* codex/work-folders-storybook-refresh:
Include cached directories in selection and recursive trash operations
# Conflicts:
# ui/src/components/WorkFolderBrowser.selection.test.tsx
* codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh:
Preserve upstream local sandbox defaults in environment regression test
Align provider selector tests with current configuration controls
* codex/work-folders-runtime-hardening-refresh:
Preserve upstream local sandbox defaults in environment regression test
Align provider selector tests with current configuration controls
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
* codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh:
Align staging runtime packaging and lifecycle with current master
Preserve the retained identity read limit during runtime upgrade
Preserve active ACPX child snapshots through reusable lease close. Align the canonical provider lock and CLI pins with the current qualified profiles, retain local Git fallback, and preserve narrowed heartbeat values across diagnostics.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Combine task-scoped workspace adoption with chat isolation, bounded shutdown draining, and provider identity handling. Preserve per-run capability rotation evidence and the new master warm-session transition coverage.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Keep the experimental cached-file entry in task properties and preserve current gallery, task continuation, and development-setting behavior.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Preserve verified Pi and Codex ACP profiles alongside current Claude installation handling, provider recovery, and native attachment staging. Keep preview lock integrity checks on native-architecture image builds.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Keep current task continuation, chat UI, provider security, and multi-architecture build behavior. Regenerate the work-folder schema after the published migration sequence and make it replay-safe for preview databases. Verify preserved file/trash/checkpoint references and company constraints on PostgreSQL.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents
for work.
> - The task detail page gives operators a task tree in a mobile side
panel.
> - The mobile sheet did not set an explicit full width.
> - A maximum width rule could make the task tree narrower than the
phone viewport.
> - This pull request makes the mobile task tree sheet use the full
viewport width.
> - The benefit is a consistent and readable task tree on phones.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The task tree sheet could use less than the full viewport width on a
mobile task page.
**Expected behavior**
The task tree sheet must use the full available phone width.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task on a phone viewport.
2. Open the task side panel.
3. Select the Tasks tab.
4. Compare the sheet width with the viewport width.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`7b829efdf`
**Deployment mode**
Built from source.
## What Changed
- Set the mobile task side panel to `w-full` and `max-w-none`.
- Add regression assertions for both width classes.
## Verification
- `vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx --config vitest.config.ts`
passes 103 tests.
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passes all four token gates.
- `git diff --check` passes.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only affects the mobile task side panel width.
- The desktop panel and other sheet variants do not change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, agentic coding with reasoning and tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud deploys images built from master commits.
> - Cloud image builds share GitHub-hosted capacity with other
workflows.
> - The organization already operates AWS runners through RunsOn Fleet.
> - This pull request allows approved master builds to use a dedicated
cloud Fleet.
> - The benefit is separate build capacity with a quick operator
rollback.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13189, #13192.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Placement of the Docker cloud build after a master merge.
**Current behavior**
Every Docker cloud build uses a GitHub-hosted runner. Busy periods delay
the job.
**Proposed behavior**
An operator variable enables the approved cloud Fleet for canonical
master pushes and manual master builds. Other events, refs, and
repositories use GitHub-hosted runners.
## What Changed
- Add a guarded AWS runner selector to the Docker cloud job.
- Keep the existing image cache, verification, and publication steps.
- Test the selector against master, branch, tag, PR, fork, and disabled
contexts.
- Document provisioning requirements, placement checks, and rollback.
## Verification
- 29 focused Node tests pass for routing, readiness, and disk handling.
- The full workflow-script Node suite passes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes locally.
- The pinned PR routing regression suite passes. The first live PR run
assigned 21 jobs to the approved AWS PR group. AWS then reclaimed 16
Spot instances. The failed run is being repeated on GitHub-hosted
runners while the Fleet moves to On-Demand.
- Actionlint passes with existing shellcheck findings excluded (SC2012,
SC2016, SC2129).
- `git diff --check` passes.
- Greptile reports 5/5 on commit
`764d505a41dd2023751c3f361906fa9ea35bf0c6`, with no review threads.
- All 30 current-head CI checks pass, including typecheck, build, all
server/workspace test shards, Runner verification, and browser tests.
