed solution Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed, exact item manifest. Alternatives considered Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect. Roadmap alignment This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in `ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474. ## What Changed - Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue page, and aging shelf UI. - Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides. - Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent notification outbox. - Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query, and revive actions. - Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep. - Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks. - Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction contract. - Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused tests, and Storybook screens. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408 files and 3,362 tests passed) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup, and UI API tests. - Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal 50-item page boundary. The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The isolated test passes when those two variables are removed. ## Risks - The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation. - Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set version checks prevent stale archive writes. - Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity, version, or the reviewed set changes. - Archive is reversible and does not delete source records. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used tool calls, code execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The context-window size is not exposed in 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-02 10:47:03 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	30c49c8327	feat(decisions): add queues and prioritized attention feed (#10651 ) <!-- 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 control plane for companies of AI agents. > - Operators use the attention feed to find decisions that need action. > - The feed has eleven source kinds, but it has no durable queue or triage state. > - The feed also returns every item and lacks decision deadlines, snooze state, and decision-focused ordering. > - This pull request adds secure queue sidecars and enriches the attention feed with triage data, filters, cursor pagination, and decide-now ranking. > - The benefit is a bounded feed that can show the most urgent decisions first without weakening source visibility rules. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request replaces the closed [#10634](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10634). It combines that queue foundation with the dependent attention-feed change as one review unit. Subsystem affected Database schema, shared contracts, server authorization and REST APIs, and the UI attention client library. Problem or motivation The attention feed can contain hundreds of mixed decision items. Operators cannot group them into durable queues, set a decision deadline, snooze an item, or request a bounded page ordered by urgency. The current client must download the full feed on each refresh. Proposed solution Store queue membership and triage state by stable attention identity. Re-authorize each source during queue reads and writes. Enrich attention items with queue, deadline, snooze, expiry, rule, and origin data. Add activity and queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, decide-focused ordering, and a decide-now count. Alternatives considered Adding queue fields to every source would duplicate schema and authorization logic across eleven source kinds. Client-only filtering and sorting would still transfer the full feed and would make pagination unstable. Roadmap alignment This change improves the core decision-attention surface and operator oversight. It does not implement the separate general-purpose work queue milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped queue, membership, triage, and append-only event tables with actor and run provenance. - Added queue CRUD, item membership, starter-rule discovery, and decide-by and snooze endpoints. - Kept source authorization on each queue mutation, read, and count. - Added attention fields for expiry, rule, origin agent, queues, decide-by attribution, and snooze state. - Added activity date filters, queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, and configurable page limits. - Added decide-now ordering by deadline, expiry, severity, and activity. - Added `decideNowCount` and excluded actively snoozed items from the default feed. - Updated the shared and UI client contracts. - Added focused server, route, OpenAPI, and UI client tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/decision-queues-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/attention.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts` (72 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - The migration adds four company-scoped tables and provenance foreign keys. Migration numbering and safety checks pass. - Attention reads can lazily create starter queues and memberships. Inserts are idempotent, audited, and transactional. - Cursor validity depends on the filtered feed. The API returns a clear validation error when the cursor item no longer exists in that feed. - Queue reads re-check source visibility. This favors correct authorization over fewer queries. > 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, model `gpt-5`. The runtime used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [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>	2026-08-01 20:37:39 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	9c1f8e7887	feat(decisions): add first-class propose mode (#10010 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can currently perform many mutations directly, while humans often need a durable review point before cross-issue or destructive actions occur > - Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone, reusable object for presenting options, collecting typed inputs, detecting stale targets, and auditing effect execution > - The control plane therefore needs a first-class propose mode that separates an agent's recommendation from the governed mutation it may cause > - This pull request adds Decisions v1 across the database, shared contracts, server execution and telemetry, agent skill guidance, and operator UI > - The benefit is that agents can propose multi-option actions safely while operators get explicit provenance, fail-closed execution, per-effect results, and a focused attention workflow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server`, and `ui`. ### Problem or motivation Agents need a governed way to propose consequential work without immediately mutating issues, especially when one choice can affect several issue trees. Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone object with typed options, target snapshots, effect-level authorization, expiration, execution outcomes, and reusable attention-feed presentation. ### Proposed solution Add first-class Decisions that store options and typed inputs, surface open proposals in the operator attention feed, validate target freshness and the origin-agent/operator authorization intersection at decision time, execute a bounded set of auditable effects, and retain terminal outcomes. Decisions v1 supports comments, status and assignee changes, follow-up issue creation, blocker resolution, and issue-tree cancellation, plus bundle grouping, expiration/dismissal, rule-key telemetry, and agent-facing API guidance. ### Alternatives considered - Extend approvals with arbitrary effects: rejected because approvals represent governed yes/no actions and would become an unsafe generic mutation envelope. - Model every proposal as an issue-thread interaction: rejected because decisions can span several targets and need independent lifecycle, telemetry, idempotency, and effect results. - Let agents perform the mutation and ask for retrospective review: rejected because it removes the pre-execution governance boundary this feature is meant to provide. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` sections Agent Reviews and Approvals, Enforced Outcomes, MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool access), and Activity History by making explicit decisions, authorization gates, auditable execution, and terminal outcomes first-class control-plane objects. ### Additional context This does not replace existing approvals or issue-thread interactions, and it does not add an unrestricted generic mutation effect. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped decision, option, target, and effect-execution schema plus migration and shared TypeScript/Zod contracts. - Added decision routes and services for propose, list/get, decide, dismiss, cancel, target freshness checks, authorization intersection, idempotency, activity logging, and execution auditing. - Added rule-key decision telemetry and attention-feed metadata so open decisions are visible and measurable. - Added agent skill documentation for proposing and resolving decisions through the Paperclip API. - Added the Decisions UI: API client, query keys, inline attention resolver, bundle grouping, target-issue strip, terminal history, destructive confirmation, and per-effect result rendering. - Added server service coverage, DecisionCard state tests, and Storybook stories for the supported visual states. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,876 passed, 1 skipped, with one unrelated cross-suite cleanup-order failure in `heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`; the failing file passes in isolation (`6/6`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx` — passed (`9/9`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed (`5/5`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — passed (`16/16`). - `pnpm --filter paperclipai exec vitest run src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` — passed (`1/1`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Rebased-head focused suite — passed (`6` files, `88` tests): shared decision contracts, Decisions service, OpenAPI routes, startup feedback export, DecisionCard states, and attention helpers. The follow-up stale-secondary-target regression passes in the DecisionCard suite (`10/10`). - Rebased-head scoped typechecks — passed for `@paperclipai/shared`, `@paperclipai/db`, `@paperclipai/server`, and `@paperclipai/ui`. - Rebased-head migration numbering and safety checks — passed after renumbering the additive migration to `0193` and making it replay-safe for environments that applied the earlier feature-branch number. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - GitHub PR workflow and Greptile review for `1f9f7645882d05dfdd9c99377c03a1f53f20e8be` — running after the stale-secondary-target fix and PR metadata refresh on July 27, 2026. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` exposes an existing Storybook version mismatch (`storybook` 10.4.6 vs `@storybook/addon-docs` 10.5.0); Decisions stories were validated with the docs addon temporarily disabled and the tracked config remains unchanged. ## Risks - Migration: Adds replay-safe migration `0193`; migration numbering and safety checks pass. The new tables and indexes are additive. - Authorization: Effect execution intersects the proposing agent's permissions with the responsible user context and fails closed; mistakes could reject a valid proposal rather than silently over-authorize it. - Concurrency: Target snapshots and idempotency keys protect against stale or duplicate execution, but reviewers should focus on mixed-effect partial outcomes and retry behavior. - UI: Decisions are integrated into the existing attention feed rather than a separate navigation surface, reducing routing risk but increasing the importance of attention-item metadata compatibility. > 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 using `gpt-5.6-sol` for final PR preparation, review fixes, and verification; repository tools and code execution were enabled, and context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context assisted with the Decisions UI implementation, as recorded in the relevant commits. ## 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 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-31 19:17:02 -07:00
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
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	b4a7a12985	feat: make recovery updates quieter (#10542 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The recovery subsystem restores work after an agent run stops or loses state > - Recovery notices currently use the same visual weight as normal work comments > - Recovery agents can also post long narratives that obscure the useful hand-off > - The server must identify recovery output because agents cannot set presentation controls > - This pull request adds compact recovery notices, structured action references, and brief recovery prompts > - The benefit is a quieter issue thread that still keeps recovery state inspectable ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `packages/adapter-utils`. Problem or motivation Recovery notices and recovery-run comments can dominate an issue thread. Operators must scan routine recovery narration before they find the work hand-off. Proposed solution Give routine recovery output a compact system-notice presentation. Derive the presentation on the server so agents cannot