mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 00:05:49 +02:00
cc81eefb6047d8eaf57faf785f421c03dc97073c
209
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
cc81eefb60 |
Make plan-approval continuations durable after failed wakes (#9331)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through issue-thread interactions. > - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume the assignee so approved work continues. > - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in review with no durable retry or visible recovery path. > - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable, recoverable, and visible when resume fails. > - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of silent limbo. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved, because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable retry or recovery path for accepted continuations. ### Expected behavior Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes the assignee on accept. 2. Accept the confirmation. 3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss before agent start or workspace validation failure. 4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a provider-specific API. ### Database mode Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well. ### Access context Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the assignee wake path. ### Relevant logs or output No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed wake and recovery states directly. ### Relevant config No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand enabled. ### Additional context This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction continuation wakes. - Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation wakes are requeued. - Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted confirmation cards. - Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine. - Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an accepted continuation that never resumed. - Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery, visible failure state, and interaction card rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction card tests for the visible resume-failure UI. - GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports 5/5 with no blocking issues. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries. - Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context, and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being retried. - Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new resume-failure field is 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal workflow. The runtime does not expose an exact context-window value to the agent. ## 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> |
||
|
|
5c85ae64a0 |
Cases: experimental first-class case object (#9198)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single task thread. > - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for content artifacts and their supporting metadata. > - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history, issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend on Cases. > - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views, reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases without making them the default workflow. > - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature. > - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the `enableCases` flag. > - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work, references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads without polluting the core issue model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature. Feature request fields: ### Problem Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on. ### Proposed solution Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and writable by agent workflows through documented conventions. ### Alternatives considered Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution history. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and experimental `enableCases` instance setting. - Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments, and idempotent agent-oriented upserts. - Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than leaking existence. - Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot. - Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters and no-project filtering. - Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible lookup regressions. - Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes, list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children, attachments, and issue-page case rail. - Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company route. - Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or update Cases. - Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to `0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence. ## Verification - Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`. - Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing PR branch. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff --check` before commit. - Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no `.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the Greptile 100-file limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the timestamp and lookup fixes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` — passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file / 12 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the list-filter fix. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes. - Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build, typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review, Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral. - Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads. ## Risks - Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI. - The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default operator exposure while the model is exercised. - Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect remains for externally entered URLs. - Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second pass for ancestor/context rows. - Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where relevant for safer replay. > 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 in the Paperclip local coding environment was used for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation, push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter. Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers recorded in git 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
606aa4f266 |
feat(search): filters, sorting, operators & command-palette parity (#9327)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company search is the primary way operators find issues, comments, documents, artifacts, agents, and projects across a busy company > - Search previously supported only a bare text query: no way to narrow by status/assignee/project/label/date, no sort control, no typed operators, and weak relevance/snippets meant hunting through noise > - As companies accumulate tens of thousands of items, unfiltered single-sort search stops scaling for day-to-day operator workflows > - This pull request adds a full filtering model (filter bar, chips, mobile sheet, URL state), sort modes, typed query operators (`status:`, `assignee:`, `type:`, …) with command-palette parity, relevance/snippet/deep-link improvements, zero-results recovery, and the supporting shared validators, backend service work, and DB indexes > - The benefit is that operators can go from a vague query to the exact item in a couple of keystrokes, on desktop and mobile, with shareable filtered-search URLs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public GitHub issue; describing the underlying feature request inline (per feature_request template): - **Problem:** Company search accepted only a plain text query. Users could not filter results by status, assignee, project, label, or recency; could not change result ordering; and got no guidance when filters emptied the result set. - **Desired solution:** Structured search filters (UI controls + typed query operators + URL parameters), selectable sort modes, better relevance and snippets with exact deep links, and parity between the search page and the command palette. - **Alternatives considered:** Client-side filtering of unfiltered results (does not scale past the fetch limit); a separate "advanced search" page (splits the surface and duplicates state handling). Related (not duplicate) PRs found while searching: #4848 (issue search query planning), #8235 (search rate limiting). ## What Changed - **Shared contract:** new search filter/sort/count/zero-results types and validators in `packages/shared` (`validators/search.ts`, types index). - **Backend:** `server/src/services/company-search.ts` supports issue filters, sort modes, per-filter option counts, snippets, artifact visibility, and zero-results loosen suggestions; single-statement match replaces per-scope scans and predicates are trigram-index compatible (~3.7s → ~350ms on a live 14.8k-hit corpus). - **DB:** migration `0142_company_search_sort_indexes.sql` adds the supporting indexes. - **Search page (`ui/src/pages/Search.tsx`):** filter bar, removable chips, mobile filter sheet with result-count preview, sort menu, URL round-tripping, zero-results recovery UI. - **Query operators (`ui/src/lib/search-query-parser.ts`):** typed operators parsed into filters, operator autocomplete, filter pills. - **Command palette:** operator-aware parsing and full-search handoff. - **Stale-operator fix (latest commit):** typed operator filters are no longer folded into persistent URL-filter state, so deleting a token (e.g. removing `status:blocked` from the input) actually removes the filter from subsequent requests; filter-control edits materialize control state and strip typed tokens so a removed chip cannot resurrect from the input. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Search.test.tsx` — 19 tests including two new red→green regressions for the stale-operator paths (both fail on the previous commit, pass now). - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/CommandPalette.test.tsx` and `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/company-search-service.test.ts` — operator parity and backend filter/sort/count coverage. - `cd ui && npx tsc --noEmit` — clean. - Manual: open `/search`, type `auth status:blocked`, confirm the status filter applies; delete `status:blocked`, confirm results are unfiltered again; drive the same filters from the filter bar/chips/mobile sheet and confirm the URL round-trips (reload/back/forward preserves state). - Full end-to-end QA pass (9/9 acceptance checks) against the wireframes on desktop (1280px) and mobile (390px) with a live API and browser automation. ## Risks - Additive migration (indexes only, no data rewrites) — safe to roll forward; index creation cost is paid once at migrate time. - Search request shape gains optional parameters only; old clients keep working. - Behavioral shift: filter-control edits now strip typed operator tokens from the query text (their values persist as filter state) — deliberate, so removed filters stay removed. - Ranking changes alter result ordering for existing queries; covered by service tests and the QA pass. > 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 Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, extended thinking + tool use) — stale-operator-filter fix, regression tests, PR preparation. - GPT-5 Codex (`codex_local` adapter) and Claude Opus 4.6 (`claude-opus-4-6`) — earlier implementation phases (backend contract, filter UI, operators, ranking) under agent orchestration. ## 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 — pre-existing branch name retained to avoid closing/reopening the PR - [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 affected) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending re-run on latest commit) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending re-review of the stale-filter fix) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
f3ca4d24bc |
fix: repair dirty/foreign-branch execution worktrees (#9297)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Execution workspaces are the bridge between Paperclip's control plane and a local agent's checked-out repository state. > - When a workspace is restored after a failed or interrupted run, the recorded branch can disagree with the branch currently checked out on disk. > - A clean branch mismatch can be reconciled safely, but a dirty mismatch needs a lossless path that does not discard uncommitted agent work. > - This pull request adds a quarantine-and-restore path that saves dirty work to a rescue branch, restores the recorded branch, and exposes the repair from the board UI and run page. > - The benefit is that operators can recover wedged execution workspaces without losing work or moving another live branch unexpectedly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this workspace-recovery failure, so this PR includes the bug report inline. **What happened** A git worktree-backed execution workspace could become wedged when Paperclip expected one branch but found a different checked-out branch with dirty tracked or untracked files. The existing safe repair path refused the restore, leaving the source task blocked with no lossless one-click recovery path. **Expected behavior** Paperclip should preserve dirty work before restoring the recorded workspace branch. If another live workspace claims the checked-out branch, or an attached runtime service is active, the repair should refuse with clear operator-facing evidence instead of risking work loss or file contention. **Steps to reproduce** Create a git worktree execution workspace whose persisted branch name differs from the checked-out branch, add dirty tracked or untracked files in that worktree, then trigger workspace validation or use the branch reconcile endpoint. Before this change, the dirty mismatch remained blocked because Paperclip had no quarantine restore mode. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on the pre-fix workspace-recovery implementation. Verified on this PR head after rebasing onto current `master`. **Deployment mode** Local trusted development/worktree deployments using git worktree execution workspaces and optional workspace runtime services. ## What Changed - Added dirty-worktree quarantine repair that creates a rescue branch, commits dirty tracked and untracked files there, restores the recorded branch, writes audit comments/activity, and preserves the live foreign branch ref. - Added `quarantine_restore` branch reconcile API support, recovery-action resolution, source-task wake behavior, execution-review preservation, claimant refusal, runtime-service refusal, and coverage for the non-transactional git ordering. - Added board UI controls for the repair action in the recovery card plus a compact failed-run workspace recovery surface that uses the same reconcile handlers. - Hardened Greptile follow-up cases by best-effort restoring the recorded branch after a mid-sequence rescue commit failure and by refusing quarantine restore while attached runtime services are active. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts -t "quarantine_restore"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "workspace dirty quarantine branch repair"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts -t "repairs clean unrecorded branch drift|adopts unrecorded forward branch drift"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - Earlier PR verification covered the route, service, heartbeat, UI component, and run-page recovery surfaces; Cutter posted public preview screenshots for the repair popover and run-page panel at https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9297#issuecomment-4926934211. - GitHub PR checks are green on `dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`. - Greptile is 5/5 with zero annotations and no unresolved review threads on `dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`. ## Risks - Moderate risk because the change intentionally runs git commands against local worktrees; the implementation refuses dirty repair when another claimant or active runtime service is detected and records rescue refs for auditability. - Compatibility / release-note callout for self-hosted operators: existing instances that left `enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` unset now get automatic forward branch reconciliation during heartbeat workspace recovery. Operators who want the previous advisory-only behavior can set `experimental.enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` to `false`; dirty quarantine repair can likewise be disabled with `experimental.enableWorkspaceDirtyQuarantineRepair: false`. - If the git rescue succeeds but a later database write fails, the worktree may already be restored while the recovery action remains open; this ordering is documented in code because git side effects cannot participate in the database transaction. - UI risk is limited to the workspace recovery surfaces and covered by component tests plus the existing Cutter visual preview. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, and local test execution. Earlier preserved commits on this branch also show Claude Code / Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in their commit metadata. ## 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] Branch naming exception documented: this PR preserves the existing worktree branch requested for publication while keeping the PR title and body public-facing - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8b6a06ee25 |
[codex] Add built-in agents and Reflection Coach bundle (#9206)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators need first-party agent capabilities for repeatable company work, not just manually created one-off agents. > - Built-in agents need to behave like normal company-scoped agents while preserving approval gates, permissions, budgets, and audit trails. > - Reflection and coaching work also needs bundled instructions, skill content, and a routine so the feature can be installed and reset predictably. > - The API, database, UI, portability, and tests all need to agree on the built-in lifecycle from not provisioned through setup, approval, ready, paused, and reset. > - This pull request adds built-in agent provisioning and the Reflection Coach bundle end-to-end. > - The benefit is a safer first-party path for Paperclip-managed agents without bypassing the same governance model used for operator-created agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this exact built-in agent and Reflection Coach bundle work. Problem/motivation: - Paperclip did not have a first-party built-in agent lifecycle for product-owned agents. - Bundled agent resources such as default instructions, skills, and routines needed managed ownership and reset semantics. - Approval-gated companies needed built-in setup to preserve requested adapter, budget, manager, and permission state through board approval. - The board UI needed clear built-in badges, setup affordances, readiness state, and bundle status without exposing secrets. Proposed solution: - Add a company-scoped built-in agent registry, provisioning/reset/reconcile/status APIs, and Reflection Coach bundled resources. - Track bundled managed resources in the database with idempotent migration behavior. - Reuse existing agent approval, authorization, budget, and activity-log paths instead of creating a bypass. - Add UI setup, badges, gates, bundle panels, and route coverage for built-in agents. Duplicate search: - Searched GitHub PRs for `built-in agents Reflection Coach repo:paperclipai/paperclip`; only this PR was returned. - Searched GitHub issues for the same query; no public issues were returned. ## What Changed - Added built-in agent definitions, lifecycle state derivation, provisioning, reset, reconcile, status, and routine-control routes. - Added the `built_in_managed_resources` migration and schema exports for bundled instructions, skill, and routine ownership. - Added the Reflection Coach built-in bundle with default instructions, skill catalog content, routine template, default permissions, and managed-resource drift handling. - Added approval-aware provisioning behavior that preserves requested adapter config, budgets, manager assignment, and built-in permissions through hire approval. - Added authorization and mutation gates for built-in agent and skill changes, including consented Reflection Coach change paths. - Added UI surfaces for built-in agent setup, roster/detail badges, readiness gates, bundle status, routine controls, and route filtering. - Added company import/export and validator coverage for built-in managed resources and low-trust/red-team presets. - Addressed Greptile follow-ups for pending approval reconciliation, consent-gate error propagation, config-read authorization fallback, approval-path manager preservation, and non-model adapter provisioning. ## Verification Local verification: - `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed with all gates clean. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 4 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/components/BuiltInAgentGate.test.tsx ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx ui/src/components/BuiltInBundlePanel.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 64 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` passed: 3 files, 91 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after the rebase; `pnpm --filter ui typecheck` passed after the final UI review fix. Remote verification on latest head `1c61f693a4ec881d739022b0e75a8ca8bf8c2cd8`: - Merge state: `CLEAN`. - Greptile: `5/5`, zero unresolved Greptile threads. - PR check rollup: all checks successful, neutral, or skipped as expected. - Passing gates include Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, all server shards, all workspace shards, all serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, review, verify, Socket, Superagent, and Snyk. ## Risks - This adds a new managed-resource table and migration; the migration uses idempotent create/add/index guards and passed migration safety checks. - Built-in agent provisioning touches approval and authorization paths; tests cover pending approval preservation, stale retry rejection, consent gates, and config-read fallback behavior. - Reflection Coach creates managed instructions, skill, and routine resources; drift/reset behavior is covered by service tests and redacted API responses. - Non-model adapter setup now provisions a `needs_setup` built-in row before command/endpoint fields are complete; this matches the server lifecycle and is covered by the setup modal regression test. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5. Exact hosted model ID, context-window size, and reasoning-mode labels are not exposed in this runtime; tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI/API access, and local code editing 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> |