Two Storybook checks are intentionally skipped for this change. Run:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34630550799
- The broader local test/build sequence is still running. This Mac has
reported failures in unchanged application suites; their complete Linux
CI shards pass. Local targeted workflow tests and typecheck pass.
- Both On-Demand Fleets are deployed and healthy. Live master
cloud-build verification follows the merge.
## Risks
- Missing Fleet capacity or runner-group authorization can leave an AWS
job queued. Disable `AWS_CLOUD_BUILDS_ENABLED` and rerun the workflow to
use GitHub-hosted capacity.
- The runner group must restrict access to this repository and the
master version of `docker-cloud.yml`.
- Docker needs more disk space than the PR Fleet. Provision 120 GiB
disks and retain the free-space check.
- This changes image build placement only. Source verification and
migrator publication remain separate prerequisites.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code
execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size
are not exposed by this environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - The task thread shows user, agent, and control-plane messages.
> - Workspace-ready comments keep agent attribution for audit and
authorization.
> - These comments also have an explicit system-notice presentation.
> - The client used attribution before the presentation contract.
> - As a result, workspace-ready comments appeared as agent bubbles.
> - This pull request gives the system-notice presentation priority.
> - The benefit is a compact workspace notice with expandable details.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The task thread showed a workspace-ready control-plane comment as a
normal agent message. The comment kept agent attribution for audit and
authorization, so the client did not use its system-notice presentation.
**Expected behavior**
The task thread must show a comment with the `system_notice`
presentation as a compact system notice. The user must be able to expand
the notice to inspect its details.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task with a workspace that becomes ready.
2. Wait for the control plane to add the workspace-ready comment.
3. Observe that the task thread shows the comment as an agent bubble
instead of a system notice.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `8eaa5caa0`.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev (`pnpm dev`).
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core UI bug.
## What Changed
- Give the `system_notice` presentation priority when the task-chat
adapter selects the message kind.
- Pass the notice presentation data to the task-chat model.
- Improve the compact and expanded workspace notice details.
- Add component tests, adapter tests, and Storybook cases for workspace
notices.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts
ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatSystemNotice.test.tsx` passes 15
tests.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- `pnpm test:run` passes 5,670 tests and reports four pre-existing
workspace-runtime failures. The same four failures reproduce when the
two unrelated server test files run alone. They do not use the changed
task-chat files.
## Risks
- Risk is low. Normal agent messages still use the agent presentation.
- A comment with an explicit system-notice presentation now uses the
compact notice renderer.
- Regression tests cover both paths.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) through Codex. The agent used reasoning,
repository tools, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the
context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A task can cause an agent to create more tasks.
> - Those tasks can belong to other projects or have another parent.
> - The subtask view does not show all work created from the current
task.
> - This pull request adds a Tasks tab with separate subtask and
creation groups.
> - Operators can follow created work without changing its parent or
project.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Operators need to see all work that an agent creates while running for a
task. Parentage alone does not describe this relationship. Legacy and
native runs must follow the same rules.
**Proposed solution**
Show all subtasks in one section. Separately group tasks created from
the source task by their current project, with a No project group when
needed. A created subtask appears in both sections. Use saved run
context and recorded creation activity to find the source task.
**Alternatives considered**
Making all created tasks children would change their hierarchy. Removing
overlap between sections would hide the creation relationship. This
change keeps the two memberships separate.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing Activity log & action attribution capability.
It does not add a new roadmap area. Related PR: #9727 adds a stored
source-task field and inbound attribution UI. This PR adds the outgoing
task list using existing run and activity records and does not require
that schema change.
## What Changed
- Add a company-scoped createdFromIssueId filter to issue lists.
- Save the actor run during task creation, including legacy child-helper
calls.
- Recover historical run attribution from creation activity when the
origin run is absent.
- Render the production Tasks panel with all subtasks and independently
grouped created work.
- Keep progress only for subtasks. Add folding, hover fades and project
links.
- Fetch all result pages and refresh on issue activity. Show load
failures with Retry.
- Add database, API, UI and pagination tests, design-guide examples and
Storybook pages.