hide arbitrary comments. Keep the successful missing-state summary fully visible because that comment is the recovery deliverable. Alternatives considered The UI could detect recovery text. That approach is fragile and does not provide structured action references. Agents could also set presentation directly, but that would weaken the current board-only security boundary. Roadmap alignment This change refines the completed “Self-healing runs & automatic recovery” and “Enforced Outcomes” roadmap areas. It does not add a competing roadmap capability. Additional context The scope covers shared comment validation, server recovery notices, agent-comment derivation, and recovery prompt text. No database migration is needed because presentation data already uses JSON. ## What Changed - Add the `compact` issue-comment presentation density to shared constants, types, and validation. - Give recovery escalation, waiting, and in-place notices compact titles and structured recovery-action metadata. - Use recovery-action metadata for notice deduplication, with the legacy text marker as a compatibility fallback. - Derive compact presentation for comments from recovery-scoped runs while preserving the board-only presentation boundary. - Keep successful missing-state recovery summaries fully visible. - Ask recovery participants to record outcomes in `resolutionNote` and keep source-issue comments brief. - Add shared, route, service, and prompt tests for the new behavior and exceptions. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - Focused Vitest coverage: 320 tests passed across shared validators, adapter prompts, issue comments, recovery actions, and heartbeat recovery. - Full server phase: 292 files passed, 3,094 tests passed, and 2 tests skipped. - Full UI phase: 386 files passed and 3,182 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - Known master baseline: `cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` expects `pass`, but the current implementation returns `warn` when strict secret mode is disabled for Postgres. This branch does not change CLI secrets code. ## Risks - Low migration risk. The presentation column is JSON and needs no database migration. - Recovery-run detection depends on the persisted run context snapshot. - Structured metadata becomes the primary deduplication key. The existing body marker remains as a fallback for older comments. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. The model used agentic reasoning, 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-31 09:55:01 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	fcf66f3a91	feat(skills): add managed skill rename API (#9688 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Company skills are reusable capabilities that operators install, edit, assign, and materialize for agents. > - Managed local skills currently lack a safe backend operation for changing their display name and canonical slug/key together. > - Treating rename as an ordinary save can leave duplicate records, stale runtime materializations, or agent assignments pointing at the old key. > - This pull request adds a company-scoped managed-skill rename contract, service operation, and REST endpoint with focused authorization and activity logging. > - The benefit is an atomic-enough, recoverable rename path that keeps disk state, database identity, and agent skill assignments synchronized. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #2121 - Problem: managed company skills need a dedicated rename operation rather than save-time duplication behavior. - Expected behavior: renaming a managed skill updates its name, slug, key, source directory, frontmatter, runtime materialization, and assigned-agent references while preserving version pins. ## What Changed - Added shared request/result types and Zod validation for managed skill rename requests. - Added `POST /api/companies/:companyId/skills/:skillId/rename` with `skills.edit` policy checks and `company.skill_renamed` activity logging. - Restricted renames to Paperclip-managed local skills and added slug, key, and target-directory conflict handling. - Moved the managed directory, rewrote only the `SKILL.md` frontmatter name, updated the database row, and rolled filesystem changes back when persistence fails. - Rewrote assigned agents' desired-skill keys while preserving pinned version IDs and removed stale runtime materialization. - Added focused route and service coverage for success, no-op, name-only changes, conflicts, unsupported sources, assignment rewrites, rollback-sensitive behavior, and runtime cleanup. - Rejected multiline rename names before they can inject extra `SKILL.md` frontmatter fields. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Filesystem and database updates cannot share one native transaction; the service stages filesystem changes and explicitly restores the original directory and markdown when the database transaction fails. - Renames intentionally reject catalog, remote, project-scanned, and unmanaged local skills to avoid changing identities owned by external sources. - No database migration is required; the endpoint updates existing company-skill and agent configuration fields. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (exact underlying model ID and context-window size were not exposed to this runtime), with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and test execution. The rescued source commit also records assistance from Claude Opus 4.8. ## 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>	2026-07-30 15:29:31 -07:00
Devin Foley	916c13501f	Replace host-to-host Cloud Sync with full-fidelity company Import/Export (#10507 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A company accumulates real state — issues, labels, blockers, documents, work products, monitors, attachments, agents, routines — and people need to move that state between instances: self-hosted to cloud, cloud back to self-hosted, or plain backups > - The experimental, flag-gated Cloud Sync transport (#6548) tried to solve this host-to-host: the source pushed into a receiver over HTTPS with a cross-instance consent/token handshake, which required the destination to be publicly reachable and broke for common self-hosted topologies (plain-HTTP LAN/VPN origins); the receiver half never landed upstream at all > - Meanwhile the portability bundle and the existing export/import pages already move companies offline with none of those networking constraints — but silently dropped labels, blockers, issue documents, work products, monitors, and every attachment > - This pull request removes the host-to-host transport and makes Import/Export the single data-movement path: the pages become first-class company-settings destinations, exports declare exactly what they do not carry, and bundle