||
|
|
b13eb5b2b5 |
Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
4a7a732476 |
feat(skills): add company skill fork prechecks (#9235)
Adds company skill fork precheck metadata, fork result/reassignment contracts, selected-agent reassignment during fork creation, and targeted server/shared test coverage. |
||
|
Dotta
|
83f5f59842 |
[codex] Hide goals sidebar link behind experiment (#9189)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board sidebar is the primary navigation surface for operators scanning companies, projects, tasks, agents, and related control-plane tools. > - Goals still has a route and product surface, but keeping the top-level sidebar link always visible makes it part of the default navigation whether or not that surface is ready for every operator. > - Instance experimental settings already provide a controlled place to expose optional UI surfaces while they are being evaluated. > - This pull request adds a dedicated experimental setting for restoring the Goals sidebar link. > - The benefit is a quieter default sidebar with an explicit escape hatch for operators who still need the Goals entry point. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this internal task, so the feature request is described inline. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, and `packages/shared`. **Problem or motivation** The Goals route remains available, but the top-level Goals sidebar entry makes that surface part of the default operator navigation. While the goals surface is still being evaluated, operators need a quieter default sidebar without losing an escape hatch for teams that still rely on the link. **Proposed solution** Add a boolean instance experimental setting, `enableGoalsSidebarLink`, default it to `false`, and render the Goals sidebar link only when the setting is enabled. Expose the toggle in Instance Experimental Settings so operators can restore the link without changing routes or rebuilding the app. **Alternatives considered** - Remove the Goals route entirely: rejected because this task only asks to hide the sidebar entry point and preserve access for teams evaluating goals. - Keep the sidebar link always visible: rejected because it does not provide the requested quieter default navigation. - Hard-code a local UI flag: rejected because instance experimental settings already provide the expected operator-controlled pattern. **Roadmap alignment** Checked `ROADMAP.md`; no overlapping goals/sidebar/experimental roadmap entry was found. **Additional context** The `/goals` route is preserved. This PR only gates the sidebar navigation item. ## What Changed - Added `enableGoalsSidebarLink` to the shared instance experimental settings type and validator, defaulting to `false`. - Normalized the new setting in the server instance settings service. - Hid the Goals sidebar nav item unless the new setting is enabled. - Added a Goals Sidebar Link toggle to the Instance Experimental Settings page. - Updated shared, server, sidebar, and settings page tests for the new setting. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/instance.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - `git merge-tree --write-tree HEAD origin/master` - Searched for duplicate/related PRs by title and `enableGoalsSidebarLink`; none found. - Checked `ROADMAP.md` for overlapping goals/sidebar/experimental entries; none found. ## Risks Low risk. The main behavior shift is that operators who depended on the sidebar Goals link need to enable the new experimental toggle. The `/goals` route itself is not removed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based Paperclip CodexCoder session with repository tool access and command execution. Exact API model identifier and context window were not exposed by the Paperclip 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 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
f17202b571 |
Add execution workspace branch reconciliation route (#9170)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source app that lets teams run AI agents for work tasks; each agent session uses an execution workspace — a git checkout — to track the agent's active code state. > - Every execution workspace has an expected target branch (`PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_BRANCH`). The workspace git HEAD should always point to that branch so agents commit in the right place. > - When workspace git HEAD diverges from the expected branch — for example after a harness branch-name fix or an accidental `checkout -b` during a CI-retrigger — the discrepancy must be corrected before agents can continue safely. > - Operators (board users) need a controlled, audited path to reconcile a workspace's live branch back to the expected target, with an override escape-hatch for cases where the normal forward path is blocked. > - This pull request adds a board-only `POST /api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` service operation and route that validates safety preconditions, resolves matching recovery-action fingerprints, posts source-issue audit comments, and records the reconciliation outcome. > - The benefit is that operators can correct branch divergence through the API with a full audit trail, instead of via raw database edits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Context below follows the feature-request template format. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API & orchestration services; packages/shared — request validation. **Problem or motivation** Execution workspaces have an expected branch record that must match the checked-out worktree branch. When the live git branch and stored branch record drift apart, operators currently lack a first-class, audited API to reconcile the record. The fallback is manual database repair or workspace replacement, both of which are risky and hard to audit. **Proposed solution** Add a board-only execution workspace branch reconciliation operation. `forward` mode re-inspects the server-side git state and only updates the branch record when the stored branch is an ancestor of the checked-out branch. `override` mode is a break-glass path that requires board access and an operator reason. Both modes require a clean, idle workspace, write audit details, post a source-issue audit comment, and resolve the matching workspace-validation recovery action. **Alternatives considered** Manual database edit (no durable audit trail and easy to mistype), recreating the workspace (heavier operational disruption), or trusting client-supplied ancestry evidence (unsafe because the server must verify the git state itself). **Roadmap alignment** This is incremental hardening for execution-workspace recovery and operator controls. It does not duplicate a public roadmap item. **Additional context** The endpoint is intended for operator recovery, not normal agent control flow, so the generated OpenAPI metadata and runtime route both classify it as board-only. ## What Changed - Added `reconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranchSchema` discriminated-union validator (`forward` with optional reason, `override` requiring a non-empty reason string) to `packages/shared/src/validators/execution-workspace.ts` - Exported `ReconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranch` type and the new schema from the shared package index - Added board-only reconcile-branch service operation in the execution workspaces service: safety checks, recovery-action fingerprint resolution, source-issue audit comment, and outcome recording - Added clean-worktree and stopped-runtime-service preconditions before branch-record mutation. - Marked the reconcile route as board-only in OpenAPI generated auth metadata. - Added `POST /api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` route wired to the new service operation with board-permission gate - Extended `execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts` and `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` to cover: safety-check rejection, override-reason validation, audit-comment posting, and recovery-action fingerprint resolution (2 files / 19 tests) ## Verification ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ``` ## Risks - **Board-only gate:** the operation is gated behind the board permission; no agent can trigger it without operator authorization. - **Override requires reason:** the `override` mode requires a non-empty reason string so every bypass is audited. - **Idempotent recovery-action resolution:** re-running with the same fingerprint is safe; duplicate resolution is a no-op. - **No execution-state mutation:** the route records a reconciliation intent and updates the branch record; it does not restart the workspace or modify running agent state. - Overall risk: **low**. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Claude Sonnet 4.6) - Context window: 200 K tokens - Capabilities: tool use, code execution, multi-turn context Follow-up safety commit: - Provider: OpenAI - Model ID: `codex` / GPT-5 with tool use and code execution ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (`feat/execution-workspace-branch-reconciliation-route`) 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> |
||
|
|
5163208c3c |
Add workspace branch ancestry diagnostics (#9117)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents run in git worktrees tied to a workspace branch; when the actual branch diverges from the expected one (e.g. a parent feature branch was renamed), Paperclip currently has no structured field to report *why* the branch is incoherent or whether it can be auto-reconciled > - The workspace-incoherence fingerprint already captures SHA mismatches, but there is no evidence field distinguishing "actual branch is a descendant of expected" (safe to fast-forward) from "branches have diverged" (needs human review) or "SHAs are unavailable" (unknown) > - Operators and future recovery flows need a typed verdict to make decisions without re-running git commands themselves > - This pull request adds `ancestryVerdict` and `plainLanguageReason` evidence fields computed via `git merge-base --is-ancestor`, and scaffolds the off-by-default `enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` instance setting with no runtime behavior yet > - The benefit is that future recovery logic can branch on a typed verdict rather than parsing prose, while the fingerprint v1 payload stays stable ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue pre-exists for this diagnostic addition. **Problem or motivation** When Paperclip detects that an agent's actual workspace branch differs from the recorded expected branch, the current fingerprint carries only raw SHAs. There is no typed field indicating whether the actual branch is a descendant of the expected one (safe reconcile path) vs. a true divergence (requires human intervention) vs. an indeterminate state (missing SHAs or git errors). Downstream recovery logic cannot branch safely without re-running git. **Proposed solution** Add `ancestryVerdict` and `plainLanguageReason` to the workspace incoherence evidence type; compute via `git merge-base --is-ancestor`; scaffold a feature-flag for future forward-reconcile behavior (`enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward`, off by default, not yet read by any runtime path). **Alternatives considered** Encoding the verdict in the existing fingerprint string was rejected because the fingerprint is a stable identity hash, not a mutable evidence bag. Changing it would break monitors keyed on the string. **Roadmap alignment** Supports future workspace auto-reconcile work; ROADMAP.md has no conflicting entry for this diagnostic layer. ## What Changed - `packages/shared/src/types/heartbeat.ts` adds `ancestryVerdict` and `plainLanguageReason` fields to `WorkspaceIncoherenceEvidence` - `packages/shared/src/types/instance.ts` adds `enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` boolean (off by default) - `packages/shared/src/validators/instance.ts` exports the new flag from the settings validator - `server/src/services/workspace-runtime.ts` computes `ancestryVerdict` via `git merge-base --is-ancestor`; falls back to `unknown` on missing SHAs or command errors; excludes verdict fields from fingerprint v1 computation - `server/src/services/instance-settings.ts` wires the new setting through to the settings service - Tests updated in `workspace-runtime.test.ts`, `instance-settings-service.test.ts`, `instance-settings-routes.test.ts`, and `instance.test.ts` (104 tests total) ## Verification ```bash pnpm exec vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts \ packages/shared/src/validators/instance.test.ts # 104 tests pass pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck # both exit 0 ``` Manual: trigger a workspace incoherence event and confirm the evidence object carries `ancestryVerdict` and `plainLanguageReason`; confirm the fingerprint string stays `workspace_incoherence:v1:sha256:...`. ## Risks **Low risk.** Purely additive. Fingerprint v1 payload is unchanged. The new flag has no runtime effect in this PR. `git merge-base --is-ancestor` exits non-zero for both "not an ancestor" and "command error"; both are handled and collapsed to typed values with a prose reason. ## Model Used Provider: Anthropic, model: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`), 200k context, tool use 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 - [ ] 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 Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
903886bc79 |
[codex] Add starred resource sidebar controls (#9085)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI is the main daily navigation surface for agents, projects, and their related resources. > - Operators need a lightweight way to keep frequently used agents and projects close without changing company-wide ordering or ownership. > - Resource memberships already model per-user relationships to projects and agents, so they are the right place to store user-specific starred state. > - This pull request extends that membership contract with a starred timestamp and exposes star controls in list/detail views. > - The sidebar then uses those starred memberships to show compact, user-specific shortcuts. > - The benefit is faster navigation without introducing a separate favorites system or leaking preferences across users. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Feature request: ## Problem or motivation Users cannot pin frequently used agents or projects into the main sidebar. Returning to important resources requires scanning full project/agent lists or navigating through detail pages, which adds friction to repeated daily workflows. ## Proposed solution Store a per-user `starred_at` timestamp on agent and project memberships, expose API actions to set or clear that state, add star toggle controls to list/detail pages, and render starred projects and agents as compact sidebar shortcuts. ## Alternatives considered A separate favorites table would work, but it would duplicate membership scoping and require another resource relationship model. Keeping starred state on memberships preserves existing company/user boundaries and avoids a second source of truth. ## Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; no overlapping planned core work for starred resource/sidebar navigation was found. ## Additional context The affected subsystems are `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`. The migration is idempotent with `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments that saw an earlier local migration name can still apply the final ordered migration safely. ## What Changed - Added idempotent migration `0133_resource_membership_stars` for `starred_at` columns and lookup indexes on agent/project memberships. - Extended shared resource membership types and validators with starred metadata and actions. - Updated server resource membership services/routes to read and mutate starred resource state. - Added reusable star toggle UI and resource membership hook support for starred state. - Added starred projects and agents sidebar rendering, plus star controls on list and detail pages. - Added focused shared, server, and UI coverage for starred membership behavior and sidebar rendering. ## Verification - Rebased and force-with-lease pushed current PR head `a086fc965391c9e50a51b5b83b5b44a797b2a6f4` onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; `gh pr view` reports `MERGEABLE` with no merge conflicts. GitHub checks are green for this fresh head. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` passed after the rebase: 8 files, 143 tests. - Greptile re-review is 5/5; the remaining screenshot thread was resolved as non-blocking because this task explicitly requested no screenshots/images in the PR. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx` passed after the mobile pending-spinner fix. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 68 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed db/shared/server, then failed in pre-existing UI code outside this PR: `src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.tsx` missing `@xterm/*` type declarations and `previous` possibly null. - Checked that the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Checked `ROADMAP.md` and found no overlapping planned core work for starred resource/sidebar navigation. - Searched existing GitHub PRs for duplicate starred-resource/sidebar work and found none. ## Risks - Migration touches membership tables. The SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` for columns and indexes so environments that saw an earlier local migration name can still apply this safely. - Sidebar ordering and visibility changes could affect users who rely on the previous flat sidebar layout. - Starred state is per-user membership metadata; code paths must continue preserving company/user scoping around memberships. > 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, tool-enabled coding agent with shell/GitHub access. Context window not disclosed 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> |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
bcac517f3b |