## Verification
- Before rebase: 158 targeted tests passed. Workspace typecheck,
UI/server builds, Storybook build and token gates passed.
- After rebase: full workspace typecheck and build passed. The cursor
fix passes 26 focused tests and UI/server typechecks.
- The full local test command completed its general-server group with
10,563 passing tests and two failures: a missing native-runner fixture
and a concurrency-test timeout. Building the fixture and rerunning both
affected files passed all 41 tests. The local command stopped before its
remaining groups; all corresponding GitHub test shards passed on the
submitted head.
- GitHub checks on commit 3b4bf0bd8: 31 passed, including the aggregate
CI gate, all server/workspace/browser test shards, typecheck, build,
runner verification, canary dry run, policy and security checks. Two
conditional Storybook jobs were skipped by the workflow.
- Greptile reviewed commit 3b4bf0bd8 at 5/5 with no unresolved comments.
- Open Storybook at UX Labs / Tasks Created From a Task / Full Task
Page. Check that a created subtask appears in both sections. Fold each
group and use a project link. Check the No project group and first-task
arrival story.
## Risks
- Old tasks without a saved origin run or attributed creation activity
cannot be linked to a source. The code does not infer a source from a
shared creator or a comment.
- The new list filter reads run and activity records. Source, run,
activity and result stay within the requested company.
- Task creation now saves the actor run when no explicit origin run is
supplied. Existing explicit origins remain unchanged. No database
migration is required.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The runtime identifies the model family as
GPT-6 but does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window
size. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution and browser
inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks.
> - A failed native run can leave a durable execution hold.
> - The hold prevents automatic replay of actions with unknown outcomes.
> - It can also prevent the agent from answering a new user message.
> - A new user message should authorize a fresh turn after the prior
execution stops.
> - This pull request adds that admission path and preserves the
existing execution gates.
> - Users can continue the conversation without certifying every past
action.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Server task wake admission and native execution recovery.
**Problem or motivation**
A native task can remain blocked after automatic recovery stops. A new
user message is saved, but its run is cancelled before the agent can
answer.
**Proposed solution**
Use a new authenticated user comment to authorize a fresh turn. Check
stopped predecessor ownership and available history. Retain uncertain
action outcomes. Commit the new run and hold retirement together.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is a focused improvement to the existing self-healing runs and
recovery behavior.
Builds on merged #13237, which covers legacy conversation continuation.
This PR adds native admission and preserves native automatic-recovery
eligibility and budgets.
## What Changed
- Admit a fresh native turn for a new user comment after every held
predecessor has stopped.
- Validate the comment author, task, timing, process ownership,
controller, and cleanup leases.
- Preserve failed runs, unknown action outcomes, and the failed
incident's attempt count.
- Record the new comment and run in the existing recovery audit history.
- Validate the saved continuation source and discard consumed user-wake
authority from later automatic replacements.
- Keep pause, approval, budget, ownership, and dependency interaction
rules.
- Add database and actual wake-path regressions. Update the execution
contract.
## Verification
- [Full CI run
34626750213](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34626750213)
passed on `c58e6c087e0df7530c747d80b27d491da925a9c4`: all 31 reported
checks passed, including all server/workspace suites, browser shards,
native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and
aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped.
- Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. All review threads are
resolved, and security checks passed.
- All 218 local targeted tests passed across explicit native
continuation, continuation history, safe replacement, durable chat
wakeups, wake queue, issue liveness, native session resume, and run
dispatch. The native implementation is unchanged by the final rebase
onto master.
- Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the
final head. Complete test coverage is supplied by the green CI suites;
local tests used the targeted suites above.
- Regressions cover scoped authorization, concurrent delivery, live
ownership, later admission gates, retained message receipts, and
automatic replacement after terminal-task or reviewer changes.
## Risks
- A fresh model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip preserves
prior history and does not replay recorded calls.
- Missing process identity and remote ownership without a target-aware
stop proof retain the hold. A terminal database row alone does not prove
that execution stopped.
- No schema or dependency changes. Existing historical tasks are not
awakened by deployment.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and test execution. This session does not expose a more
specific model build ID or context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks.
> - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart.
> - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent
execution hold.
> - That hold could also reject a later user message.
> - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior
tool calls.
> - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue
within the existing retry budget.
> - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task
behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be
cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path
could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter.
**Expected behavior**
Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible
provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not
replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user
request through the normal execution gates.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter.
2. Restart the server while the provider is working.
3. Let the previous run become interrupted.
4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old
behavior.
Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for
retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation
recovery through the existing bounded scheduler.
## What Changed
- Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep
native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules.
- Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP
session history even when a write outcome is unknown.
- Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use
full task context.
- Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as
process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its
retry takes ownership.
- Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in
bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and
do not wake historical tasks.
- Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or
environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice
after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting
contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while
deferred messages and execution remain gated.
- Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution
contract.
- Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider
fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary.
Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while
still asserting both processes terminate.
## Verification
- Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Build passed: `pnpm build`.
- Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`.
- Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry
and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites
overlap.
- Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries,
restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates,
and historical holds.
- Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner
verification.
- Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general
and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not
reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed
and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local
parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing
failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and
sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased.
- Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process
recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue
application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task
chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests.
Token gates and whitespace validation pass.
- Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause
scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting
behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case
verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write.
- Final-head [CI run
34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394)
passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported
checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards,
native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and
aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped.
Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are
resolved.
## Risks
- A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not
replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes.
- Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of
requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency,
approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force.
- No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded
without changing task status or waking work.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more
specific model build ID or context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents ask structured questions in task threads and the composer.
> - The shared form shows one question at a time.
> - A single choice already completes an answer, but the form requires
another click on Next.
> - This pull request moves to the next question when the user selects
one option.
> - Multi-select and custom answers keep their Next step. The last page
keeps explicit submission.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The paged question form in the task composer and task interaction cards.
**Subsystem affected**
ui/ — React board UI.
**Current behavior**
The user clicks a single choice, then clicks Next to reach the next
question.
**Proposed behavior**
A single choice shows its checked state for 160 ms, then opens the next
question with an 80 ms fade. Reduced-motion mode skips the animation.
Multi-select stays on the current page until Next. Other stays open for
typing. The last question waits for Submit answers.
**Reason and benefit**
Remove an extra click from each single-choice question while preserving
explicit submission.
**Breaking changes**
Single-choice selection now changes the page. Answer payloads and APIs
do not change. The user can return to earlier answers with the previous
arrow.
**Additional context**
Related work: #12640 introduced the task workspace. No duplicate
auto-advance change was found.
## What Changed
- Confirm a single-choice answer with a brief radio animation and row
highlight, then fade into the next page and focus the new question.
- Use motion tokens for the 160 ms confirmation and 80 ms page fade.
Honor reduced motion and cancel pending advances when the user changes
direction or closes the form.
- Lightly highlight every selected row with a foreground tint that
remains visible against the composer in both themes, for single-select
and multi-select answers.
- Preserve multi-select, custom answers, back navigation, and final
submission.
- Ignore repeated number-key events and selection during an upload or
submission.
- Update composer and card tests. Add interactive and verified composer
stories to the existing interaction Storybook group.
- Document the Storybook scenario in the developer guide.
## Verification
- Focused composer, card, and motion-catalog tests: 121 passed,
including animation timing and cancellation.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed.
- `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. Browser interaction story: passed with
the selection animation enabled.
- Selected-row refinement: 121 focused tests, token gates, and Storybook
build passed. Browser inspection confirmed row highlighting for
single-select and multiple selected checkboxes, plus light-theme
contrast.
- Manual browser check: select SQLite, select two features, click Next,
select Now, then submit. The summary contains every answer.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed.
- `pnpm build`: passed.
- All 31 remote checks passed on the latest commit (`04a3f3983`),
including typecheck, general and serialized tests, production
build/native-runner verification, canary validation, and browser tests.
Two optional Storybook deployment/visual jobs were skipped. Greptile
reviewed the same commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. The
selected-row highlight refinement is included in that verification.