schemaVersion 6 now carries all of the above, with attachments as content-addressed sha256 blobs verified before a single row is written > - The benefit is a migration and backup flow that works between any two instances with no reachability requirements, no cross-instance auth, and no silent data loss ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #6548 — the original Cloud Sync sender this PR supersedes and removes. - Related, not duplicates: #1697 (goals in the portability manifest — orthogonal field addition), #954 (an earlier import/export + skill-visibility proposal predating the current portability bundle). - No open issue describes this directly, so in brief (feature-request shape): Problem — moving a company between instances silently lost labels (imports with label references actually hard-failed), blocker relations, issue documents, work products, monitor state, and all attachments, and the alternative Cloud Sync transport required the destination to be publicly reachable over HTTPS plus a consent handshake, which failed for typical self-hosted setups. Desired behavior — one Import/Export flow in company settings that produces a portable bundle carrying all of that data, tells the operator up front what it cannot carry, imports with automations paused, and offers real one-click activation afterwards. ## What Changed - New export fidelity report (`GET /api/companies/:companyId/export/fidelity`) + an "Export fidelity" panel on the Export page listing anything a bundle will not include (now only: approvals, cost history, activity history) - Imports accept `pauseAutomations`; imported agents and routines land paused, the import result reports created routines, and the Import page ends in an activation panel that actually resumes selected agents/activates routines - Export and Import pages promoted into the company-settings nav; the Cloud Upstream wizard, ux-lab page, and API client removed; the old settings route redirects to Export - Host-to-host transport removed: upstream-sync/receiver-client routes and services, CLI `cloud connect`/`cloud push` + keypair store, the shared upstream transfer contract, and the `enableCloudSync` flag; migration `0196` drops the two experimental `cloud_upstream_` sender tables - Bundle schemaVersion 6: labels (definitions + per-task names, remapped by name on import), blocker relations (`blockedBy` slugs, cycle-tolerant), issue documents (`tasks/<slug>/documents/<key>.md`), work products (system refs nulled), monitors (notes/scheduledBy restored, imported un-armed) - Attachments travel as content-addressed `blobs/<sha256>` entries (deduped; comment-scoped attachments re-link via comment index); every blob is hash-verified before any write, so a corrupted bundle cannot leave a partially imported company; both zip codecs now round-trip extensionless/binary entries byte-exactly; the Import page preflights the inline body limit and offers continue-without-attachments - v5 (and older) bundles still import, with an informational warning; bundles newer than v6 are rejected cleanly - Docs: board-operator import/export guide, CLI README, README/ROADMAP updated ## Verification - `pnpm -r` typechecks (shared, db incl. migration numbering/safety checks, server, ui, cli) and `pnpm check:token-gates` — clean - Vitest: full server + shared sweep 4,888 passed / 1 skipped, with the only 3 failures being pre-existing on `master` (2× heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment, 1× workspace-runtime auto-port; reproduced identically with this change stashed); ui + cli suites green; the embedded-Postgres export-fidelity suite applies the full migration chain including the new `0196` against a fresh database - Live end-to-end on a scratch instance: seeded a company with labels, a blocker pair, an issue document, a work product, a monitor, an agent, a routine, and two binary attachments (one comment-scoped) → export → import into a fresh company → labels remapped to new ids, blocker edge and document restored, monitor un-armed with notes intact, attachments byte-identical (sha256-compared through the API), agents/routines paused → activation panel resumed them; a v5-shaped bundle imported with only the info warning; flipping one byte in a blob made the import 422 with zero* rows created - Reviewer repro: create a company with a labeled issue + attachment → Settings → Export → download → Settings → Import on another company/instance → watch the preview, apply with "start paused", then activate ## Risks - Migration `0196` drops `cloud_upstream_connections`/`cloud_upstream_runs` — experimental tables behind a default-off flag; their connection/run history is intentionally discarded - Breaking removals are all of experimental, flag-gated surface: `/api/upstream-sync/` + `/api/cloud-upstreams/` routes, `paperclipai cloud connect\|push`, and the `enableCloudSync` flag (stale keys in stored instance settings parse harmlessly) - Import remains non-atomic on mid-apply errors generally (pre-existing behavior); the new blob verification specifically moved ahead of all writes so tampered bundles cannot create partial state - GitHub-sourced imports do not fetch `blobs/*` and skip attachments with a warning ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), via Claude Code CLI with extended thinking, tool use, and subagent orchestration; implementation and review split across Fable 5 subagents, with live end-to-end verification 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 (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	2026-07-30 11:37:00 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	c111ee4cb3	feat(server): add per-user document stars (#9952 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work. > - Artifacts and documents are first-class outputs, but users need a personal way to keep important documents easy to find. > - Existing resource memberships already model per-user starred projects and agents with company scoping and activity logging. > - Documents lacked the equivalent membership model, route, and artifact filtering behavior. > - The shared membership contract also needs to remain safe for existing UI project/agent mutation helpers when documents become a recognized resource type. > - This pull request extends the existing resource-membership system with per-user document stars and a starred artifacts view. > - The benefit is a company-scoped, idempotent server foundation for a dedicated starred-documents experience without weakening authorization or artifact filtering semantics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Problem / Motivation Board users cannot star individual documents, and the company artifacts API cannot return only the current user's starred documents. ### Proposed Solution Add company/user-scoped document memberships, a board-only