Add browser SSH terminal for custom image setup (#8911)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Environment sandboxes already support custom image creation and refresh through a temporary SSH setup session. > - The existing workflow makes operators copy an SSH command into an external terminal before they can install packages or make image changes. > - That extra context switch is slower, easier to get wrong, and less integrated with the setup session Paperclip already tracks. > - This pull request adds an embedded browser SSH terminal for custom image setup, so operators can start working in the target sandbox directly from the environment configuration flow. > - The implementation uses short-lived websocket attachment tokens, session-lifetime SSH host-key pinning, and server-managed terminal cleanup so the feature fits the existing setup-session boundary. > - The benefit is a smoother custom image creation and refresh experience without asking users to leave Paperclip for routine sandbox setup work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/` custom image setup APIs and websocket handling, `ui/` environment configuration UI, and shared custom image contracts. ### Problem or motivation Custom image creation and refresh require an operator to open a separate SSH client, paste the command shown by Paperclip, perform setup work, then return to the browser to finish the image flow. This is functional but awkward for a setup process that already starts and tracks a temporary sandbox session. ### Proposed solution Embed an SSH terminal in the custom image setup UI. When a setup session exposes an SSH payload, Paperclip should open a browser terminal backed by a server-side websocket session, let the operator run setup commands in-place, and then close the terminal when setup is finished, cancelled, expired, or disconnected. ### Alternatives considered - Keep the existing copy/paste SSH command workflow. This remains a fallback, but it does not streamline the common path. - Put SSH credentials directly into websocket URLs. This was avoided so terminal authentication can happen in an explicit first websocket auth frame rather than in logged URLs. - Trust the SSH host blindly for every reconnect. This PR instead pins the observed host-key fingerprint for the setup-session lifetime. ### Roadmap alignment This fits the roadmap theme of making agent workspaces usable in more remote and sandboxed environments while preserving Paperclip's control-plane model. ### Additional context Public GitHub search did not find a duplicate issue or PR for `custom image terminal ssh` in `paperclipai/paperclip`. ## What Changed - Added server-side terminal session tracking for custom image setup sessions, including connect-token issuance, websocket attachment, expiry, resize, input, and shutdown handling. - Added an embedded browser terminal to the custom image creation and refresh flow when a setup session provides SSH connection details. - Moved terminal token authentication out of the websocket URL and into the first websocket JSON auth frame. - Added SSH host-key SHA-256 pinning for each terminal session and documented the provider convention for username-embedded SSH credentials. - Updated the custom image environment API and UI so the setup terminal can open, reconnect, show status, authenticate, resize, and remain active for the setup-session lifetime once attached. - Kept custom image setup routes company-scoped and closed active terminal sessions on setup finish/cancel. - Added focused unit/integration/UI coverage for token expiry, setup-session expiry, websocket close paths, host-key pinning, and terminal session lifecycle behavior. - Removed the generated lockfile delta from the PR; CI owns temporary lockfile regeneration for manifest-changing PRs. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-image-terminal-ws.test.ts server/src/services/environment-custom-image-terminal-sessions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx` - 6 test files passed - 58 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - Local sensitive-content scan over the PR diff using patterns for API keys, private keys, private hostnames, local paths, token fields, and credential-like strings. - Findings were limited to removed URL-token code and synthetic test placeholders such as `ssh-token-secret` and `terminal-token-terminal-token-123456`. - No real credentials, private hostnames, local filesystem paths, or instance-local links were found. - Remote PR checks were green after the implementation commit, including Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, verify, Socket, Snyk, Superagent, and Greptile 5/5. - Post-merge PR hardening on July 3, 2026: merged `origin/master` at `47448721e` into the branch, resolved the `CompanyEnvironments.tsx` import conflict, reran focused tests, server/UI typechecks, server/UI builds, `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`, and `git diff --check`, scanned the final diff for sensitive content, pushed `4b43558cc`, and confirmed all remote checks plus Greptile 5/5 were green. - PR metadata correction on July 3, 2026: changed the title/body framing from bug-fix language to feature-request language. No source files changed for this metadata-only update. ## Risks - Moderate surface area because this adds websocket routing, setup-session runtime state, package dependencies, and a new custom image UI path. - New websocket attachments still require valid short-lived tokens; established terminal sessions remain bounded by setup-session expiry, explicit finish/cancel, client close, or server shutdown. - The terminal-session store is in-memory, so active terminal websocket tokens and host-key pins do not survive server restarts. - SSH host-key verification uses session-lifetime TOFU pinning because the current provider payload does not expose a trusted host-key fingerprint. - The external SSH command remains important as a fallback if a browser, proxy, or network environment cannot sustain the websocket terminal. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell/tool execution. Context window size was 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
b4815bf964 |
Scope environment custom images to instance environments (#8850)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Environments are now managed as instance-level runtime resources rather than per-company rows > - The custom environment image setup tables were introduced with their own `company_id` columns and route query parameters > - That split made one saved environment image state depend on an extra company context even though the environment itself is the durable owner > - It also made saved-environment probes harder because applying the active custom image template could require a company context when no secret-backed config needed one > - This pull request scopes custom image templates and setup sessions directly to the saved environment > - The benefit is that reusable environment images follow the same instance-scoped model as environments while secret resolution still uses company context only when secrets require it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. Bug report: ### What happened? saved environment custom-image routes and persistence required a `companyId` even though environments are instance-scoped, and saved sandbox probes did not opt into active custom-image template application unless a company context was present. ### Expected behavior custom-image templates and setup sessions should be owned by the saved environment, and saved sandbox probes should apply the active template while still requiring a company context only for secret-backed runtime config. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure an instance-scoped sandbox environment with custom-image setup support. 2. Start or inspect a custom-image session or template for that saved environment. 3. Probe the saved environment without a custom-image-specific `companyId` query parameter. ### Paperclip version or commit current `master` after the environment custom-image template migration. ### Deployment mode Local dev (pnpm dev) or authenticated local Paperclip instance. ### Installation method Built from source (pnpm dev / pnpm build). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core bug). ### Database mode Embedded PGlite/Postgres dev database. ### Access context Board human operator. ### Privacy checklist No logs, secrets, tokens, private URLs, or local machine paths are included. Duplicate search performed: - `gh search prs "environment custom image companyId repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --state open --limit 20` - `gh search prs "custom image environment scoped repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --state open --limit 20` - `gh search issues "environment custom image repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --state open --limit 20` The returned results were unrelated adapter, Docker, auth, or stale-workspace items. ## What Changed - Removed redundant `company_id` columns from environment custom-image templates and setup sessions. - Added migration `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped` to collapse duplicate active rows per environment before dropping the old company-scoped indexes/columns. - Updated custom-image services, route handlers, shared validators, and UI API/query keys to use environment-scoped custom-image state. - Kept runtime secret resolution company-aware only when secret refs or bindings require a company context. - Made saved sandbox environment probes opt into active custom-image template application. - Updated DB, shared, server, and UI tests for the new environment-scoped contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` before rebasing onto latest `master`; after the rebase only the migration number changed, and the migration check plus focused suite, typecheck, and build were rerun. - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Migration safety: the migration supersedes duplicate active templates per environment and fails duplicate active setup sessions before adding environment-only unique indexes. Operators with duplicate historical active rows should review which active template is kept. - Behavior shift: plugin custom-image setup calls now receive `companyId: "instance"` when no secret binding determines a concrete company context. - Secret-backed configs still require an explicit or uniquely inferable company context; environments with secret bindings spread across multiple companies continue to fail fast. > 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 via the `codex_local` adapter, GPT-5-based coding model with tool-enabled repository inspection, editing, testing, git, and GitHub CLI access. Exact context-window metadata was 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ac9a883f8b |
Expire ask-user questions superseded by comments (#8799)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue-thread interactions are how agents ask board users for typed decisions and structured answers inside an issue thread > - Confirmation interactions already become stale when a later board/user comment supersedes the pending decision > - Question interactions had the same workflow risk, because a board/user could answer in a comment while the old question card stayed pending > - This pull request extends the supersede-by-comment lifecycle to ask-user-question interactions and makes that status visible in the UI > - The benefit is agents get a clear continuation signal and users do not see stale question forms after the discussion has moved on ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found. Bug report: **Pre-submission checklist** - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip, or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in an agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. **What happened?** Pending `ask_user_questions` interactions could remain open after a later board/user comment changed or answered the request in-thread. That left a stale form visible and kept the interaction in a pending state even though the discussion had moved on. **Expected behavior** Question interactions should follow the same default supersede-on-comment behavior as confirmation interactions, with an explicit expired result that points to the superseding comment. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction on an issue. 2. Add a board/user comment created at or after that interaction. 3. Observe that before this change, the question interaction stayed pending instead of expiring as superseded by the comment. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this PR. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server or local dev. The bug is in shared issue-thread interaction lifecycle handling. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core issue-thread interaction bug. **Database mode** Applies to the normal Paperclip database-backed interaction lifecycle. **Access context** Board user comments supersede agent-created questions. **Relevant logs or output** No crash output. The stale pending interaction was visible in the issue thread state. **Relevant config (if applicable)** None. **Additional context** Confirmation-style interactions already supported this stale-by-comment behavior. This PR brings question interactions into the same lifecycle model. **Privacy checklist** - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and included no private instance links, local ticket ids, secrets, logs, or screenshots. ## What Changed - Added `supersedeOnUserComment` support to `ask_user_questions` payloads, defaulting it to `true` during interaction creation. - Expire pending question interactions when a later board/user comment supersedes them, including a result with `expirationReason: "superseded_by_comment"` and the superseding `commentId`. - Updated interaction summaries and cards so expired question requests show a clear amber state with a jump link to the comment and correct singular/plural copy. - Updated agent onboarding guidance to describe the new default and how to opt out. - Added shared, server, and UI test coverage for the new lifecycle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 5 files, 73 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --reporter=dot && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final type-safety cleanup. - Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or database migrations. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: `ask_user_questions` now defaults to expiring after later board/user comments. Existing callers that need questions to stay open through discussion can set `supersedeOnUserComment: false`. - Expired question interactions store an empty `answers` array, so downstream consumers should treat the explicit `expirationReason` as the meaningful 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 Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder runtime, with terminal and repository tool use. Exact context window 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8d9f9fd240 |
Add reusable sandbox custom images (#8794)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A growing part of that work runs in sandboxed environments rather than on the operator's local machine. > - Today sandbox providers can start fresh workspaces and run probes, but they do not have a shared contract for capturing and reusing prepared sandbox state. > - Operators need a way to set up tools, credentials, and project dependencies once, then reuse that prepared image for later agent runs. > - This pull request adds reusable sandbox custom images across the provider contract, server runtime, and board UI. > - It also keeps probes and sandbox copy flows aligned with pre-authenticated/custom-image environments. > - The benefit is faster, more reliable sandbox runs without repeatedly rebuilding the same environment setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Inline feature request follows. ### Problem or motivation Sandboxed agents need reusable prepared runtime state so repeated runs do not require manual setup every time. Operators often need system packages, CLIs, SDKs, dependency caches, credentials, and project tooling available before an agent can work productively. ### Proposed solution Add a provider-level custom-image capability, server-side setup/capture lifecycle, Daytona/fake provider support, and board UI controls for creating, testing, selecting, and deleting custom images. ### Alternatives considered Leaving this as provider-specific setup outside Paperclip would keep the control plane blind to image state and would not give agents consistent environment metadata. Re-running setup commands for every lease is simpler, but slower and less reliable for interactive or credentialed setup. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this aligns with the Cloud / Sandbox agents roadmap area and does not duplicate any related public issue or PR found by search. Additional context: - Subsystem affected: cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `packages/plugins`, `server`, `ui`). - Duplicate search: searched GitHub for `sandbox custom image` and `sandbox template environment`; no related public issues or PRs were found. ## What Changed - Added custom-image shared types, validators, constants, API paths, and database schema/migration. - Added server services/routes for custom-image templates and setup sessions, including runtime cleanup and provider metadata handling. - Extended plugin/sandbox provider capabilities for interactive setup, template capture, and template deletion. - Implemented custom-image support in the fake sandbox provider and Daytona provider. - Updated environment runtime/config handling so active custom images flow into leases, probes, and agent execution. - Added board UI controls and API client support for custom-image setup, capture, selection, status, and error states. - Hardened sandbox copy/probe behavior for insecure clipboard contexts and pre-authenticated sandbox images. - Added targeted coverage across shared validators, DB schema, server routes/services, provider plugins, adapter probes, and UI flows. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.probe.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `rm -rf packages/db/dist && pnpm test:run` - Public-safety scan of the final diff found no internal Paperclip issue links, private instance URLs, or real secret patterns. ## Risks - Adds a database migration and new environment runtime tables, so migration ordering and rollback need care. - Provider implementations may differ in how reliably they can capture/delete images; unsupported providers surface capability-gated UI states. - Custom-image state can contain operator-prepared tooling and credentials inside the provider image, so providers must enforce their own access controls and cleanup semantics. - Broad surface area across shared contracts, server runtime, plugins, adapters, and UI means CI and Greptile review should be watched closely. > 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 (`gpt-5`) via Codex CLI with tool use and code execution. Assisted with branch cleanup, conflict resolution, local verification, and PR preparation. Earlier branch implementation work was assisted by Paperclip-managed Claude/Codex agents. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
765a75207a |
Add experimental server info debug view (#8676)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The dev/server UI exposes a `/api/health` endpoint and a lower-left
account drawer, but nothing surfaces *which* build the running instance
is on or when it last restarted
> - When iterating on a local dev instance it is hard to tell whether
the server you're looking at has actually restarted onto your latest
commit, or how stale the running process is
> - Developers need a lightweight, opt-in way to confirm the running
instance's identity without digging through logs or shelling into the
host
> - This pull request adds an experimental "Server Info Debug View"
setting that surfaces the running instance's last-restart time and
current commit as read-only rows in the account drawer
> - The benefit is a quick, in-UI sanity check of what the live server
is actually running, behind an experimental flag so it ships zero cost
to users who don't opt in
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Describing the underlying request inline
following the feature request template:
**Problem or motivation:**
When working against a local Paperclip dev instance there is no in-UI
way to confirm what the running server is — its current commit or when
it last restarted. You have to check logs or the host shell to know
whether the process picked up your latest build.