- Animation refinement: UI typecheck, UI build, token gates, and 121
focused tests passed.
- The broader UI run had 5,940 passing tests and three failures in
unchanged Inbox/IssuesList tests. Both affected suites passed in
isolation (73/73), including all three previously failing cases.
- The broad local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after reproducing the
native-runner failure below and after the full remote suite passed. It
is not a clean local full-suite result.
- Local runner limitation:
`server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-resume.test.ts` has
one reproducible failure in unchanged code. The damaged-epoch recovery
test expects `run.attach requires a settled Codex provider session`; the
runner instead reports `semantic tool input content digest does not
match its transmitted input` at line 1019. After building the missing
fake provider with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner
build:rust`, the isolated suite has 36 passing tests and this one
failure. No server or runner files changed in this PR.
## Risks
- Selecting a single choice changes the visible question after a brief
checked-state confirmation. Back navigation preserves the choice so it
can be edited.
- The final page still requires Submit answers. Selecting Other still
requires text and explicit progress.
- No database, server, API, or dependency changes.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, code editing, terminal tools,
and browser verification. Exact serving revision and context window size
are not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - Wake admission decides when a task can create an execution run.
> - Recovery can prohibit replay while the previous execution needs
review.
> - Dependency reconciliation kept creating runs before dispatch
rejected that same hold.
> - Each rejected run added another startup notice without doing useful
work.
> - This change checks the hold during admission and records repeated
automatic waits once.
> - Tasks keep their messages and can resume when the current gates
permit execution.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related changes: Refs #13173 (stale completed-task continuations). Refs
#12651 (dependency waits during recovery).
**What happened?**
A blocked task with completed dependencies can remain under a durable
execution reconciliation hold. Each scheduler pass created a queued run.
Dispatch then cancelled it before the adapter started. The skipped wake
did not satisfy dependency wake deduplication, so this repeated and
filled the conversation with “Couldn't start” notices.
**Expected behavior**
A known execution hold creates a waiting diagnostic without a run.
Repeated automatic observations share that diagnostic. Clearing the hold
permits a new wake only after the other gates pass. New comments remain
available for the next eligible execution.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Assign a blocked task with a completed blocker.
2. Give the task an active reconciliation action, or a resolved action
whose automatic recovery evidence still prohibits replay.
3. Run dependency reconciliation repeatedly.
4. Observe repeated cancelled pre-start runs on the base branch. This
branch creates no runs while held and admits work after the effective
hold clears.
## What Changed
- Check effective execution holds under the issue admission lock before
inserting runs. Keep the final dispatch check for races.
- Share automatic wait diagnostics across producers, wake keys, and
service restarts. Apply the helper to reconciliation, dependencies,
pause holds, availability, budgets, and disabled heartbeats.
- Preserve ordinary comment and interaction receipts during execution
holds. Prevent release from draining them while replay is blocked. Keep
external-chat receipt authorization intact.
- Group empty pre-start reconciliation cancellations into a neutral
waiting notice. Keep started runs and the full run history.
- Document the waiting contract and add database-backed, UI, and browser
regressions.
- Stabilize two existing verification tests: allow the asynchronous chat
lease transition a bounded five-second wait, and accept either
legitimate damaged-session refusal while retaining exact
archive-evidence assertions.
## Verification
Passed targeted tests:
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts
server/src/modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts` — 28 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx` —
covered in the initial combined test run; UI suite passed.
- Run-dispatch adapter tests passed in the combined gate regression run.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/durable-chat-wakeup.test.ts` — 41 tests, including
held receipt replay, promotion, and revoked access.
- `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3294 pnpm test:e2e
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` — all 3 browser scenarios pass.
Repeated held messages create no additional runs or provider prompts and
do not replay writes.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm check:module-boundaries`
- `git diff --check`
`pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass.
