3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
3 people	cf1def0ca6	feat(inbox): rebuild compact cards and share task review controls (#20961) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The inbox collects decisions, requests, and updates for the people in a company. > - People need a clear personal queue and a consistent way to answer each request. > - Repeated headings, inconsistent card actions, and separate review flows make that work harder. > - This pull request connects the inbox UI to the routing foundation in #20959. > - Compact cards use shared task controls and open supporting work in a side panel. > - People can answer, claim, transfer, archive, and inspect outcomes from one place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The inbox cards, personal views, shared task controls, and decision history. **Subsystem affected** UI. This PR targets master and uses the routing foundation merged in #20959. **Current behavior** The inbox repeats headings and counts. Cards have different layouts and action placement. The requester can repeat the signed-in person's name. Review and question controls differ between the inbox and task thread. **Proposed behavior** Open Assigned to you by default. Show one count line above the cards. Use a compact card layout with consistent actions and supporting details. Show the requester's avatar and name only when they differ from the signed-in person. Share question controls, including a radio option for Other that reveals a text field when selected. **Reason and benefit** People can scan their queue and complete requests without losing the surrounding task or creating separate drafts for the same review. **Breaking changes** The default inbox view becomes personal. The all-assignee and shared views remain available. Card close menus distinguish personal archive and snooze from shared withdrawal. **Additional context** Refs #20959, #19363, and #19520. Refs #20268 for related actionable-request work. This stack adds personal routing and shared controls. ROADMAP.md includes Multiple Human Users and Agent Reviews and Approvals. ## What Changed - Add personal, unassigned, company, all-assignee, and archived inbox views. Add claim, transfer, personal close actions, receipts, and history controls. - Use compact decision cards with a single count line, one-pixel borders, and equal space above, below, and to the right of each primary action. - Open artifacts and synchronized confirmation/approval controls in a shared side panel. Share their revision drafts and action state with the task thread. Other requests keep one editable form on the inbox card while reviewing an artifact. - Make Other match the question options and reveal its field only when selected. Apply this to inbox and task question cards. - Hide self-requester labels, space agent avatars, and use the standard canceled status icon for withdrawn requests. - Use connector logos in connector cards. Keep the connector promotion background and sidebar border continuous. - Add company and project decision-owner controls and document the updated inbox behavior. ## Verification - The complete [GitHub Actions CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43141559641) passes on `8d81a75e49b518fff6b6ff4c23dd67979b0b97ee` (Linux/Node 24: typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Runner support, browser shards, and aggregate gates). Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head with zero open findings, and the security scan passes. - Local UI typechecking passes. Eight focused suites pass 382 tests: 236 inbox/review/question/connector tests plus all 146 composer tests. Regressions passed red to green for attachment links, prompt rendering, single-form artifact review, connector scope copy, accessible headings, and the composer test harness's missing theme provider. The final commit changes only that test harness; production code is unchanged from `59d015833f`. - Browser acceptance on the production implementation confirms preserved selected answers with one editable question form, accessible Markdown prompts, inert image references, accurate connector scope copy, native PDF downloads, image sidebar previews, and Open file requesting the attachment endpoint while preserving the inbox URL. Request reads and file responses were intercepted; no question answers were written. The preview is healthy on the final head. - Visual and interaction checks cover Other radio behavior in both themes and on mobile, the loaded Google Calendar logo, and 20px above, below, and to the right of the primary action across all 23 visible cards. The affected desktop/mobile navigation and sidebar specs pass locally and in the final CI browser matrix. - Real-editor browser checks confirm Ctrl/Cmd+Enter cannot bypass another person's confirmation. Cancel preserves the draft and unlocks silently; Continue submits once. Approval write failures remain visible. - `pnpm verify` returns exit 2 because DESIGN.md requires broader coverage; the final full CI matrix supplies every requested gate. Maps and Storybook catalog structural checks pass. The routing foundation #20959 merged after passing 249 database tests, server typechecking, full CI, Greptile 5/5, and security scanning. Its backend and SDK registry are preserved. - Demo data is retained for testing; database suites and browser specs use separate disposable databases. ## Risks - The inbox uses the routing contracts merged in #20959. Personal filters and history affect shared task entry points; the affected controls are included in local regression coverage and full CI. - Personal defaults and close-menu wording change inbox behavior. Existing resolver permissions still control shared actions. - Shared revision state and live invalidation affect two surfaces. Focused tests cover draft synchronization, action locks, and incoming updates. - Visual changes use the existing design tokens and component primitives. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used repository tools, code execution, and browser checks. This session does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or its 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Scott Tong <scott@scottsmbpm5max.lan> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-11-11 21:05:00 -08:00
DottaandPaperclip	ef33c1d9ed	fix(decisions): retire completed-target decisions and link targets from the card (#10892) ... <!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The decisions desk shows pending decisions that need an operator response > - A strict decision cannot apply its effects after its target task changes > - A decision still remained pending when every target task finished after proposal > - The card also linked only the origin task, even when the decision acted on another task > - This pull request expires those moot decisions and links their target tasks > - The benefit is an accurate queue and a clear path to the work that each decision affects ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10801 removes the issue-page decision strip, which makes clear queue provenance more important. **What happened?** A strict decision stayed pending until its time-to-live limit after every target task reached `done`. The decision card linked only the origin task. The origin task is where the agent proposed the decision, and it can differ from the task that the decision affects. An operator could therefore open a finished task with no visible decision and no explanation of the real target. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must expire a strict decision when all of its targets finish after the decision is proposed. The card must show and link every target task that differs from the origin task. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a strict decision that targets an active task from a different origin task. 2. Move the target task to `done` without resolving the decision. 3. Run the decision expiry sweep. 4. Observe that the old code keeps the decision open until its time-to-live limit. 5. Observe that the old card links only the origin task. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduces on upstream `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local dev and self-hosted server modes are affected because the behavior is in the shared decision service and board UI. ## What Changed - Expire an open strict decision with reason `target_completed` when every strict target reached `done` after proposal. - Keep decisions that intentionally target an already-finished task. - Keep lenient-only decisions open. - Keep continuation delivery consistent with other expiry reasons. - Add target-task links to the decision card provenance line. - Use one shared target-ID helper across signing, execution, expiry, card provenance, and resolver preloading. - Add service and UI regression tests for primary, secondary, and target-completed cases. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low migration risk. This change does not alter the database schema. - The expiry sweep performs the existing strict-target query and adds a snapshot comparison before expiry. - A decision remains open if any strict target is active or if a target was already `done` at proposal time. > The roadmap lists work queues as planned. This pull request fixes the existing decisions desk. It does not add a new queue subsystem. ## Model Used - Implementation: Anthropic Claude through Claude Code. The runtime did not expose the exact model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. - PR preparation: OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-05 09:55:01 -05:00
3 people	9c1f8e7887	feat(decisions): add first-class propose mode (#10010) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can currently perform many mutations directly, while humans often need a durable review point before cross-issue or destructive actions occur > - Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone, reusable object for presenting options, collecting typed inputs, detecting stale targets, and auditing effect execution > - The control plane therefore needs a first-class propose mode that separates an agent's recommendation from the governed mutation it may cause > - This pull request adds Decisions v1 across the database, shared contracts, server execution and telemetry, agent skill guidance, and operator UI > - The benefit is that agents can propose multi-option actions safely while operators get explicit provenance, fail-closed execution, per-effect results, and a focused attention workflow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server`, and `ui`. ### Problem or motivation Agents need a governed way to propose consequential work without immediately mutating issues, especially when one choice can affect several issue trees. Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone object with typed options, target snapshots, effect-level authorization, expiration, execution outcomes, and reusable attention-feed presentation. ### Proposed solution Add first-class Decisions that store options and typed inputs, surface open proposals in the operator attention feed, validate target freshness and the origin-agent/operator authorization intersection at decision time, execute a bounded set of auditable effects, and retain terminal outcomes. Decisions v1 supports comments, status and assignee changes, follow-up issue creation, blocker resolution, and issue-tree cancellation, plus bundle grouping, expiration/dismissal, rule-key telemetry, and agent-facing API guidance. ### Alternatives considered - Extend approvals with arbitrary effects: rejected because approvals represent governed yes/no actions and would become an unsafe generic mutation envelope. - Model every proposal as an issue-thread interaction: rejected because decisions can span several targets and need independent lifecycle, telemetry, idempotency, and effect results. - Let agents perform the mutation and ask for retrospective review: rejected because it removes the pre-execution governance boundary this feature is meant to provide. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` sections **Agent Reviews and Approvals**, **Enforced Outcomes**, **MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool access)**, and **Activity History** by making explicit decisions, authorization gates, auditable execution, and terminal outcomes first-class control-plane objects. ### Additional context This does not replace existing approvals or issue-thread interactions, and it does not add an unrestricted generic mutation effect. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped decision, option, target, and effect-execution schema plus migration and shared TypeScript/Zod contracts. - Added decision routes and services for propose, list/get, decide, dismiss, cancel, target freshness checks, authorization intersection, idempotency, activity logging, and execution auditing. - Added rule-key decision telemetry and attention-feed metadata so open decisions are visible and measurable. - Added agent skill documentation for proposing and resolving decisions through the Paperclip API. - Added the Decisions UI: API client, query keys, inline attention resolver, bundle grouping, target-issue strip, terminal history, destructive confirmation, and per-effect result rendering. - Added server service coverage, DecisionCard state tests, and Storybook stories for the supported visual states. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,876 passed, 1 skipped, with one unrelated cross-suite cleanup-order failure in `heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`; the failing file passes in isolation (`6/6`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx` — passed (`9/9`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed (`5/5`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — passed (`16/16`). - `pnpm --filter paperclipai exec vitest run src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` — passed (`1/1`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Rebased-head focused suite — passed (`6` files, `88` tests): shared decision contracts, Decisions service, OpenAPI routes, startup feedback export, DecisionCard states, and attention helpers. The follow-up stale-secondary-target regression passes in the DecisionCard suite (`10/10`). - Rebased-head scoped typechecks — passed for `@paperclipai/shared`, `@paperclipai/db`, `@paperclipai/server`, and `@paperclipai/ui`. - Rebased-head migration numbering and safety checks — passed after renumbering the additive migration to `0193` and making it replay-safe for environments that applied the earlier feature-branch number. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - GitHub PR workflow and Greptile review for `1f9f7645882d05dfdd9c99377c03a1f53f20e8be` — running after the stale-secondary-target fix and PR metadata refresh on July 27, 2026. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` exposes an existing Storybook version mismatch (`storybook` 10.4.6 vs `@storybook/addon-docs` 10.5.0); Decisions stories were validated with the docs addon temporarily disabled and the tracked config remains unchanged. ## Risks - **Migration:** Adds replay-safe migration `0193`; migration numbering and safety checks pass. The new tables and indexes are additive. - **Authorization:** Effect execution intersects the proposing agent's permissions with the responsible user context and fails closed; mistakes could reject a valid proposal rather than silently over-authorize it. - **Concurrency:** Target snapshots and idempotency keys protect against stale or duplicate execution, but reviewers should focus on mixed-effect partial outcomes and retry behavior. - **UI:** Decisions are integrated into the existing attention feed rather than a separate navigation surface, reducing routing risk but increasing the importance of attention-item metadata compatibility. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI using `gpt-5.6-sol` for final PR preparation, review fixes, and verification; repository tools and code execution were enabled, and context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context assisted with the Decisions UI implementation, as recorded in the relevant commits. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-31 19:17:02 -07:00