**Proposed solution:**
An opt-in experimental setting ("Server Info Debug View") that, once
enabled, renders a small read-only "Server" section at the bottom of the
lower-left account drawer showing **Last restarted** (the server process
start time) and **Running commit** (the current git HEAD short SHA +
subject).
**Alternatives considered:**
A separate top-right pill/overlay (like the work-life-balance plugin).
The account drawer was chosen to reuse existing menu-row styling and
avoid adding new always-present chrome.
**Roadmap alignment:**
Small, self-contained developer-experience aid gated behind an
experimental flag; does not overlap planned core roadmap work.
## What Changed
- Added `server/src/server-info.ts`: captures a `serverInfo` snapshot
once at boot — process start time and current git commit (SHA +
subject). Git is read via `execFileSync` with SHA validation and a
timeout.
- `/api/health` exposes the `serverInfo` snapshot, but only on
full-details health responses (board/agent in authenticated mode, or
local-trusted dev).
- Gated the UI surface behind a new `enableServerInfoDebugView`
experimental setting, wired through the shared instance type, validator,
settings normalizer, and OpenAPI schema.
- UI: added `SidebarServerInfo` rendering the read-only rows in the
account drawer (`BreadcrumbBar` / `SidebarAccountMenu`), plus the
experimental settings toggle and a typed `health` API client.
- Moved `ServerGitInfo` / `ServerInfoSnapshot` into
`@paperclipai/shared` so the server and UI share one definition instead
of duplicating it.
- Added unit tests for the server-info snapshot, health route exposure,
validator/normalizer, settings routes, the experimental settings page,
and the sidebar component.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/health.test.ts src/__tests__/server-info.test.ts
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` — 32 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/SidebarServerInfo.test.tsx
src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — 9 passed
- `tsc --noEmit` on both `@paperclipai/server` and `@paperclipai/ui` —
clean
- Manual: enable **Settings → Experimental → Server Info Debug View**,
refresh the UI, open the lower-left account drawer — a "Server" section
shows Last restarted and Running commit.
## Risks
- Low risk. The UI surface is fully opt-in via an experimental flag and
defaults off.
- The `serverInfo` field on `/api/health` is access-controlled to
full-details responses only (board/agent in authenticated mode, or
local-trusted dev) — never anonymous authenticated callers — so the git
SHA is not broadly exposed.
- The only new server work is a one-time git read at boot, guarded with
SHA validation and a timeout; failures degrade gracefully (the git block
reports `available: false` rather than throwing).
## Model Used
Claude — `claude-opus-4` (Anthropic), extended thinking with tool use,
via Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no
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
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fd2f82ac5b |
[codex] Add built-in Hermes adapters (#8543)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent adapters are the boundary between the control plane and the runtimes that actually do work. > - Hermes support needs to be available as first-class local and gateway adapters while still preserving the adapter-manager override path for external packages. > - The adapter work touches runtime execution, UI adapter metadata, onboarding prompts, scoped credentials, release packaging, and smoke coverage, so the handoff needs concrete verification rather than only unit tests. > - This pull request adds built-in Hermes local and Hermes gateway support, keeps external adapter overrides compatible, and documents/tests the gateway flow end to end. > - The benefit is that operators can hire Hermes-backed agents without a manual plugin install, while self-hosted installs can still override/shadow the built-ins through Adapter manager packages. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this exact Hermes built-in adapter, gateway onboarding, and release-source work. Problem description: - Hermes local and gateway adapters need a public, reviewable source path in the monorepo so package artifacts and built-in adapter behavior match the application source. - Operators need built-in `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` adapter choices without losing the ability to install external Hermes packages as overrides. - Gateway onboarding needs secure defaults for API server URLs, API keys, and generated agent setup text. - Hermes-originated task bridge credentials need narrower API-key scope configuration. - Related public PRs found during duplicate search include #3027, #2363, #7544, #7950, #8095, and #8543. ## What Changed - Added the unified Hermes adapter package with local and gateway server/UI/CLI exports, config schemas, transcript parsing, model detection, and package metadata. - Registered `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` as built-in adapters across shared constants, server registries, CLI packaging, and UI adapter registries. - Kept the external adapter override path compatible so installed Hermes packages can shadow built-ins and restore the built-in parser when disabled. - Added Hermes gateway onboarding docs, board-operator docs, Docker smoke assets, and shell smoke harnesses for join/e2e validation. - Added scoped task-bridge API-key support, authorization checks, issue-origin handling, and tests for Hermes-created Paperclip tasks. - Hardened gateway transport and redaction behavior for API keys, headers, session data, and smoke diagnostics. - Updated release packaging/bootstrap checks for the Hermes packages while leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of the PR per repository policy. ## Verification Targeted local verification recorded before PR handoff: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter exec vitest run src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` — 14/14 passed. - `pnpm test:hermes-gateway-smoke` — 6/6 passed. - Hermes package typecheck/build checks passed. - Focused server/UI adapter tests passed — 31/31. - Release helper Node tests passed — 18/18. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed. Fresh Docker E2E smoke evidence: - Ran `pnpm smoke:hermes-gateway-e2e` on 2026-06-26 with a fresh state directory and fresh Docker container against a live Paperclip dev server. - Hermes direct execution reached `completed`. - Hermes stop/cancel path reached `cancelled`. - Hermes gateway created a Paperclip task, Paperclip ran the Hermes agent, and the task reached `done` with the expected marker response. - Temporary board auth keys, token files, smoke state, and Docker containers were cleaned up after the run. PR checks on head `b5eae40ce`: - GitHub Actions passed: `policy`, `review`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, all general test shards, all serialized server shards, `Build`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, and aggregate `verify`. - External checks passed: Snyk and Socket Project Report. - External Socket Pull Request Alerts remained pending after the first-party CI matrix completed. ## Risks - Medium risk: this spans adapter registration, package publishing, gateway execution, onboarding docs, API-key scoping, and UI adapter metadata. - Migration risk is low: the scope-config migration adds a nullable column and does not rewrite existing keys. - Gateway execution depends on operator-provided Hermes API configuration; the smoke covers the Docker gateway path but real deployments may differ by network/auth setup. - Direct Greptile review on the latest expanded diff is file-count limited, although the commitperclip review gate passed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled in a local repository workspace. Context window size is not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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] Commitperclip review gate is green; direct Greptile review is file-count limited on the latest expanded diff - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
43b005b704 |
Add pipeline workflow primitives and operator UI (#7903)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift notices, and linked work. > - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface, not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments. > - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes, CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the primitive reviewable end to end. > - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline workflow primitive stack. > - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator experience and server contract together against `master`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature request is described inline. ### Problem or motivation Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation, and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues, routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate. ### Proposed solution Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes, aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail, review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over fields, and retry/recovery flows. ### Alternatives considered - Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated workflow patterns. - Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch because the operator experience is the main way to validate the primitive. - Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same primitives are useful across future company processes. ## What Changed - Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts, server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke support. - Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment, blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and permission recovery behavior. - Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets, automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets, liveness banners, and source automation metadata. - Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared `DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent with the pipeline document surfaces. - Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current pipeline branch. ## Verification Current branch refresh: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19 passed - `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed - Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`: sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle. - GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket, Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review - Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — Confidence Score 5/5 - GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads Previously recorded during branch development: - Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests - Shared validator tests - UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests - Pipeline tutorial smoke path ## Risks - High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database, shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI. - Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master` syncs. - GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status checks are green. - Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b3c0fadd63 |
feat(routines): add date variable controls (#8655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Scheduled routines can prompt agents with variables that are filled in at dispatch time. > - Existing routine variable handling supported plain text-like values, but date inputs need a structured contract so routines can pass consistent date values. > - Operators also need date variables to be easy to configure and override from the routine UI. > - This pull request adds a date variable type across shared validation, server dispatch, and UI editing/run dialogs. > - The benefit is that routine authors can define date inputs once and agents receive validated ISO-style date values when routines run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #219 Feature request: - Problem/motivation: Scheduled routines need first-class, typed date variables so operators can configure dates without relying on free-form text conventions. - Proposed solution: Add an `x-date` routine variable type with shared parsing/validation, server dispatch support, and UI date-picker controls in routine variable editors and run dialogs. - Alternatives considered: Continue treating dates as plain text, but that leaves validation and formatting to individual operators and agents. - Roadmap alignment: This is a focused improvement to the completed Scheduled Routines milestone and does not duplicate an active roadmap item. Related PR search: - Searched existing PRs/issues for `routine date picker`, `date variables`, and `scheduled routine date variable`; no direct duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added the shared `x-date` routine variable contract, parsing, defaults, and validation coverage. - Extended routine dispatch to validate and pass date variable values. - Added date input controls to the routine variable editor and routine run variables dialog. - Added focused tests for shared validation, server dispatch, and the UI date controls. ## Verification - `git diff --check public/master...HEAD` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/RoutineVariablesEditor.test.tsx` - 5 test files passed - 68 tests passed ## Risks Low to medium risk. This adds a new routine variable type across shared/server/UI paths, so the main risk is compatibility with existing routine variable payloads. The change keeps existing variable types intact and adds targeted validation tests for the new date behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with terminal, git, GitHub CLI, and local test execution capabilities. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
8f7282066e |
Add workspace file downloads
Add first-class workspace file downloads, broader attachment content-type support, and the stream-lifetime limiter fix from PR review. |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
569b7affc4 |
[codex] Add bounded workspace overview (#8627)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The execution workspace subsystem powers project and workspace views by listing runtime state, branch metadata, issue links, and status summaries. > - The existing workspace views relied on broad list data that can grow expensive as a company accumulates many workspaces and linked issues. > - That makes the Workspaces page and project workspace cards slower than necessary because the UI does not always need the full workspace detail payload up front. > - This pull request adds a bounded overview contract for workspace listings and moves the relevant UI surfaces to that cheaper path. > - The benefit is faster workspace loading while preserving detail fetches for pages that actually need full workspace data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### What happened? Workspace index-style screens can load too much execution workspace detail before the user asks for it. Several UI surfaces used fuller workspace data paths for summary displays, which can make workspace loading slower as workspace history grows. ### Expected behavior Overview screens should request a bounded summary payload, while detail screens should keep using the full workspace detail endpoint. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run Paperclip from source with enough execution workspace history to make workspace lists non-trivial. 2. Open the Workspaces page or a project workspace summary card. 3. Observe that summary UI needs only bounded workspace metadata but can depend on broader workspace payloads. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` at the time this branch was prepared. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, and path constants for bounded execution workspace overviews. - Added server service and route support for overview queries with bounded linked issue/runtime metadata. - Updated workspace overview UI API calls, query keys, breadcrumbs, quicklooks, close dialogs, project summaries, and detail links to consume the cheaper overview shape where appropriate. - Added regression coverage for the new server route/service behavior and the UI overview consumers. - Registered the new workspace overview route in the generated OpenAPI spec. - Kept overview totals aligned with the project join and preserved project slug links in workspace headers. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/execution-workspaces.test.ts ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Workspaces.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` - `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 1 --shard-count 4` ## Risks Low to medium risk. The change introduces a new overview contract across shared/server/ui layers, so the main risk is a mismatch between summary and detail payload expectations. The added route/service/UI tests cover the intended split, and full detail pages continue using the detail path. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with repository tool use and local command execution. Exact served model identifier and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ed65d08d57 |
[codex] Gate skill mutations with skills:create permission (#8616)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and board users operate inside a company-scoped control plane where permissions decide which mutating actions they can perform > - Company skills are part of the reusable agent-company setup surface, but skill mutation had been coupled to broader agent-creation authority > - That coupling meant importing or managing skills required a permission that also implies hiring power, which is broader than the operation needs > - Paperclip already has a grant-based permission vocabulary, so skill mutation should be authorized through a dedicated `skills:create` capability while preserving existing default behavior for trusted agents > - This pull request adds the skill creation permission contract, enforces it on company skill mutations, exposes it in agent permission management, and documents the changed CLI/API expectations > - The benefit is a narrower, auditable permission path for skill import/create/update/delete flows without forcing agents to receive broader agent-creation authority ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue is linked. Problem: company skill mutation APIs were effectively tied to broader agent creation authority. This PR splits skill mutation authorization onto the public `skills:create` permission while keeping existing default skill creation behavior for agents unless explicitly disabled. Related public PR found during duplicate search: #5330. That PR uses an older `canManageSkills` shape; this PR implements the `skills:create` grant path instead. ## What Changed - Added `skills:create` to shared permission constants and agent permission types/validators as `canCreateSkills`. - Backfilled default human/member role grants for `skills:create`. - Updated company skill mutation routes to require board/user or agent access to `skills:create`, while preserving legacy/default agent behavior through `canCreateSkills` unless explicitly disabled. - Updated agent permission update handling, UI permission controls, duplicate-agent payloads, plugin SDK fixtures, and agent detail API surfaces for `canCreateSkills`. - Added regression coverage for skill route authorization, permission schema/default behavior, invite grants, omitted permission updates, and duplicate-agent payloads. - Updated CLI and Paperclip skill documentation for the new skill creation permission. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/invite-join-grants.test.ts ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts` — 5 files, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm test:run ...changed files...` was attempted first, but the stable wrapper rejects explicit file arguments; direct Vitest was used for the same targeted files. ## Risks - Moderate authorization risk: this changes the gate for company skill mutations, so the tests cover board grant checks, agent explicit grant checks, legacy default allowance, and explicit denial. - Migration/backfill risk is low: the migration only grants `skills:create` to existing human roles that already need broad management capability. - UI/API compatibility risk is low: `canCreateSkills` remains default-on for full agent permissions, and the update validator preserves omitted values so unrelated permission edits do not re-enable disabled skill creation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with terminal/tool use 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2dbaf4a7fa |
External object references across issue surfaces (#8512)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products. > - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and plugin-provided external context. > - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand status, identity, and liveness. > - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company. > - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts, storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can contribute detection and status resolution. > - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation, GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters, sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage. > - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. Feature request: - Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline. - Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise status-aware links across issue surfaces. - Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues containing external work links. - Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped, provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests. Related PR search: - No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`. - Closed related prior attempt: #4556. ## What Changed - Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness helpers, and plugin protocol declarations. - Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects, source mentions, and display metadata. - Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing, refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents, comments, projects, and plugins. - Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring docs. - Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat, documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar badges, and Storybook stories. - Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56 tests. - Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not claim those were rerun after the final rebase. ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core mutations. - Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are additive and company-scoped. - Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current GitHub shapes. - Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended surfaces. > Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature. Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products, preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped external-object reference foundation. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context window were not exposed in the environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
cd38c150b0 |
feat: reuse Daytona sandbox leases (#8513)
Add opt-in reusable Daytona sandbox lease support, including retryable pending cleanup handling.\n\nPR: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/8513 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
0b945f449b |
Make streamlined sidebar default to on (#8496)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI has an experimental streamlined left navigation mode that changes how projects and agents appear in the sidebar. > - Today that mode is opt-in, so users keep seeing the classic navigation unless they find and enable the experiment. > - The requested product behavior is to make streamlined navigation the default experience while keeping an explicit experiments opt-out. > - This pull request flips the shared/server default, updates UI consumers to treat only explicit `false` as classic mode, and covers both the default-on path and opt-out behavior in tests. > - The benefit is that new and legacy settings get the streamlined sidebar by default without removing the classic-sidebar escape hatch. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7645 Related: #8430 takes the broader route of removing the classic sidebar. This PR intentionally keeps the opt-out path. ## What Changed - Default `enableStreamlinedLeftNavigation` to `true` in shared validation and server-side normalization. - Preserve explicit stored `false` as the experiments opt-out for the classic sidebar. - Render the sidebar and experimental settings toggle as streamlined-on unless the setting is explicitly `false`. - Add regression coverage for loading/default streamlined sidebar behavior and the opt-out patch from the experiments page. - Remove internal issue identifiers from newly touched source comments before publishing. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed, 3 files / 27 tests. - `pnpm build` — passed, with existing Vite/CSS/chunk-size warnings. - `pnpm test:run` — failed in unrelated `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`: the test `auto-detects the default branch via symbolic-ref when origin/HEAD is set` creates a temp repo on `main` then runs `git push -u origin main master`; `master` does not exist in that temp repo. Summary: 1 failed, 214 passed, 1780 tests passed, 1 skipped. ## Risks Low-to-medium behavioral risk: the default sidebar changes for users who never explicitly set the experiment. Explicit `false` remains respected, so users can still opt out via experimental settings. > 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 via Codex local adapter, with tool use and code execution. Exact context window was not surfaced in 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
33353ce62b |
feat(skills): remove bundled paperclip-dev skill and retire required skill attribute (#7029)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Local adapters (Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, Grok, OpenCode, Pi, ACPX) ship bundled "skills" — opinionated Markdown prompt bundles materialized into the agent's runtime > - One of those bundled skills, `paperclip-dev`, existed to let agents develop Paperclip itself; it has now moved to its own external repo and no longer belongs in the core tree > - The adapter skill model also carried a `required` / `requiredReason` attribute plus a `paperclip_required` `AdapterSkillOrigin` variant, all of which only existed to mark bundled skills as non-optional in the UI and adapter sync logic > - With `paperclip-dev` gone, no bundled skill is "required" anymore, and the type / runtime surface for `required` is dead weight — but it is computed at request time and never persisted, so a clean removal is safe (no compatibility shim needed) > - This pull request deletes `skills/paperclip-dev/` and removes every trace of the `required` / `requiredReason` field and the `paperclip_required` origin across shared types, validators, adapter-utils, all eight local adapters, server routes, the company-skills service, the UI, the storybook fixtures, and the test suite > - The benefit is a smaller, simpler adapter-skill surface: one origin (`company_managed`) for managed bundled skills, `resolvePaperclipDesiredSkillNames` collapses to "just the configured desired set", and the AgentDetail skills tab no longer renders a "Required by Paperclip" section that no longer applies ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No existing public GitHub issue; describing the underlying work inline (feature_request template fields). --> **Summary** Remove the bundled `paperclip-dev` skill (now maintained in its own external repo) and retire the `required` / `requiredReason` skill attribute and the `paperclip_required` skill origin, which only existed to support it. **Problem or motivation** `paperclip-dev` is the only bundled skill that was ever marked "required". Now that it lives in a separate repository, shipping it inside the core tree is wrong, and the entire `required` surface (a type field, a validator field, a synthesized `paperclip_required` origin, UI "Required by Paperclip" section, and required-skill merging in the desired-skills calculation) becomes dead weight. The `required` value is computed at request time and never persisted, so it can be removed cleanly without a migration or compatibility shim. **Proposed solution** Delete `skills/paperclip-dev/`, drop the `required` / `requiredReason` fields and `paperclip_required` origin everywhere they are produced or consumed, collapse managed-skill origin to a single `company_managed` value, and simplify `resolvePaperclipDesiredSkillNames` to return only the configured desired set. **Alternatives considered** Keeping the `required` attribute as a no-op for forward compatibility — rejected because it is request-time only (nothing persists it), so leaving it in place is pure dead surface area with no callers. **Roadmap alignment** Internal cleanup / dead-code removal that simplifies the adapter-skill surface; it does not introduce or duplicate any planned core feature in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Deleted bundled `skills/paperclip-dev/` (moved to a separate repo). - Dropped `required`, `requiredReason`, and the `paperclip_required` origin from `packages/shared/src/types/adapter-skills.ts`, `packages/shared/src/validators/adapter-skills.ts`, and `packages/adapter-utils/src/types.ts`. - In `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`: removed `readSkillRequired()`; dropped `required`/`requiredReason` from `listPaperclipSkillEntries()`, `normalizeConfiguredPaperclipRuntimeSkills()`, `buildPersistentSkillSnapshot()`, and `PaperclipSkillEntry`; collapsed `buildManagedSkillOrigin()` to always return `company_managed`; simplified `resolvePaperclipDesiredSkillNames()` to return only the configured desired set (signature preserved so adapter call sites are untouched). - Walked all eight local adapters (`acpx-local`, `claude-local`, `codex-local`, `cursor-local`, `gemini-local`, `grok-local`, `opencode-local`, `pi-local`) and removed every remaining `requiredReason` / `paperclip_required` reference. - `server/src/services/company-skills.ts`: dropped the `required = sourceKind === "paperclip_bundled"` synthesis when listing runtime skill entries. - `server/src/routes/agents.ts`: removed required-skill merging from the desired-skills calculation in the persist-config path and the unsupported-snapshot path (keeping the current version-aware `desiredSkillEntries` structure). - `ui/src/pages/AgentDetail.tsx`: dropped required-based filters, the required tooltip, and the entire "Required by Paperclip" section from the agent skills tab; storybook fixtures in `ui/storybook/stories/acpx-local.stories.tsx` cleaned up to match. - Tests: deleted the `required: false` case in `paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` and the "keeps required bundled skills installed" case in every `*-local-skill-sync.test.ts`; `acpx-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-skill-sync.test.ts`, `agent-skills-routes.test.ts`, and `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` were updated to drop removed fields and map `origin: "paperclip_required"` → `"company_managed"`. - `server/src/adapters/registry.ts`: two `as unknown as ServerAdapterModule["..."]` casts on `hermesListSkills` / `hermesSyncSkills` (matching the existing `executeHermesLocal` pattern). `hermes-paperclip-adapter@0.2.0` still depends on the published `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` which keeps the retired `paperclip_required` variant; the cast bridges the workspace-vs-published type mismatch at the registry seam and can drop once hermes upgrades. ## Verification Run from the workspace root: ```sh grep -rn "skills/paperclip-dev" . grep -rn "paperclip_required" --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" . grep -rn "requiredReason" --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" . pnpm -w typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run paperclip-skill-utils pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run skill-sync ``` The first three greps return only the explanatory comment in `server/src/adapters/registry.ts` (no live `paperclip_required` / `requiredReason` usage) and zero `skills/paperclip-dev` source hits. Locally: - `pnpm -w typecheck` → all packages this PR touches pass (adapter-utils, shared, server, ui, cli, and the cursor/gemini/opencode/pi adapters). - Affected vitest suites pass: `paperclip-skill-utils`, `server-utils`, all eight `*-local-skill-sync`, `agent-skills-routes`, and the `acpx`/`cursor`/`pi` execute suites. ## Risks - Behavioral shift in the agent skills UI: the "Required by Paperclip" section disappears. No bundled skill is required anymore, so this only affects environments that previously surfaced `paperclip-dev` as a forced-on row; those installs will see the skill move into the regular "company-managed" list (and be uninstalled on next sync unless explicitly listed as desired). - Existing agents may still have the string `"paperclip-dev"` in their persisted `desiredSkills`. That entry is inert (no source for it to install from); a one-time DB cleanup is out of scope. Low risk. - Hermes adapter type bridge: two casts in `registry.ts` paper over a type-only divergence between the workspace `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` and the published version still pinned by `hermes-paperclip-adapter@0.2.0`. Runtime behavior is unaffected because the retired `paperclip_required` value is no longer produced by anything in this tree. The casts can be removed once hermes upgrades its dependency. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`) - Capability: agent tool use via Paperclip's `claude_local` adapter ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
547463d3a2 |
refactor(environments): make execution environments instance-scoped (#8375)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution environment selection has to stay inspectable and predictable across companies, agents, and runs. > - The environment subsystem decides where an agent heartbeat actually runs and how remote sandbox state is realized and restored. > - That subsystem previously mixed company-scoped environment catalogs with issue-level environment stamping, so a reassigned issue could keep executing in the previous assignee's sandbox. > - That behavior breaks the control-plane contract: changing the assignee should change the executing agent/environment path unless there is an explicit current override. > - Fixing it cleanly required more than a narrow patch; the environment model had to move to instance scope with a single inherited default and per-agent override semantics. > - This pull request rewires the schema, server/API surface, runtime resolution, and UI around that model, then adds regression coverage for cross-company inheritance and per-agent isolation. > - The benefit is that environment choice now follows the approved instance/agent configuration path instead of stale issue state, while shared environments only need to be configured once per instance. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No directly matching public GitHub issue or PR was found while searching for this refactor. ### What happened? Reassigning work between agents with different execution environments could keep running in the previous sandbox because environment choice was stamped onto the issue and outranked the current assignee. The same subsystem also forced environment catalogs to be duplicated per company even though the underlying execution environments were instance-wide resources. ### Expected behavior Execution should resolve through the current instance and agent configuration path, with one instance-scoped environment catalog, one instance default, optional per-agent override, and no stale issue-level environment authority surviving reassignment. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure two agents to use different execution environments. 2. Assign an issue to the first agent so the issue records execution state in that environment. 3. Reassign the same issue to the second agent and run another heartbeat. 4. Observe that the pre-fix runtime can still sync or execute in the original sandbox instead of the second agent's environment. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master` before this PR. ### Deployment mode Self-hosted server. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved - Claude Code - Not adapter-specific (core bug in environment authority / resolution) ### Database mode External Postgres. ### Access context Both board reassignment and agent heartbeats were involved. ## What Changed - Moved environments and their default selection contract to instance scope in DB/shared types, including the migration that dedupes legacy per-company environments and seeds the instance local default. - Reworked environment CRUD/auth flows to use instance-scoped APIs and added route/service coverage for instance-level environment management. - Changed runtime resolution to prefer `agent default -> instance default -> built-in local`, removed issue-level environment stamping from the active execution path, and isolated sandbox/plugin leases by `(executionWorkspaceId, agentId)`. - Added environment env-var runtime precedence so environment-provided values act as the baseline for agent execution. - Moved the environment UI into instance settings and updated agent configuration surfaces to reflect inherit/override behavior. - Added regression coverage for instance-default inheritance across companies and for the new runtime resolution behavior. - Fixed a rebase-only duplicate `enableTaskWatchdogs` flag regression in instance settings types/validators/services so the branch typechecks cleanly on current `master`. - Updated stale server tests so CI matches the shipped instance-scoped environment contract. ## Verification - `git diff --check` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime-driver-contract.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-instance-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` ## Risks - The migration changes environment scope and dedupes existing rows, so installs with unusual legacy environment combinations should be reviewed carefully during upgrade. - Remote execution behavior now depends on instance-default inheritance semantics instead of issue-level stamping, so any remaining code paths that still assume issue-scoped environment authority would surface as follow-up bugs. - This PR includes both server/runtime behavior and UI relocation, so reviewers should watch for authorization edge cases around instance settings and environment management. > I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This work fits the existing Cloud / Sandbox agents direction as a bug-fix/refactor to current behavior, not a new parallel product surface. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent in this Paperclip/Codex session; GPT-5-class tool-using model with code execution and shell access. The exact backend model ID is not exposed to the session runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
|
a71c4b6782 |
[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is still productive, stalled, or ready for review. > - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review permissions. > - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable work. > - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration surfaces, and docs. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`. > - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making stalled work easier to route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task: [PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275). ## Problem or motivation Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link approvals, or submit approval comments. ## Proposed solution Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under explicit boundaries. ## Alternatives considered Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable scoped-review issue for stalled task trees. ## Roadmap alignment This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core item. ## What Changed - Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators, CRUD API, and service support. - Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate guidance. - Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks, viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting. - Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and implementation semantics. - Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to `0104_issue_watchdogs`. - Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind constant. - Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes, scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility, settings, and new issue dialog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task configuration. - Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and production agents. - The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local migration number should not get duplicate-object failures. - CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest review-fix push. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool use and local command execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7069053a1f |
[codex] Add ask issue work mode (#8334)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation composer frames the operator's intent. > - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without immediately implying execution or plan drafting. > - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like normal task execution. > - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI. > - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning flows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request follows the repository feature request template. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`. ### Problem or motivation Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather than an answer. ### Proposed solution Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling, and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly instead of executing or drafting a plan. ### Alternatives considered - Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI. - Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question. - Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be reliable. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate planned core work was found. ### Additional context Related public searches performed before opening this PR: - GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` No duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation coverage. - Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can see standard, planning, and ask state. - Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI. - Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and affected UI work-mode flows. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests. Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states: https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8 It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment metadata. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared, server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work modes may need to handle `ask`. > 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 in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context window and exact hosted model snapshot are 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`, `feat/...`) 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] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
6f9801a46b |
feat(ui): NUX rework behind enableConferenceRoomChat experimental flag — capsule onboarding, conference-room chat, unified composer (#8000)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The first-run experience (onboarding wizard) and the chat surfaces
(conference-room/board chat, task threads, composers) are the product's
front door — they decide whether a new operator understands "hire
agents, give them work, review results" in the first five minutes
> - Today those surfaces feel ticket-y and form-like: the wizard is a
static multi-step form that ends in an anticlimactic "Launch" screen,
the task composer and board chat behave differently from each other, and
agent-feed issue quicklooks misbehave (multiple flyouts open at once,
cards jump on hover)
> - We wanted to iterate toward a conversational, team-centric NUX — but
without risking the workflows of everyone already running Paperclip
> - This PR reworks the NUX behind a new default-OFF
`enableConferenceRoomChat` experimental flag: a capsule-motif onboarding
wizard that builds your team as you answer, a conference-room chat
surface, one shared ChatComposer across surfaces, brand-accurate status
chips, and feed-quicklook fixes — with the pre-existing UI
fork-and-frozen as `*Classic` components that flag-OFF users keep
> - The benefit is a complete, testable modern NUX that anyone can opt
into from Settings → Experimental, with zero default behavior change and
a clean path to either graduate or drop the experiment
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing GitHub issue — feature description per
`feature_request.yml`:
- **Problem / motivation:** Paperclip's onboarding wizard and chat
surfaces grew up as separate ticket-centric forms. New users get a
form-filling experience rather than the feeling of standing up a team;
the board chat and task threads use different composers with different
affordances; the agent feed's issue quicklook can stack multiple
popovers and shifts cards on hover.
- **Proposed solution:** A coherent NUX experiment behind one
experimental flag (`enableConferenceRoomChat`, Settings → Experimental,
default OFF): capsule onboarding wizard with an evolving team capsule,
conference-room chat, unified `ChatComposer`, team-centric copy, brand
status chips, quicklook single-flight fix. Flag-OFF users get the exact
pre-experiment UI via frozen `*Classic` forks, verified by an on/off
parity test matrix.
- **Alternatives considered:** (a) incremental unflagged restyling —
rejected: the changes interlock across surfaces and would drip risk into
every release; (b) a separate app shell / route for the new NUX —
rejected: too much divergence, the flag + classic-fork pattern keeps the
diff reviewable and reversible.
- **Roadmap alignment:** `ROADMAP.md` lists **CEO Chat** ("a
lighter-weight way to talk to leadership agents... should still resolve
to real work objects"). This experiment is groundwork in that direction
(conference-room chat resolves to issues/tasks via the same composer
used in task threads) and does not change the core task-and-comments
model.
Related PRs found in the dedup search (same area, none duplicate this
work — they target the classic wizard, which this PR intentionally
leaves intact and mergeable):
- #5385 — Coach-driven onboarding: conversational entry +
agent-companies package import
- #5378 — Onboarding wizard: reusable adapter picker + probe card
- #6636 — ui(onboarding): friendly error surface + retry for the wizard
- #7005 — fix(onboarding): explicitly await first-task wake
- #2616 — fix: restore workspace directory config in onboarding wizard
## What Changed
- **Experimental flag plumbing** — `enableConferenceRoomChat` in shared
types/validators, server instance-settings service + API, Settings →
Experimental card with explicit enable/disable copy
- **Onboarding wizard** — classic wizard forked and frozen
(`OnboardingWizardClassic`); flag-ON variant is a 5-step capsule wizard
with a persistent evolving `AgentCapsule` (gradient/glow motif),
team-centric reframed copy, and a typing-dots intro (hardened with
fake-timer tests)
- **Conference-room chat** — flag-ON board-chat surface with agent
bubble name/icon headers and copy/vote/timestamp action rows
(`AgentBubbleActionRow`)
- **Unified composer** — shared `ChatComposer` adopted across surfaces;
translucent surface + scroll-mask removal; "Agent mode"/"Plan mode"
relabels; no-assignee confirmation `AlertDialog` (new
`ui/alert-dialog.tsx` primitive); `@task` reference picker +
linkification in mentions
- **Agent feed** — single-flight issue-quicklook store (one popover at a
time), flyouts open to the left, removed hover translate-y jitter
- **Status chips** — brand-accurate task status chips behind the flag
(light/dark, 1px borders per paperclip.ing/brand)
- **Tests** — flag on/off parity matrix across IssueDetail,
NewIssueDialog, Sidebar, wizard, gate components; component tests for
all new pieces
- **Merge with `master`** — one conflict in
`ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`, resolved by keeping master's
new `AssigneeChip`/`HandoffWakeRow`/`RunStatusBadge` components inside
the flag-gated metadata-row chrome (details in commit `21a5642a`);
post-merge fixes: vitest 4 mock typing in `MarkdownEditor.test.tsx`,
flag hook made safe for provider-less mounts (master's new isolated
component tests)
- **Branch hygiene** — internal design wireframes/mockups stripped
before the PR (they live in the Paperclip issue threads)
- No user-facing documentation changes required: the flag is
intentionally experimental and self-described in the Settings card; no
existing docs reference the affected surfaces
## Verification
- `pnpm run typecheck` — green across the workspace (ui, server, shared,
plugins)
- Full UI suite (`vitest run` in `ui/`, clean worktree at this HEAD):
**1593/1595 passing, 223/224 files** — the 2 remaining failures are in
`src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx` and **fail identically
on pristine `origin/master`** (pre-existing upstream, unrelated to this
branch)
- Full server suite (`vitest run` in `server/`, same clean worktree):
results in PR checks; flag plumbing covered by instance-settings tests
- Targeted post-merge resolution check: `IssueChatThread`,
`IssueChatThreadSystemNotice`, `IssueDetail`, `Sidebar`,
`ConferenceRoomChatGate`, `OnboardingWizardVariant`, `NewIssueDialog`,
`InstanceExperimentalSettings`, `MarkdownEditor` — 172/172 passing
- Manual walkthrough: flag OFF (default) → onboarding wizard, task
thread, board chat, composer all render the classic UI; flag ON via
Settings → Experimental → capsule wizard, conference-room chat, unified
composer, status chips active
- Screenshots: see below
**Flag on/off screenshots** (committed on this branch under
`screenshots/PR-8000-*`):
| Surface | Flag OFF (classic, default) | Flag ON (experimental) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Settings → Experimental | 
| 
|
| Task thread | 
| 
|
| Home / nav | 
| 
|
| Conference Room (flag-ON only surface) | — | 
|
Capsule onboarding wizard walkthrough screenshots (flag ON) are attached
to the Paperclip design/implementation threads; the wizard requires a
fresh instance so it is captured via the e2e harness
(`tests/e2e/nux-phase4-screenshots.spec.ts`).
## Risks
- **Large surface, but gated:** all new behavior sits behind
`enableConferenceRoomChat`, default OFF; flag-OFF rendering is locked by
frozen `*Classic` forks plus an on/off parity test suite
- **Classic forks are frozen at the fork point (`e3aada1d`):** master
features added to the live thread component after that point (assignee
handoff chips, run status badge, composer mention coach) render in the
flag-ON path; the flag-OFF task thread keeps the fork-point behavior
until the experiment graduates (forks deleted) or is dropped (forks
restored as canonical). Called out for reviewer attention.
- **Merge-conflict resolution in `IssueChatThread.tsx`** (commit
`21a5642a`) deserves reviewer eyes: master's new handoff/run-status
components were kept; the base toast-style no-assignee flow remains
replaced by the AlertDialog flow introduced on this branch
- Schema/server changes are additive (one optional boolean instance
setting); no migrations of existing data
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) via Claude Code running in the Paperclip agent
harness (agent: ClaudeCoder)
- Branch implemented across multiple agent sessions on Claude Opus-class
models with extended thinking + tool use (file edits, shell, Playwright
screenshots); merge/PR session model ID as reported by the harness:
`claude-fable-5` (Claude Code CLI)
- All code was agent-authored and board-reviewed through Paperclip issue
threads (plans, wireframes, confirmations) before merging
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (none
required — experimental flag, self-documenting Settings card; noted
above)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (run 3 on `8af3041a`: all 16
gates SUCCESS, incl. e2e and all 4 serialized-suite shards)
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(re-review verdict: Confidence 5/5, “Safe to merge”; all 4 round-1
findings fixed + confirmed resolved; both summary notes addressed in
`8af3041a`)
- [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>
|
||
|
|
1413729a06 |
Build the Skills Store (#7990)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents increasingly depend on reusable skills, so the control plane needs a first-class way to browse, inspect, install, version, and attach those skills. > - The old skills surface was mostly operational plumbing; it did not give operators a store-like discovery flow, canonical detail URLs, rich source/version context, or creation paths. > - The backend also needed stronger contracts around company skill metadata, versions, install counts, runtime materialization, and adapter skill preferences. > - This pull request builds the Skills Store foundation across DB, shared contracts, server routes/services, UI, and Storybook. > - The benefit is a more inspectable, operator-friendly skill workflow that still preserves company-scoped control-plane boundaries and agent runtime behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No GitHub issue exists for this Paperclip work item. Paperclip task refs: PAP-10846 and PAP-10921. Feature request: Paperclip operators need a single Skills Store experience where company skills can be discovered, inspected, created, versioned, installed, and attached to agents without relying on scattered operational screens or implicit runtime state. Related PR search: - Searched GitHub for `Skills Store`, `company skills`, and `skill detail`. - Found several open skills-related PRs such as #7809 and #4409, but no duplicate PR for this end-to-end Skills Store branch. ## What Changed - Added the Skills Store backend foundation: company skill schema fields, migrations, shared types/validators, and expanded server skill routes/services. - Added skill discovery, category navigation, canonical skill detail routes, tabs, source attribution, version snapshots/diffs, install count backfill, and creation flows. - Updated agent skill preference handling so version selections survive runtime mention injection and runtime skill materialization honors pinned versions. - Preserved unversioned skill assignments as live/current selections instead of silently pinning them to the current version at assignment time. - Added focused regression coverage for company skill routes/services, route helpers, UI behavior, skill version diffs, and runtime skill version pins. - Added Storybook coverage for Skills Store discovery/detail states and updated the main layout navigation. - Addressed Greptile findings around version creation races, soft-deleted comments, fork metadata scoping, GitHub skill directory fallback, runtime snapshot materialization, shared runtime skill-selection helpers, and version-assignment semantics. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx -t "edits existing custom assignee model options from the properties pane"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - GitHub checks are green on `0823957a2`: Build, Canary Dry Run, General tests, Typecheck + Release Registry, serialized server suites, e2e, policy/review, Socket, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`. - Greptile Review succeeded on `0823957a2` with `40 files reviewed, 0 comments added`; GitHub unresolved review threads: 0. Not run in this heartbeat: - Browser screenshot capture for the UI changes. This PR intentionally omits screenshots per the Paperclip task direction not to add design screenshots/images. ## Risks - Broad feature branch touching DB, shared contracts, server, and UI; reviewers should still scan merge conflicts carefully if `master` moves again before landing. - Skill version/runtime behavior is sensitive: pinned skill versions must stay pinned while default selections should continue following the current version. - UI polish should get normal reviewer/browser attention before merge because this PR includes a large Skills Store surface and screenshots were intentionally omitted. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and local command 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (intentionally omitted per PAP-10921 direction) - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Jannes StubbemannandClaude Opus 4.8
|
4ad94d0bde |
feat(server): kubernetes execution integration for sandbox-provider plugins (stage 2/3) (#7938)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The execution subsystem runs those agents in environments (local, ssh, sandbox), and sandbox-provider plugins let an environment materialize per-run sandboxes > - Stage 1 (#5790) contributed a first-party Kubernetes sandbox-provider plugin, but the server core has no way to adopt it operationally: no per-run adapter selection, no way to force an instance onto sandboxed execution, no declarative adapter/model configuration, and the plugin must be installed by hand > - Without this, a multi-tenant or security-conscious deployment cannot guarantee that agent runs never execute on the host, and a single environment cannot serve agents with different harnesses > - This pull request adds the server + SDK integration: per-run adapterType on the lease protocol, an env-gated forced-Kubernetes execution policy with provisioning and a per-run allowlist guard, a declarative adapter registry and model list, in-cluster env passthrough for sandbox plugin workers, fail-safe auto-install of the bundled plugin, and the matching UI affordance > - The benefit is that sandbox-provider plugins become fully usable for Kubernetes execution: operators configure everything via environment variables and GitOps, while self-hosters who set none of the variables see exactly the behavior they have today ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #5790 (stage 1 of 3: the Kubernetes sandbox-provider plugin package). No existing issue. Feature description: the server core lacks the integration seams to operate a sandbox-provider plugin as the mandatory execution path of an instance. This PR is stage 2 of 3 of the staged Kubernetes contribution; stage 3 will contribute the agent runtime images and their build pipeline. ## What Changed One line per piece: - `packages/plugins/sdk/protocol.ts`: optional `adapterType` on `PluginEnvironmentAcquireLeaseParams` so a provider can select the runtime image per run; existing providers simply ignore it - `server/services/environment-runtime.ts` + `environment-run-orchestrator.ts`: thread the agent's adapter type into both lease-acquiring drivers, including the heartbeat path (the two call sites have historically drifted, hence the pinned test) - `server/services/environments.ts`: `ensureKubernetesEnvironment` / `findKubernetesEnvironment`, an idempotent managed Kubernetes environment per company, identified by a metadata marker and refreshed (not recreated) on config change; `timeoutMs` rides on the config for slow cold-start leases - `server/services/execution-allowlist.ts`: pure (driver, provider, policy) -> allow/deny guard; `executionMode=kubernetes` only allows the kubernetes sandbox provider - `server/services/execution-policy-bootstrap.ts` + startup hook in `server/index.ts`: parse `PAPERCLIP_EXECUTION_MODE` / `PAPERCLIP_K8S_*`, persist `executionMode` into instance general settings, and provision the managed environment for every company; fails loud on misconfiguration - `server/services/heartbeat.ts`: when the policy forces Kubernetes, pin run selection to the managed environment (also overriding any persisted workspace environment id), refuse to fall back to local, and re-check the actually acquired environment against the allowlist as defense in depth - `server/services/adapter-registry-bootstrap.ts` + shared `AdapterRegistryEntry` type/validator: declarative `PAPERCLIP_ADAPTERS` registry (inline JSON or file) that reconciles adapter availability at startup and rides on the Kubernetes environment config - `server/services/adapter-models-env.ts` + `adapters/registry.ts`: `PAPERCLIP_ADAPTER_MODELS` lets an operator declare picker model lists the server cannot CLI-discover - `server/services/plugin-loader.ts`: pass `KUBERNETES_SERVICE_HOST/PORT(_HTTPS)` through to plugin workers that register environment drivers, so in-cluster API clients can be constructed; all other host env stays stripped - `server/app.ts`: fail-safe auto-install of the bundled kubernetes plugin at boot; no-ops when the bundle is absent and never blocks startup on error - `packages/shared` types/validators: `InstanceExecutionMode` on general settings (optional, strict schema) - `ui/lib/forced-kubernetes-environment.ts` + `AgentConfigForm`: when the policy is active, show a read-only Kubernetes environment instead of the environment picker and default new agents onto the managed environment - Tests for every new module plus the adapterType pin in `heartbeat-plugin-environment` and the managed-environment lifecycle in `environment-service` Everything is gated: with `PAPERCLIP_EXECUTION_MODE`, `PAPERCLIP_ADAPTERS`, and `PAPERCLIP_ADAPTER_MODELS` unset (and no bundled plugin present), every code path reduces to current behavior. The per-run `adapterType` is an optional SDK parameter that existing providers ignore. ## Verification - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit`: clean (0 errors); `ui` typecheck also clean - Targeted suites all green (11 files, 90 tests): `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-run-orchestrator.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts server/src/services/execution-policy-bootstrap.test.ts server/src/services/execution-allowlist.test.ts server/src/services/adapter-registry-bootstrap.test.ts server/src/services/adapter-registry-bootstrap.reconcile.test.ts server/src/services/adapter-models-env.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/adapter-registry.test.ts` - `npx vitest run ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.test.ts`: green (6 tests) - Full `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__`: 2323 passed, 1 skipped; the only failures (heartbeat-process-recovery pid-retry, workspace-runtime symbolic-ref/git tests) reproduce identically on pristine `master` in the same environment, so they are machine-environment issues unrelated to this change; `server-startup-feedback-export` needed its `services/index.js` mock extended with the new export and is green - This integration has been running in production on a hosted multi-tenant deployment, where it executes agent runs across five different harnesses through the stage 1 plugin ## Risks - Low for existing deployments: every behavior is env-gated and the defaults preserve current semantics; the auto-install block is wrapped fail-safe and skips silently when the plugin bundle is absent - `executionMode` is a new optional field on a strict zod schema; absent input normalizes exactly as before - The forced policy intentionally fails runs loudly (rather than falling back to local) when no managed Kubernetes environment exists; this only affects instances that explicitly set `PAPERCLIP_EXECUTION_MODE=kubernetes` ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (claude-opus-4-8, 1M context), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code. ## UI screenshots The UI change is a new read-only "Execution" section in `AgentConfigForm`, shown only when the instance execution policy forces Kubernetes (`executionMode=kubernetes`); there is no "before" state for it (the section did not exist, and instances without the forced policy render the existing picker unchanged). Captured from the new Storybook stories added in this PR (`Product/Agent Management`): Managed Kubernetes environment present (read-only display, no local/SSH picker):  No managed environment available yet (warning notice, no silent local fallback):  ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
468edd8b22 |
Add workspace file viewer and artifact links (#7681)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work. > - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI. > - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing arbitrary host paths. > - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review. > - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact file chips. > - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`. Problem / motivation: - Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal. - The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace browsing/searching from an issue page. - The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging. Related PR: - Prior closed attempt: #4442 - Single active PR for this branch: #7681 ## What Changed - Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products. - Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific limits, and audit logging. - Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser, command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact file chips. - Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and workspace file opening. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and updated the existing single PR branch. - Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset` consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test. ## Verification Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx` - 1 file passed, 25 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current `public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single active PR for the branch. - No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work. Current remote verification on head `a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`: - Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no unresolved Greptile review threads. - PR workflow `verify` - success. - Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards, serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk - success. - `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block. - `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test failure was exposed in the job logs. ## Risks - This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown autolink false positives. - Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth; very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms. - Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access support is implemented. - The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer review, but the check output says it is not a merge block. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [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 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
76c88e5855 |
[codex] Move instance settings under company settings (#7680)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators manage both company-scoped configuration and instance-level runtime/admin settings from the board UI > - Instance settings previously lived as their own top-level sidebar area, separate from the company settings context operators already use > - That split made settings navigation feel heavier and made instance configuration less discoverable from the settings tab > - This pull request moves instance settings under company settings while preserving the existing instance settings routes and plugin/admin surfaces > - The benefit is a smaller primary sidebar and a more coherent settings hierarchy for operators ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #338 - Internal: PAP-10491, PAP-10538 ## What Changed - Moved instance settings navigation under the company settings area. - Added route helpers and sidebar entries for nested instance settings paths. - Updated plugin/admin settings routes to use the company settings instance scope. - Preserved legacy instance-settings bookmarks through compatibility redirects that keep the active company prefix. - Updated focused UI and plugin tests for the new navigation shape. - Stabilized the process-loss retry test that was failing the serialized server shard in CI. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and pushed the current head. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/access/CompanySettingsNav.test.tsx ui/src/lib/instance-settings.test.ts ui/src/components/InstanceSidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/instance-settings.test.ts ui/src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/access/CompanySettingsNav.test.tsx ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues exactly one retry when the recorded local pid is dead"` - `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 0 --shard-count 4` - GitHub PR checks are green on head `fe7b0955169dcae55cbe10889c1876a70ab0b80c`, including `verify`, `General tests (server)`, all serialized server shards, build, e2e, policy, security checks, and Greptile. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium UI/navigation risk: instance settings links are intentionally moving under company settings, so stale external bookmarks to legacy paths rely on the compatibility routing in this branch. - Low test-only risk from the CI stabilization commit: it makes the recovery assertion select the actual retry run by `retryOfRunId` instead of whichever non-original run appears first. - No database migrations. - No dependency lockfile or workflow changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell/tool execution in a local repository worktree. Exact context window was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d8e1004551 |
PAP-10440: group artifacts by task stacks (#7654)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The artifacts surface is where board users inspect files, media, and documents produced by agents. > - Grouped artifact stacks make that surface easier to scan by task, but the first pass still made grouping feel secondary to media filters. > - The follow-up request was to make grouping the default and give the grouping control the same icon-only outline treatment used on the issues page. > - This pull request keeps the existing artifact grouping API/UI, then polishes the artifacts toolbar state and Storybook review coverage. > - The benefit is that `/artifacts` now opens in the task-stack view by default while preserving explicit flat-mode filtering via `groupBy=none`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this internal Paperclip task. ### Subsystem affected ui/ — React + Vite board UI. ### Problem or motivation The `/artifacts` grouping affordance was visually placed after the media filters, rendered as a text button, and defaulted to a flat artifact list. Internal follow-up `PAP-10465` requested the grouping icon move left of the filters, become an icon-only outlined button like `/issues`, and make Task grouping the default. ### Proposed solution Default `/artifacts` to grouped Task stacks, keep explicit flat mode available as `groupBy=none`, move the grouping control before the media chips, and restyle it as the shared icon-only outline button pattern. ### Alternatives considered Leaving flat mode as the implicit default was rejected because it does not satisfy the follow-up. Keeping a text label on the grouping trigger was rejected because `/issues` already established the icon-only outline pattern for this class of toolbar control. ### Roadmap alignment This aligns with the `Artifacts & Work Products` roadmap item by making generated outputs easier to inspect and operate from the board UI. ## What Changed - Defaulted the `/artifacts` page to `groupBy=task` when no grouping URL param is present, while keeping explicit flat mode available with `groupBy=none`. - Moved the group control before the media filter chips and changed it to an icon-only outlined button using the shared `Button` pattern. - Updated artifact page tests to cover default Task grouping, explicit flat mode, trigger ordering, and icon-only outline metadata. - Updated the artifact Storybook story so its toolbar mock matches the production ordering and grouped Task is documented as the default mode. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Artifacts.test.tsx ui/src/components/artifacts/ArtifactGroupCard.test.tsx` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. - QA visual validation from internal follow-up PAP-10466 passed desktop/mobile scenarios. Screenshot evidence attached there: - Desktop default: http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/bc81305d-f5de-485c-abeb-9e7c3d9d8539/content - Desktop toolbar close-up: http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/3375a62b-2110-48f3-bafa-ea98c00f99f7/content - Mobile default: http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/bfc5642e-9248-431e-9bac-36284dec1c89/content - Mobile toolbar close-up: http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/ca79401a-5ba8-464d-bc6e-aeffd47fe695/content - GitHub PR checks on head `431964c8b` — passed, including Greptile 5/5. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The main behavior shift is intentional: `/artifacts` now queries grouped Task stacks by default. Existing flat mode remains available through the grouping menu and explicit `groupBy=none` URLs. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4 class coding model in this Paperclip heartbeat environment, with shell, git, test, and GitHub CLI tool use. Context window managed by the Codex runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
eaef47f4c7 |
Information Architecture + project/agent visual refresh (experimental) (#7543)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI is the control surface for issues, projects, agents, goals, workspaces, and operator settings. > - The existing navigation and list surfaces make several high-frequency workflows feel harder to scan than they should, especially around projects and agents. > - The product direction is to improve those surfaces without breaking the existing route model or forcing a new IA on every operator at once. > - This pull request now keeps the dependent IA, project identity, and agent-list visual refresh work together while the Issue-to-Task copy migration is split into #7651. > - The benefit is a clearer left nav, better project identity, denser agent/project list rows, and brand-aligned status treatment while preserving the classic default experience behind a flag. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7645 Refs #7651 Internal planning/work references: PAP-53, PAP-56, PAP-58, PAP-59, PAP-60, PAP-61, PAP-68, PAP-69, PAP-70, PAP-71, PAP-72, PAP-75, PAP-76, PAP-80, PAP-85, PAP-86, PAP-87, PAP-88, PAP-89. ## What Changed - Adds `enableStreamlinedLeftNavigation`, defaulting off, and gates sidebar presentation so classic navigation remains the default. - Adds project icon persistence, validation, portability, picker UI, and `ProjectTile` rendering while defaulting new projects to neutral gray. - Adds projects-list task-count and budget summary data with focused server/shared/UI coverage. - Refreshes agent list rows, row actions, active/recent sidebar behavior, and status capsule/chip styling for the approved brand state system. - Removes the placeholder Conference room and Artifacts nav/routes from the finalized experimental nav direction. - Removes `pnpm-lock.yaml` and the Issue-to-Task copy migration from this PR diff; the copy migration now lives in #7651. ## Verification - Existing branch verification from the authored commits: UI typecheck, targeted unit tests, and light/dark visual checks for `/agents`, agent detail, and design-guide status states. - Maintainer cleanup verification on `75e34e5`: `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed, the `design/` diff is empty, and the PR diff is 61 files, below Greptile's 100-file review limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 8 tests. - CI and Greptile should rerun on the latest push. ## Risks - Broad UI surface area: the experimental flag keeps the classic nav default, but changed shared components such as `EntityRow`, `ProjectTile`, and agent status badges could affect multiple pages. - Database migration: `projects.icon` is additive and nullable, but migration ordering and portability import/export must stay aligned. - The Issue-to-Task copy migration is now separated into #7651, so reviewers should evaluate this PR as IA/project/agent presentation work only. - Visual regressions are possible across smaller widths because the PR intentionally changes dense list-row layouts. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 assisted the original feature commits. Paperclip-Paperclip agents assisted some planning/design commits. Codex / GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access performed this PR-readiness cleanup and split. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d5322c821 |
[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4693d770aa |
Add company artifacts page (#7621)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators need a way to inspect files and work products created by agents across a company without opening each issue one by one. > - The existing issue detail surfaces already show attachments and outputs, but there was no company-level artifacts index or search-result affordance for artifact-like records. > - The backend needed a company-scoped artifacts projection API that preserves issue/run attribution and safe links back to source records. > - The UI needed a first-class Artifacts page, sidebar entry, reusable artifact cards, and deep-link handling that keeps company prefixes intact. > - This pull request adds the company artifacts API and page, then wires artifacts into search and issue output surfaces. > - The benefit is a single place to browse, filter, and open generated work products and attachments while preserving company boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #7622. Feature request fields: - Problem/motivation: company operators need a consolidated artifacts surface for attachments and work products produced by agents. - Proposed solution: add a company-scoped artifacts projection endpoint, a board Artifacts route, reusable cards, sidebar navigation, and artifact search integration. - Alternatives considered: keep artifact discovery only on individual issue pages; that forces operators to know the source issue before finding generated outputs. - Roadmap alignment: checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a focused board UI/API improvement and does not duplicate a listed roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added shared artifact types and validators. - Added a company-scoped artifact projection service/API with tests for attachment/work-product attribution. - Added Artifacts board UI route, API client, sidebar link, cards, filters, and storybook coverage. - Added artifact result handling to company search and issue output/deep-link flows. - Rebased the branch onto the latest `public-gh/master` state and resolved the route-test conflict by preserving both upstream team-catalog coverage and artifact route coverage. - Fixed a local Sidebar test helper so it no longer depends on a runtime-undefined `React.act` export in this dependency install. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx src/api/artifacts.test.ts src/lib/company-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Artifacts.test.tsx src/pages/Search.test.tsx src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-artifacts-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. - Duplicate search: no open PRs or issues found for `artifact page ArtifactCard` in `paperclipai/paperclip`. Screenshots are intentionally omitted per the internal task instruction not to add design screenshots or images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. I also attempted browser capture in this runner, but `agent-browser` failed to launch Chrome and Playwright Chromium is missing `libatk-1.0.so.0`. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: this adds a new API projection and UI surface, so attribution/link regressions could affect artifact navigation. - Company scoping is covered in the new service/API tests. - No database migrations are included. - No lockfile or workflow changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with tool use and local command execution. Exact hosted model identifier 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (intentionally omitted per task instruction; browser capture unavailable in this runner) - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
dbebf30c89 |
Add low-trust review containment (#7530)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
fff3832a01 |
[codex] Add teams catalog extraction (#7550)
Fixes #7551 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch. > - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company. > - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI workflows, and the board UI. > - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent creation, and preserved catalog provenance. > - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`. > - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI, package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync. ## What Changed - Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests, and migration notes. - Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams. - Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection. - Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior, including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden agent-run installs. - Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures, and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary navigation. - Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`. - Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`, generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts. ## Risks - Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code. - Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks strict. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy; CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh. - The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure. > 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`. > > ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed on the Paperclip task branch for review. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session; exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and local test/typecheck tooling. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
3657854e5e |
Merge pull request #7554 from paperclipai/codex/pap-10343-comment-redaction
[codex] Redact deleted issue comments |
||
|
Dotta
|
4afe5ab7cb | Add other answers to issue questions | ||
|
Dotta
|
7f70759e61 | Redact deleted issue comments | ||
|
Dotta
|
bee2b25f5d | Add referenced last30days catalog entry | ||
|
Aron PrinsandDevin Foley
|
70b1a9109d |
Improve CLI API parity coverage (#6626)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, with the CLI acting as a scriptable operator and agent interface to that control plane. > - The REST API surface has grown across companies, agents, issues, routines, plugins, auth, workspaces, secrets, and operational inspection commands. > - The CLI had drifted from that API surface: some commands were missing, some command shapes differed from docs/reference material, and several edge cases only failed during end-to-end local-source testing. > - The local development runbook requires these tests to be disposable and isolated from a real `~/.paperclip`, `~/.codex`, or `~/.claude` installation. > - This pull request adds broad CLI/API parity coverage, fixes the actionable bugs found during that pass, and records the reproducible test log under `doc/logs`. > - The benefit is a more complete, scriptable CLI surface with regression coverage for the command families exercised by the parity run. ## What Changed - Added or expanded CLI command coverage for access/auth, companies, agents, projects, goals, issues and subresources, routines, plugins, workspaces, activity/run/cost/dashboard inspection, assets, skills, secrets, tokens, prompt/wake flows, and local setup helpers. - Fixed CLI/API parity bugs found during the run, including context profile patching, issue interaction optional payloads, malformed tree-hold errors, environment duplicate handling, configure invalid-section exit codes, worktree pnpm invocation, token agent ID resolution, plugin tool worker lookup, and routine webhook secret cleanup. - Added missing CLI wrappers and route coverage for health/access, invite resolution URL forwarding, join status normalization, secret lifecycle commands, LLM docs routes, available-skill isolation, positive board-claim coverage, and interactive `connect` prompt-flow tests. - Added a schema-backed `/api/openapi.json` route sufficient for CLI parity and `paperclipai openapi --json` smoke coverage. - Added `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` with the detailed living test/bug log and renamed the log directory from `doc/bugs` to `doc/logs`. - Added `doc/plans/2026-05-23-cli-api-parity.md` and the OpenAPI parity reference used during the pass. OpenAPI note: this PR intentionally does not try to subsume `feature/openapi-spec`. The OpenAPI implementation here is schema-backed and better than the earlier route-inventory stub, but `feature/openapi-spec` is the fuller/better OpenAPI branch because it includes exact mounted-route coverage tests and additional current route coverage. That branch should stay as its own PR and can supersede this OpenAPI route implementation. ## Verification Targeted automated checks run: - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/board-claim.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/connect.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/agent-lifecycle.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --dir cli typecheck` - `pnpm --dir server typecheck` Manual/local E2E verification: - Ran the full disposable local-source CLI/API parity pass with isolated `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT`, `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_STORE`, `CODEX_HOME`, and `CLAUDE_HOME` under `tmp/cli-api-parity`. - Verified `DATABASE_URL` and `DATABASE_MIGRATION_URL` stayed unset for the scratch server. - Verified live health and schema-backed OpenAPI responses on non-default port `3197`. - Revoked created board/agent tokens and cleaned up temporary plugins, secrets, non-default environments, and project workspaces. - See `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` for the full command-by-command reproduction log. Not run: - Full `pnpm test`, `pnpm test:run`, or `pnpm build` were not run after the entire branch because the branch is broad and the parity pass used focused test/typecheck verification plus live isolated CLI reruns. ## Risks - This is a broad PR and touches many CLI command modules, so review surface is high. The changes are grouped around one theme, but a split may be easier if maintainers prefer narrower PRs. - The OpenAPI route in this PR is not the final/best OpenAPI implementation. `feature/openapi-spec` has stronger exact-route coverage and should remain the source for the dedicated OpenAPI PR. - The living log is intentionally detailed and large. It is useful for reproducibility but adds documentation weight. - No UI changes are intended; screenshots are not applicable. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Codex desktop. Exact served model/context-window identifier was not exposed in the local app. Work used shell/Git/GitHub CLI tooling, local source inspection, targeted test execution, and live isolated Paperclip CLI/API smoke testing. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
bbf77fcb69 | Harden issue artifact metadata | ||
|
Dotta
|
75f88c588c | Support video issue attachments | ||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d9f91576a0 |
Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core control-plane loop. > - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse isolated workspaces. > - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition. > - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first: accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable claim state, and retry-safe child creation. > - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to reconstruct child creation from raw activity. > - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive, hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and easier to inspect. ## What Changed - Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to `doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint, durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior. - Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend, including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue routes for creating and listing decomposition state. - Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee. - Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial child recreation under the same fingerprint. - Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the UI. - Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "accepted plan decomposition" server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links. - Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope. ## Risks - This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update; reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match the intended decomposition table. - The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle retries if the claim state machine is wrong. - The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section automatically. - `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize` accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature itself. > Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent; exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context), with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities. <img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05 48 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28" /> ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9eac727cf1 |
[codex] Add skills CLI and catalog management (#6782)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped control-plane workflows. > - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed, reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup. > - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills, optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills have clear provenance. > - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and managing company skills. > - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog, company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI. > - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills. - Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled and optional skill content plus validation/build tests. - Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI, server, and UI contracts. - Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance. - Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains explicit across local adapters. - Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed company skills. - Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills Paperclip skill reference. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included in the final PR diff. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`. - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`. - Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump contains a duplicate-column foreign key (`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the focused run above. - Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and no migration-file changes relative to `master`. ## Risks - Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI. - Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention because they affect reusable company setup and portability. - No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff. - No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be handled by the repository lockfile workflow. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the `codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata 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 run targeted tests locally and documented the local workspace-runtime seed failure above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and reviewer inspection - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