document star route, document membership data in the shared contract, and a `starred=true` artifacts filter. ### Alternatives Considered A document column was rejected because stars are per-user; a separate star API was rejected because projects and agents already use resource memberships. ### Roadmap Alignment This extends the existing Artifacts & Work Products roadmap area and does not duplicate another open pull request found in the repository search. ## What Changed - Added the `document_memberships` schema and migration with company/user/document uniqueness and starred ordering. - Extended shared resource-membership and artifact-query contracts for documents and `starred=true`. - Added company-scoped document star/unstar service and board-only route behavior with activity logging. - Added starred document artifact filtering, including user-authored documents, document kinds, cursor ordering, and incompatible-kind handling. - Preserved idempotency under concurrent star requests and synchronized UI membership defaults/helpers with the expanded contract. - Added focused shared, route, service, and UI regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-artifacts-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The migration adds a new membership table and non-concurrent indexes; migration safety gates pass with the repository's established policy. - The starred artifacts query intentionally returns only documents and relaxes the normal agent-authored/system-kind predicates for documents the current user explicitly starred. - Document membership mutations remain board-user-only; agent callers receive no document-star capability. > 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; runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed to this session. Reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and test 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 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 19:13:35 -05:00
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 \| \| --- \| --- \| \| ![All card states, light](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/all-light.png) \| ![All card states, dark](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/all-dark.png) \| ## 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
Dotta Claude Fable 5 Paperclip	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
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	216d3d2680	Managed-instance config: fail-closed PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG parsing and read-time settings overlay (#10058 ) Builds on. #10055 — the `catalogVersion` this config document pins is the feature-catalog artifact #10055 emits. Summary. Instances operated by a managed hosting control plane can now receive instance configuration through a single environment variable, `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` (versioned JSON: `mode`, `catalogVersion`, `features`, `plugins.autoInstall`). When the variable is absent the instance is self-hosted and nothing changes. When present, parsing is strict and fail-closed: blank value, malformed JSON, unknown feature key, a feature key this build's feature catalog does not mark tier `managed`, missing required section, or unsupported version refuses startup with a precise error — a typo that silently does nothing is how a security control quietly fails. Managed feature values are overlaid at read time inside the instance settings service (never persisted), so a DB restore or manual row edit cannot resurrect a disabled capability; responses expose per-key `managedKeys` metadata (`managed: true`, `managedBy`) so clients can render locked state. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip runs both self-hosted and under managed hosting, where an operator's control plane owns instance configuration > - Today instance feature settings live only in the tenant database; a hosting control plane has no way to enforce a configuration that tenant-side writes or restores cannot undo > - Managed configuration will carry security posture, so delivery must be atomic and parsing must fail closed — a typo that silently does nothing is how a security control quietly fails > - This pull request adds strict parsing of one `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` env var and overlays its feature values at read time inside the settings service, never persisting them > - The benefit is a minimal, auditable managed-hosting contract: absent var ⇒ self-hosted instances are byte-for-byte unchanged; present ⇒ deterministic, locked configuration surfaced to clients via per-key managed metadata ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #966 — this PR delivers that issue's "managed config injection" hook, via a strict env-var contract rather than the config-file path it sketches; the issue's other hooks (identity header, health, usage webhook, lifecycle, external secrets, IAM auth) are out of scope, so the PR refs rather than closes it. Mechanism differs from #966's proposal, so the `feature_request` fields are also filled in: - Problem or motivation: managed hosting deployments need to centrally enable/disable instance features; DB-stored settings can be edited, restored, or migrated back to permissive values, and nothing marks a value as operator-enforced. - Proposed solution: one versioned JSON env var; fail-closed parse at startup; read-time overlay in the settings service (precedence: managed value over stored value over schema default); `managedKeys` metadata in settings responses so clients can render locked state. - Alternatives considered: per-feature env vars (non-atomic across a half-updated env set, unbounded env surface); seeding the DB at boot (persisted values can be edited or restored over, and cannot express "forced"); lenient warn-and-drop parsing (fails open — unacceptable for a security-bearing control). - Roadmap alignment: supports the in-progress "Cloud deployments" milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - New `server/src/services/managed-config.ts` (pure parser over the env record) - Startup parse ordered before the first `instanceSettingsService` construction in `server/src/index.ts` - Read-time merge + `managedKeys` in the settings service - Shared validator updates ## Verification - 29 parser/overlay tests (fail-closed matrix incl. blank/whitespace env, missing sections, catalog-tier mismatch, empty-section happy path): `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/managed-config.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-managed-overlay.test.ts` (from `server/`) - 40 existing settings route/service tests green: `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` (from `server/`) - 15 shared validator tests: `pnpm vitest run src/validators/instance.test.ts` (from `packages/shared/`) - Server `tsc --noEmit` clean: `pnpm typecheck` (from `server/`) ## Risks - Self-hosted instances (no `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` set) are byte-for-byte unchanged — the parser only runs when the variable is present. - For managed instances, a malformed document now refuses startup by design (fail-closed). This is an intentional behavioral guarantee, not a regression: the control plane owns the variable and a precise startup error is the contract. - Overlay values are never persisted, so no migration or data-shape risk. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use; independently peer-reviewed by a second AI agent before push. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-22 19:48:43 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	ad74fb5450	Add a feature catalog build artifact derived from the experimental settings schema (#10055 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Instances expose ~23 experimental feature settings, all declared in one shared zod schema and toggled per instance > - Deployment tooling and hosting control planes have no machine-readable list of those feature keys for a given release — the schema is only reachable from code that imports the package > - Any external system that references feature keys therefore does so as free text, and typos drift silently > - This pull request derives a versioned `feature-catalog.json` build artifact from the schema, with a compiler-checked metadata map so the schema stays the single source of truth > - The benefit is a stable contract external tooling can validate feature-key references against, with zero runtime behavior change ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists; `feature_request` template fields: Problem or motivation: External deployment tooling cannot enumerate or validate an instance's feature keys per release; free-text references fail silently when keys are renamed or removed. Proposed solution: A metadata map keyed by the settings schema's own keys (compiler flags drift) plus a build step emitting `feature-catalog.json` (keys, tiers, defaults, `catalogVersion`) as a release artifact. Alternatives considered: A hand-maintained catalog file (drifts from the schema); serving the schema from a runtime API (requires a running instance at validation time — a build artifact works offline and pins to a release). Roadmap alignment: Supports the in-progress "Cloud deployments" milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed Adds a metadata map (title, description, tier, cloud/self-hosted defaults) keyed by the keys of `instanceExperimentalSettingsSchema`, so the schema stays the single source of truth and the compiler flags any drift. A new build step (`build:feature-catalog --version <v>`) emits `feature-catalog.json` — all 23 feature keys, their tiers, and a `catalogVersion` — as a release artifact that managed-hosting control planes can validate feature-flag writes against. No runtime behavior changes. - New `packages/shared/src/feature-catalog.ts`: per-flag metadata map keyed by a type derived from the settings schema (adding/removing/renaming a flag without updating the map is a compile error), plus `featureCatalogArtifactSchema` and `buildFeatureCatalogArtifact`/`renderFeatureCatalogArtifact` for the artifact - New `scripts/generate-feature-catalog.ts` wired as `pnpm build:feature-catalog --version <v>` - `scripts/create-github-release.sh` generates the artifact and uploads it as a GitHub Release asset (with a dry-run preview line) - Tests in `packages/shared/src/feature-catalog.test.ts` ## Verification - `vitest run packages/shared/src/feature-catalog.test.ts` — 9 tests: schema-key coverage, drift detection, artifact shape - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - Artifact generation run end-to-end: `pnpm build:feature-catalog --version 0.0.0-test` emits 23 keys with `catalogVersion` ## Risks Low risk — no runtime behavior changes; the change is metadata, a build script, and a release-artifact emission step only. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use; independently peer-reviewed by a second AI agent before push ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-22 18:12:56 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	cac3c0fa1a	feat(connections): add runtime subjects and grants (#9982 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Connections is the subsystem that lets operators connect external apps and govern which subjects may use those credentials > - #9958 established the v3 schema foundation and #9981 adds the AppDefinition catalog layer > - The runtime still needs subject-aware authorization state, scoped key handling, and API/OpenAPI routes so connected apps can actually be granted and used safely > - This pull request adds the runtime grants/authorization behavior on top of the catalog branch, while keeping unrelated dependency and workflow sync commits out of the stack > - The benefit is a reviewable runtime layer that can land after the catalog PR, then unblock the wizard and orchestrator cutover work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9958 and #9981. Refs #9981. No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the runtime layer for the Connections v3 stack and is rebased onto `master` after #9981 landed. ## What Changed - Adds the connection user authorization state migration and schema wiring. - Adds shared runtime subject/grant types and validators. - Adds runtime grant and scoped key behavior in the tool-access service. - Adds runtime route coverage and registers the routes in OpenAPI. - Replays only the Connections runtime commits on top of the catalog branch, dropping unrelated sync/dependency history from the prior closed runtime PR. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium: runtime grant enforcement is security-sensitive and must fail closed for unknown key scopes. - Migration ordering depends on the schema and catalog layers already merged through #9958 and #9981. - This PR is rebased and retargeted to `master` with runtime-only commits. > 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 coding agent with repository 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 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>	2026-07-21 16:17:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d23fbf8ae4	feat(connections): add AppDefinition Wave 1 catalog (#9981 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Connections is the subsystem that defines which external apps and MCP-style integrations operators can browse, configure, and run > - The v3 schema core in #9958 added stable connection identities, auth metadata, and grant-aware contracts, but the app catalog still used the older gallery shape > - The product needs a richer, typed AppDefinition catalog so browsing and setup can render provider-specific auth and configuration requirements consistently > - This pull request moves the Wave 1 app catalog onto generated AppDefinition data and carries that shape through shared types, server lookup paths, and app connection UI > - The benefit is that follow-up runtime and wizard work can build against one catalog contract instead of local-only mock/gallery data ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9958. No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the catalog layer for the Connections v3 stack after the schema-core foundation in #9958. ## What Changed - Adds generated AppDefinition data for the Wave 1 catalog and ingestion reporting. - Replaces the legacy tool app gallery exports with AppDefinition-centered shared contracts, validators, and tests. - Updates server tool-access lookup behavior to use the AppDefinition catalog. - Updates app connection UI surfaces and tests to consume AppDefinition-backed catalog data. - Documents the catalog ingestion workflow in the connector playbook. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts packages/shared/src/app-definitions-url.test.ts ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium: this changes the catalog contract used by shared, server, and UI app connection surfaces. - Catalog data quality matters because generated definitions now drive browse/setup display. - Follow-up runtime and wizard PRs must rebase on this branch or on master after this lands. > 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 coding agent with repository 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 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>	2026-07-21 15:57:12 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7e00f67138	feat(connections): add v3 schema core (#9958 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their governed access to external systems. > - Connected Apps build on the existing Apps and MCP gateway substrate so companies can configure reusable, auditable integrations. > - The current connection record does not yet have a stable public address, explicit ownership/auth method fields, or subject-specific credential grants. > - Without that schema core, later OAuth, per-user authorization, token brokering, triggers, and connector-service phases cannot enforce tenant and subject boundaries consistently. > - This pull request adds the forward-compatible Connections v3 schema core while preserving the existing connection lifecycle and directly migrating the remote MCP transport name. > - The benefit is a company-scoped, least-privilege foundation for one-click integrations without bypassing Paperclip secrets, profiles, rules, or audit controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public issue was found. Problem Paperclip's current app connections need a durable identity and authorization substrate before Connected Apps can safely support multiple setup methods, per-user credentials, provider tenants, and managed connector services. The existing schema only models a single connection-level credential set and uses legacy transport terminology. Proposed solution Add a stable company-scoped connection UID, explicit ownership/auth/transport fields, a subject-aware `connection_grants` table, and multi-key credential annotations. Backfill existing connections and workspace grants in a reversible migration, then update shared/server/UI contracts to the new `mcp_remote` transport name. Related work - Related foundation: #9534 - Roadmap: Connected Apps (one-click integrations) ## What Changed - Added company-scoped connection `uid`, `ownership`, `authKind`, and canonical transport fields across database, shared contracts, validators, services, and UI fixtures. - Added `connection_grants` with workspace/user subject rules, provider tenant metadata, credential secret refs, revocation state, company scoping, and uniqueness constraints. - Added migration `0182_connections_v3_schema_core` to backfill stable UIDs, rename `remote_http` to `mcp_remote`, infer auth kinds, create default workspace grants, and support rollback coverage. - Added multi-key credential annotations and updated gateway/access services without changing the existing lifecycle behavior. - Updated the connection glossary, connector playbook, and security threat model for the new identity, grant, and relay boundaries. - Added explicit test UIDs to direct database fixtures so the new non-null invariant is exercised across affected server suites. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-oauth-legacy-backfill.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-policy-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-mcp-servers.test.ts packages/db/src/connections-v3-schema-core-migration.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` — 9 files, 218 tests passed. - Latest-head GitHub Actions: build, typecheck, general/serialized suites, backup/worktree restore coverage, both e2e shards, canary, policy, and security scans pass. - Greptile: 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - `pnpm check:token-gates` remains red only on five pre-existing `#9627` color literals outside this change. ## Risks - Migration risk: UID backfill and default-grant creation touch every existing connection. The migration uses company-scoped uniqueness, deterministic legacy UIDs with ID suffixes, and seeded up/rollback coverage. - Authorization risk: Grant rows carry credential references. Constraints enforce workspace-vs-user subject shape, company/connection lookup indexes, one default grant per connection, and one user grant per connection/subject. Security review is requested specifically for this design. - Compatibility risk: `remote_http` is renamed directly to `mcp_remote`; all repository call sites and fixtures are updated in the same change. - Future-phase risk: Subject-bound token issuance, triggers, and connector-service relay verification remain fail-closed requirements documented for later phases; this PR does not expose those capabilities. > 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 coding agent. The runtime did not expose an exact underlying model ID or context-window size; capabilities used include repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, test execution, Git/GitHub CLI operations, and structured 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>	2026-07-21 15:16:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	051ae4d102	feat: restore decision training library and inspector (#9779 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and supervise governed work. > - Decisions capture high-value operator judgment, and the decision-training foundation merged in #9702 freezes that evidence for later evaluation and learning. > - Operators still need the UI from the closed stacked PR #9718 to intentionally capture examples and inspect the resulting dataset. > - GitHub automatically closed #9718 when its stacked base branch was deleted after #9702 merged, leaving the server foundation on `master` without the corresponding UI. > - This pull request restores the final UI and its still-required supporting API fields directly on current `master`, while excluding the obsolete migration and duplicated server-foundation diffs. > - The benefit is a reviewable replacement PR that preserves the completed decision-training workflow without replaying stale stack history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #9718 - Refs #9702 ## What Changed - Restored the top-level `/training` library and record inspector with search, filters, JSONL export, notes editing, and evidence tabs. - Restored the Decisions-row training affordance and capture drawer, including preview, provenance, deletion, cache refresh, and approval consistency behavior. - Restored the shared types and focused server support needed by the UI without reintroducing decision-training migrations or the already-merged server foundation. - Restored focused UI and attention-service tests from the final #9718 state. - Credit to the authors and reviewers of #9718; this recovery transplants their final reviewed delta after the stacked base deletion. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Training.test.tsx ui/src/components/DecisionTrainingDrawer.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 5 files, 48 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3 tests passed; confirms exact route/OpenAPI parity for the restored preview endpoint. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — the restored files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports five pre-existing false positives where comments reference GitHub issue `#9627` as if it were a color literal. ## Risks - Low migration risk: this PR contains no database migrations and is based directly on current `master`. - The main behavioral risk is cache invalidation across Decisions and Training views; focused tests cover capture, update, deletion, row state, and approval refresh behavior. - The token-gate baseline remains red on unrelated `#9627` comment references; this PR does not modify those files. > 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-5.3-Codex, reasoning with repository/tool access and code execution. Context window 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>	2026-07-17 13:27:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a090c09ee5	feat: add decision training snapshot foundation (#9702 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - Human approvals, issue interactions, and execution decisions already capture high-value decision moments > - Those moments are currently transient and cannot be reused as stable evaluation or training examples > - Reusable examples need a server-owned, immutable snapshot so later comments or runs cannot leak into the recorded state > - Human notes need to remain editable and auditable without changing the captured state > - This pull request adds the database model, snapshot capture service, API, export format, and attention-feed enrichment for decision training > - The benefit is a durable, inspectable foundation for evaluating whether agents can reproduce good human decisions from only the context available at decision time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`). ### Problem or motivation Paperclip has no durable dataset for converting human decisions into evaluation-ready examples. Teams need to capture pending or resolved decisions with the exact issue context, comments, runs, and repository evidence available at a cutoff, while preventing future context from leaking into the example. ### Proposed solution Store immutable, schema-versioned snapshots anchored to durable interaction, approval, or execution-decision records; keep notes separately editable with history; expose human-only CRUD, list, and JSONL export APIs. ### Alternatives considered Client-generated snapshots were rejected because they duplicate cutoff logic and cannot reliably enforce no-leakage boundaries. Automatic outcome backfill was deferred so captured examples remain faithful to what was known at capture time. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the roadmap direction of turning completed work and decision patterns into reusable organizational knowledge. ### Additional context The implementation records explicit commit-resolution confidence (`exact`, `nearest_run`, `workspace`, or `none`) so downstream evaluation can distinguish evidence quality. ## What Changed - Added the `decision_training_examples` schema and idempotent migration with company, issue, and source/author indexes. - Added shared types for decision-training records, notes history, and versioned snapshots. - Added a single server-side snapshot capture path with inclusive comment cutoffs, pre-cutoff run capture, durable decision payloads, and explicit commit-resolution confidence. - Added create, list, detail, notes-only update, delete, and JSONL export routes with human-only write authorization and activity logging that skips no-op note submissions. - Added per-user `trainingExampleId` enrichment to attention items. - Added focused embedded-Postgres tests for cutoff boundaries, post-cutoff leakage, immutable snapshots, human-only writes, duplicate prevention, notes history, attention enrichment, and export shape. - Updated UI test and Storybook attention-item factories for the new required `trainingExampleId` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 10 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. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - The migration adds a new table and indexes only; it does not rewrite existing rows or install resolve-time hooks. - Snapshot JSON can grow with long comment threads and run histories; v1 intentionally favors complete, inspectable examples over aggressive truncation. - Commit SHA resolution is evidence-based and records `exact`, `nearest_run`, or `none` so downstream consumers can account for confidence. - The API is additive, but future UI work must continue to treat the snapshot as immutable and use notes-only updates. > 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-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use, terminal execution, and code-editing capabilities; context-window size is 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-07-17 12:17:34 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	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
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	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

1 2 3 4 5