The full local `pnpm test:run` invocation did not finish green: it
encountered exhausted local PostgreSQL shared-memory slots, a missing
fresh-worktree runner test binary, and tests loaded across in-flight
edits. The affected chat/database suites passed on rerun (81 tests), and
the targeted lifecycle/recovery verification passed (3 tests). After
building the runner test binary, the full native session suite also
passed (37 tests). Final-head [CI run
34621288475](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34621288475)
passed on `8659618b0ed2b98df002a28f4c1bd97321b0db04`, including all
server/workspace test shards, all three browser shards, runner
verification, typecheck, build, release dry run, and the aggregate
verification gates. All 31 reported checks passed; the two conditional
Storybook checks were skipped as intended. Greptile reviewed that exact
commit at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads.
## Risks
The wait record is diagnostic only. It must never count as a delivered
wake or bypass a current gate. Tests cover repeated and concurrent
admission, resolved no-replay evidence, a remaining dependency after
hold clearance, deferred comments, and release gating. Explicit user
requests and authorized chat receipts do not share automatic
diagnostics. No migration or historical data deletion is required.
Existing provider retry budgets remain unchanged.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The runtime does not expose the exact hosted
snapshot ID or context-window size. Used repository inspection, code
editing, command execution, tests, and review tools.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task transcript shows a running agent's progress.
> - The active-run query stops polling when the live-run list has data.
> - The transcript still preferred that initial snapshot, so an old
execution-confirmation state could remain after work resumed.
> - This pull request uses the refreshed snapshot for the same run and
keeps active status text at Working.
> - Operators can see current activity without connection-state jargon.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The task transcript said Reconnecting while the runner continued sending
messages and calling tools. The stale projection could also hide the
Thinking tail or stop the status spinner and timer.
**Expected behavior**
The selected run uses its current live snapshot. Active transcripts say
Working and show current activity. Completed and failed runs say Worked
and Stopped.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a running task before its execution confirmation arrives.
2. Let the active-run query stop polling when the live-run list returns
the run.
3. Let the list refresh to working while the cached active-run snapshot
still says reconnecting.
4. Inspect the transcript status and activity tail.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Base commit: 52811c6ce.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source. The report concerns the new runner. The fix also
covers legacy transcript status text.
Searched open issues and open/closed pull requests for runner
reconnection work. No duplicate fix found.
## What Changed
- Refresh the selected active run from the polled list by matching the
task execution-run ID. Reject cached predecessors after run replacement.
- Use Working in native and legacy transcripts and active agent cards.
- Keep the active spinner, timer, and Thinking tail independent of
diagnostic execution phases. Terminal status takes precedence.
- Add stale-snapshot, timer, and terminal-state regressions. Update the
recovery story and documentation.
## Verification
- Focused Vitest suite: 148 tests passed across the run resolver, live
pill, runner turn, and task thread.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed.
- Browser: inspected the recovery Storybook with a reconnecting
projection. It renders Working and Thinking.
- `pnpm build`: passed.
- `pnpm build-storybook`: passed.
- Full local `pnpm test:run` reported failures in unchanged server
tests; stopped the remaining general-server run after the equivalent CI
shards passed. The file-resource suite passes on rerun (35/35). Building
`build:runner-binaries` fixed a missing fake-provider binary; the
native-session-resume suite still has one continuity-reason assertion
mismatch (36/37 pass).
- Ran the remaining local test groups separately: both workspace groups
passed. All serialized suites passed except `pipelines-routes.test.ts`,
which still reports a socket hang-up on rerun (18/19 pass). The initial
access-route timeout passed on rerun. No server or runner source files
differ from the base.
- CI: all test shards, browser E2E, typecheck, runner verification, and
build passed on `22069462f30bdfcfb58f295da901a71ae5a47776`; the
aggregate verification gate passed (31 checks passed, 2 optional
Storybook checks skipped). Greptile is 5/5 with all review threads
resolved.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes UI snapshot selection and presentation. It does
not change server recovery, leases, retry authority, or permissions.
- The live snapshot must match the task execution-run ID. Missing
matches use the cached active run only when its ID also matches.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). The exact deployment identifier and context-window
size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository
inspection, code execution, and browser verification.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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 (focused/UI and workspace
tests; full-suite limitations documented above)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Reuse the exact master source-verification result before npm canary publication, removing a duplicate verification matrix while preserving fail-closed release checks.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta