mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-31 22:24:16 +01:00
d66e96646de7bdaa4c1e3409f7806387a97d6649
67
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
6d46851920 |
test(e2e): add attended GitHub review bot journey (#17457)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and the work they perform. > - Product E2E checks verify real user paths through those agents. > - A recorded GitHub review-bot walkthrough had no repeatable registered case. > - App setup, automatic triggering, publication, and task completion need separate evidence. > - This pull request adds an explicit attended journey to the existing catalog and report tools. > - Reusable setup profiles and independent assertions preserve the same outcome across compatible targets. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17262. This case remains an explicit attended attached-target flow. It does not replace the shared deployment-target or paid-operations framework. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Product E2E catalog can now select and retain evidence for GitHub review-bot setup and its first automatic review. **Current behavior** Recorded walkthroughs cannot be rerun as a fixed registered case. A published review alone can hide a failed run or unfinished task. **Proposed behavior** Create and install an owned App, save automatic new-PR settings, create a defective PR, and require correlated review delivery, an inline finding, a consistent check, a successful run, and a Done task. Retain failures and confirm owned-resource cleanup. **Reason and benefit** The case makes a useful external integration reproducible without treating setup, unit checks, or report rendering as proof of a completed live journey. ## What Changed - Add two explicit attended cells for an existing configured agent in local or Daytona execution. - Declare hosting, account, connection, and credential prerequisites through private setup bindings. - Add fixed browser controls, ownership checks, independent grading, and cleanup. - Package declared screenshots through the existing sanitizer, manifest, validator, and dashboard. - Reject operations-managed execution until budgeted routing is qualified. - Document hosted QA credential setup and evidence limits. ## Verification - Focused catalog, oracle, report, connection, and ownership checks: 127 tests passed. - Inherited-environment preflight regression failed against the previous commit and passed after the fix. Actual-run environment verification remains required. - Harness TypeScript check and full workspace typecheck passed. Full build passed. The local full-test attempt was interrupted after repeated embedded PostgreSQL startup failures; its exit code of zero does not establish a pass; Exact-head Linux CI passed the full test, typecheck, build, Runner, serialized, browser, and canary gates on `abbddeade848edefc8de75f11cc9008b2cd52764`. - A real hosted attempt published a rated review and inline finding. It failed when its native session timed out before the task reached Done. Cleanup passed. Full live qualification remains open. - Credential scan found no known credential values in the authored files or retained report corpus. ## Risks - The full case creates external test resources and uses the configured provider. It requires an explicit selection and current task authority. It is excluded from default and CI matrices. - Time and run limits are not a hard dollar cap. Missing dollar cost stays unknown. Fixture setup does not weaken budget policy. - Fresh personal OAuth, unattended authentication, runtime skill-read proof, and cross-host qualification are separate claims. - The selected live fixture needs environment/lifecycle recovery before it can adopt a longer provider deadline. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 family through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The exact deployment model ID 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, including the available 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 enhancement template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal 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 - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7ae81c9fa7 |
fix(slack): support rich questions and complete review delivery (#17255)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Questions and review decisions must work in the conversation where a task started. > - Slack omitted question context and did not publish several review kinds. > - Some answers saved in Paperclip also lost their authorized continuation or their final Slack reply. > - A settled card and a successful run did not prove that the user received the result. > - This pull request preserves complete questions and follows the existing answer and delivery receipts through continuation. > - Users can read the request, submit an authorized decision, and receive the resumed task's result in the same conversation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17045 and #17218. **What happened?** Slack question cards could omit instructions and editable starting text. Checkbox reviews, item verdicts, task suggestions, and connection requests had no publication path. Complex question answers submitted in Paperclip could fail continuation authorization. Several review continuations completed without delivering their result to Slack. **Expected behavior** Show the actual question and context. Use native Slack controls when they preserve the form contract. Otherwise provide an explicit Paperclip review link. Persist one authorized response, resume through the existing delivery path, settle the card, and deliver the useful result to its originating conversation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task in Slack and ask a text or choice question with instructions and help text. 2. Submit native text and choice responses, then submit a complex form through Paperclip. 3. Accept a checklist, submit item decisions, select suggested tasks, or decline a connection request. 4. Inspect the saved answer, continuation run, original Slack card, and final Slack reply independently. ## What Changed - Preserve full prompts, context, descriptions, recommendations, help, and editable starting text. Use direct buttons for short choices, inline searchable selects for longer lists, and native checkboxes with explicit submission for multiple choices. - Add native custom-answer and validated-text modals, ordinary confirmation buttons, checklist decisions, per-item verdicts with reasons, suggested-task creation/dismissal, and connection decline. Keep governed approvals, permission grants, and forms that cannot be represented faithfully in the full Paperclip review surface. - Keep Slack-specific canonical-validation feedback in its owning platform module. Shared callbacks delegate without interpreting provider presentation. - Reuse the existing canonical interaction transactions, callback receipts, publication queue, and continuation delivery. Share ordinary confirmation handling across Telegram and Slack. Recheck current authorization and commit response receipts atomically. - Settle cards with the saved answer and remove stale controls. Ignore passive Slack link callbacks so opening a task does not display a false answer error. - Validate exact multi-select receipt mappings during native continuation. Recover automation-origin connection replies from their published prompt after validating the durable connection receipt. - Keep oversized multi-select handoffs free of unused native tokens, and retain the complete Paperclip form for 101–128 choices plus Other. Make the original-conversation audience explicit before submitting a Slack modal. - Add rollback, provider serialization, callback, continuation, and negative authorization regressions. Update the connector playbook and feature/access maps. No React or application UI changes are included. - Add a durable Q01–Q11 qualification index and provider coverage matrix. Require distinct functional, good-experience, and best-available-control assessments; real unanswered/answering/settled evidence; saved results, continuation and navigation proof; and retained failures. Mark other providers unaudited rather than assuming Slack parity. ## Verification Candidate: `e0017d446b1016a38d65382366cd1408cce33039`. The eleven-core-format live Slack gallery is pinned to `c3d458b2a06b660448940fd8cf33c5906f0058d5`; subsequent boundary fixes and the sharing notice have automated verification, not new live screenshots. - Real Slack UI testing covered all 11 formats: text, closed choice, long single select, multiple choices, choices with a custom answer, pattern-validated text, confirmation, checklist, item verdicts, suggested tasks, and connection requests. Each has unanswered/answering/answered screenshots as applicable, an inspected saved result, one continuation, and an individual experience review in the local HTML gallery. - The dedicated private QA app/channel used signed callbacks to the local candidate. A separately approved password-protected, read-only preview proved connection-review, suggested-task review, and created-task navigation. Anonymous access, writes, and credential routes were denied. No OAuth grant was attempted. - Real testing exposed and repaired a multi-select continuation failure and a misleading error on link-button clicks. Failed attempts remain in the evidence. The final navigation replay opened the exact pending connection request and declined it in Slack without granting access. Suggested-task creation produced the selected child with the correct parent and description. - Final review-fix verification: **32 form tests**, **28 provider/form-rendering tests**, **30 publication tests**, and **171 native continuation/authorization tests** passed. Earlier **3 atomic-resolution rollback**, **9 targeted callback/publication/Telegram**, and **28 review-continuation** cases passed. The final Slack/Teams modal subset also passed. The automation-origin connection cases, 101/128 custom-choice cases, and oversized multi-select continuation reproduced before their fixes and passed afterward; failing logs remain retained. These counts describe relevant runs, not a reliability percentage. - CI on `b5885b85fd` exposed a test fixture that assumed every Slack modal block was an input; the new sharing notice correctly renders a non-input block. The fixture now selects input blocks safely. The exact signed-modal correction/one-continuation test passed locally, together with 14 Slack form/modal tests. The failing CI log and its specific cause remain recorded. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Server typechecking was repeated after the final source changes. Map and module-boundary checks and `git diff --check` passed. - The full `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after repeated embedded PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion on this host. Its 1,395-test chat suite found two stale native-control assertions; both were corrected and re-tested in a focused run. Focused database suites used separate disposable databases on existing local PostgreSQL. The full suite is not claimed green; new-head CI must complete before merge. - Final-head CI passed on `e0017d446b1016a38d65382366cd1408cce33039`: all test/build jobs and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates are green ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40115430194)). Greptile and Ponytail both reviewed this exact head at 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - All three QA app callbacks were restored to staging. Both temporary tunnels and local proxies were closed. The local endpoint was archived and its local credential copies removed. The candidate app was stopped. Limits: provider execution used a deterministic Claude protocol fixture, not an LLM. This is local real-provider UX proof, not deployed staging or broader Codie/Claude qualification. The public preview intentionally blocked ancillary artifact routes, so its destination pages could show a partial-history warning. The complete permission-grant flow and every oversized/mixed-form branch were not driven manually. Earlier fixture, test, and provider failures remain recorded. ## Risks - New reply routes require durable origin proof. Incorrect receipt matching could lose a reply or route it incorrectly. Tests cover missing, forged, mismatched, and revoked authority. - Governed forms keep their Paperclip resolution checks. This change does not grant new approval authority to Slack. - Existing completed review results can become deliverable through the repaired publication path without another provider run. - No schema, lockfile, workflow, public task-status model, or runtime-instruction change is included. This branch is not deployed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code execution and tool use. The exact backend model ID 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 linked existing issues or 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 on the new head - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on the new head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
505e1a5582 |
feat(cases): add persistent workflows with same-task agent handoffs (#16959)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - An agent workflow needs persistent facts and a safe way to transfer work. > - Creating a task for each phase splits the objective, discussion, workspace, and review policy. > - A case can retain the facts while one primary task moves between agents. > - Transfers must survive process failure and preserve private access, budgets, and completion gates. > - This pull request adds durable case handoffs, native case tools, and read-only case pages. > - Prompts describe the workflow. Existing task controls decide when work can run and finish. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Prompt-driven agent teams need a persistent record that can move through triage, implementation, verification, and correction. Ordinary reassignment does not provide a durable instruction, safe release barrier, or recoverable delivery receipt for an agent handing off its own running task. **Proposed solution** Extend standalone cases with one primary task, a descriptive phase, retained access sources, and a handoff ledger. Apply assignments after source execution and workspace settlement. Deliver each transfer through the existing durable wake queue. Provide `create_case`, `read_case`, `update_case`, and `handoff_case` in the native runner. Creation requires kickoff and explicit workflow text. An explicit handoff to `done` closes the case when normal task completion is accepted. **Alternatives considered** Do not add a workflow engine, filesystem queue, configured state graph, or one task per phase. The workflow document combines transition prose with an optional Mermaid `stateDiagram-v2` map. The server does not execute the diagram. The Pipelines experiment removed on master stays removed. **Roadmap alignment** This extends Agent Reviews and Approvals, Enforced Outcomes, Bounded Run Recovery, and Activity Log attribution. Existing approval, review, budget, privacy, workspace, and responsible-user rules remain authoritative. Related work: [ordinary handoff wake recovery](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15019). This feature adds a separate persisted case-handoff receipt and release barrier. ## What Changed - Add case routing fields, retained access sources, durable handoff history, delivery leases, and replay-safe migrations. - Keep the same primary task across agent phases. Preserve each returning agent's own session and the task's workspace. - Fence outgoing mutations, wait for provider and workspace release, and recover delivery without duplicate task comments or runs. Recheck current assignment permissions as the original caller before applying a delayed transfer. Scope a run Stop to that run’s own handoff intents, so repeated old Stop requests preserve newer work. Cancelling terminal intent without a source run also requires fenced current task ownership, including native retries and preparation with an old checkout. For Cloud callers, revalidate current stack membership with an uncached Cloud RPC and derive owner elevation from the current managed setting. - Keep case reads, documents, assets, Audit, and live events inside retained task/project permissions. - Add native case creation/read/update/handoff tools. Store required workflow text and initial documents on the first task. Page oversized case facts and referenced document bodies through the dedicated tool with bounded UTF-8 JSON, current routing versions, snapshot conflicts, and current source authorization on every page. - Add read-only case lists and detail pages, task-style list controls, compact dotted field tables, linked handoff tasks, and case filters in Audit. - Add native/legacy integration tests, migration/restart tests, browser coverage, and bounded live receipt fixtures. Extend the trusted sandbox condition to cover the new subscription fixture profile. - Hide obsolete paused-agent warnings on completed or cancelled task threads. - Synchronize the company-switch settings test with React effects after a CI failure. Preserve its security assertions and production remount behavior. ## Verification The branch directly includes master `9ef434fe79`. The required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates pass on head `765fccd67c`. [Current-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39464348614) passes typecheck, build, tests, and all eight browser shards. Security checks pass. [Greptile gives this exact head 5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16959#issuecomment-6291156549), with no unresolved review threads. The optional Paperclip Review check remains queued because its assigned agent is paused. It is not a required branch check. No check result was overridden. Local workspace typecheck and build pass after the master merge, along with database migration checks, token gates, map checks, Storybook catalog checks, and the Copilot profile identity check. Standard builds refresh Runner vendor output. Focused checks pass 2,008 API/paging/context tests and 7 strict case protocol tests. The final commit changes one test fixture only; its ten tests, UI typecheck, and token gates pass. No production source changed in that commit. On current head `765fccd67c`, all **194 critical workflow tests** executed and passed with no skipped tests in those files: - 38 Stop/ownership tests, including board completion intent, native retries, stale Stop, and preparation with an old checkout. - 2 actual legacy process/HTTP handoff tests, including scratch failure, a closed-stdio child that continues writing, and recovery through a fresh worker after the process group stops. - 5 migration tests, including SQL column metadata, preserved null authority context, and all six prior-numbering receipts. - 3 process-settlement and 5 scratch tests. - 88 handoff-service, 18 heartbeat handoff, and 21 native case-tool integration tests. - 7 bounded case/document-read projection tests and 7 strict protocol-contract tests. The current CI checkout was `fed65d49`, merging `765fccd67c` into master `9ef434fe79`. Its new document regressions reconstruct exact Unicode/escaped bodies and revisions through real native authority and authenticated HTTP with generic API tools disabled. They cover case-owned, primary-task, and linked-task documents; routing on every page; stale document snapshots; access loss and unlinking; unrelated/foreign/private sources; system documents; and quarantined content. Active-task document tools retain their existing behavior. These are current-head test results from the first CI attempt; the browser-only retry did not rerun these suites. The full `64fdd3403f` CI failed one separate settings test: after a company switch, it observed an unsettled API-key draft. The production component and test were unchanged from prior green source. Production switches remount both keyed settings layers; the test directly reused an unkeyed view and used a timer tick instead of waiting for React effects. The final commit replaces that fixture synchronization with React `act`. The exact secret-clearing assertions and all timeouts remain unchanged. The original assertion failure remains recorded; no unchanged retry was used. The narrow unchanged baseline and fixed fixture each pass 10 tests. The upstream result-paging merge preserves case capture namespaces and current asset privacy. Its API integration suite executed 39 of 41 tests successfully, with two skipped; the optional assigned-result PRP integration test was skipped. Neither skipped suite is counted in the 194 critical tests or as live provider proof. All 361 upstream migration entries and SQL bodies remain unchanged. Six case migrations follow master as 0363–0368 with identical SQL hashes. Official Drizzle generators produced the combined metadata and five retained snapshots. Generation reports no schema changes, and the snapshot drift test passes. The earlier `ce361ae5d0` CI passed on attempt 1, including its then-current 179 critical tests. Fresh review later identified unusable document references with generic API tools disabled; the bounded document reads and ten additional authenticated HTTP tests address that finding. The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was cancelled after this Mac exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore capacity; it is **not** counted as a pass. Later database attempts also stopped before assertions or skipped, including one sandbox socket denial. Two original stale-Stop regressions did reproduce the bug against the old source. A REST serialization assertion passed after two preserved database-startup failures. No test timeout was increased. All 194 assertions listed above executed and passed in current-head CI. The complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard also passed after the fixture repair. A configured-provider receipt workflow passed 13 backend checks across triage → implementation → verification → correction → done, using one task and four work runs. The saved receipt is revision 2 with total 6 USD; case and task both closed. The original canonical attempt remains failed because its browser assertion confused the terminal destination with completed-task tooltips. The corrected full browser verifier passed on the same retained database and original runs, with no additional provider calls. The last clean-build browser readback is on `6a86c54a53`; later changes affect recovery, authorization, bounded reads, and settlement. Accounted work cost is a $1.010574 rate-card estimate; provider billing and setup-probe usage are unavailable. Copilot profile 49 passed the unchanged seven-fixture private protocol pack (46/46 checks, no retries) and the product file-edit canary after master's completion-replay change. All 60 bound implementation hashes remain unchanged on the current source. Historical profile-47/48 identities and results remain intact. See the [profile-49 compatibility record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/persistent-case-handoffs/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-completion-recovery-compatibility-v49.json). This is bounded compatibility evidence, not a fresh full matrix, installed-package product test, or Daytona rollout. Preserved CI failures and retries: - On `20662930ac`, Slack managed setup failed a five-second success assertion after reload. Its test/application path was unchanged from a prior green head. One unchanged-source retry passed all 25 tests in that shard; no source or timeout changed. - On `9402b4f17a`, two CI workers received shutdown signals at 15:24:19 UTC. Neither log had an assertion failure before interruption. One unchanged-source retry of each passed all Runner static checks and all 32 tests in browser shard 6; both aggregates passed. The next head, `7b4374edaf`, passed all CI without retries. - On `295f289b5a`, serialized shard 9 timed out during its first device-login test, then the next test found an active login lease. Direct login/test paths were unchanged from a prior green head. Cold import plus a timed-out async body using the next test's mutable actor/store is the supported fixture-race explanation; no request trace proves that sequence. The original failure remains recorded. One unchanged-source retry passed all 294 tests in 19 files, including all 41 device-login tests. No login source or timeout changed. The subsequent `ce361ae5d0` CI passed without retries. - On `64fdd3403f`, one company-switch settings assertion observed an unsettled draft. The final test-only commit uses React `act` without changing assertions, timeouts, or production code. On `765fccd67c`, all ten settings tests and the complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard passed. - On `765fccd67c`, browser shard 3 completed the split-handoff assertions, then cleanup received HTTP 500 from run cancellation after a one-second PostgreSQL row-lock timeout. The extra chat run was reporting completed work while teardown began. Cleanup stopped before restoring a global experiment flag, causing a later assertion to fail. Relevant production and test paths are unchanged from an earlier green commit. Stop's lock order is consistent, and no nested self-lock was found; the exact PostgreSQL blocker was not recorded. One unchanged-shard retry passed. The original failure, trace, and downstream flag failure remain recorded. No Stop implementation, cleanup assertion, or timeout changed. The retry supports intermittent cleanup contention; it does not identify the original blocking transaction. ## Risks - Local process transfers require host-owned PID/group absence. Missing or uncertain termination evidence keeps delivery pending, independently of scratch setup. - Handoff admission and task cancellation share execution ownership. New regression tests cover temporary holds, late source writes, and uncertain provider termination. - Retained private sources use an intersection of existing permissions. This intentionally fails closed when a source is missing or an existing task cannot preserve that boundary. - Migrations add tables and indexes. They preserve master history and can replay over prior feature installs. Migration 0368 adds nullable internal authorization provenance with no default or authority backfill. Historical transfers still awaiting release without this context fail closed; an operator must cancel them and request a new handoff. - Delayed Cloud handoffs depend on the current Cloud membership RPC. An unavailable, ambiguous, expired, or mismatched response holds the handoff for retry; it does not reuse cached authority or grant access. - Bounded reads reload and reauthorize the selected projection per page. Underlying work grows with the data size and number of pages. Changed data or routing requires restarting from offset zero without the old snapshot. - Phase names and workflow diagrams remain advisory. They do not satisfy review or approval gates. - This is a large, cross-cutting PR. The maintainer requested one PR for the whole feature; the commits separate data, runtime, UI, and qualification work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and delegated code review. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size were not exposed in the session. Live fixture agents used the explicitly configured provider model recorded in their test evidence. ## 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
|
56e09cd19f |
docs: add native Runner integration playbook (#16846)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native Runner connects those agents to harnesses through provider drivers. > - Adding a harness crosses protocol, setup, lifecycle, packaging, and product boundaries. > - Existing guidance does not provide one complete procedure for this work. > - This pull request adds a native Runner skill, detailed playbook, and working templates. > - Contributors can use them to define a release, implement the integration, and verify the delivered result. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** Native Runner contribution guidance in `doc/DEVELOPING.md` and `packages/paperclip-runner/README.md`. **What's wrong?** Contributors must reconstruct the requirements, protocol mapping, normal setup, lifecycle rules, packaging, and acceptance process when they add a harness. The legacy direct-adapter recipe covers a different execution path. **Suggested fix** Add a self-contained native Runner procedure. Include capability research, a finite release contract, implementation boundaries, reproducible tests, normal installation, and release evidence. State each lesson directly so contributors need no private chats, tasks, or evidence archives. The duplicate search found no existing playbook PR. ## What Changed - Add `create-runner-adapter` for new native Runner harness integrations. - Add a detailed playbook based on the Pi, Cursor, and Copilot integration lessons. - Cover model and instruction admission, connection setup, rich events, durable interactions, recovery, cancellation, packaging, and Product E2E acceptance. - Add templates for scope, capabilities, attempts, failures, jobs, and release handoff. - Link the procedure from the development guide and Runner README. - Keep legacy adapters as a compatibility boundary. ## Verification - `git diff origin/master --check` passed. - `node scripts/validate-doc-links.mjs` passed from `packages/paperclip-runner` and checked 53 documentation files. - All 71 Markdown links in the new reusable files resolve to repository paths or public provider documentation. - Skill YAML, naming, description, and scaffold checks passed. - A private-reference audit passed for the reusable skill, playbook, and templates. - The legacy direct-adapter skill matches the base version. - Full local runtime checks were attempted with pnpm 9.15.4. `pnpm -r typecheck` stopped because Node type definitions are missing. `pnpm test:run` and `pnpm build` stopped because `cli/node_modules/tsx` is missing. This checkout has no installed dependencies. These commands did not establish runtime test or build results. - Full remote CI passed on commit `88b4fc4832d95807da1f5e48029a183b3dc62b6c`: build, typecheck, general and serialized server tests, Runner checks, browser tests, and the canary dry run. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39262297681). - All 55 applicable checks passed. The two Storybook checks were skipped for this change. - Greptile gave the current commit 5/5. There are no review comments or unresolved threads. ## Risks Low risk. The procedure can drift as the Runner contracts and test entry points change. It records its source baseline and tells contributors to inspect current declarations. Historical lessons describe failure patterns; they do not certify current binaries. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with `gpt-6-astra` and `gpt-6.1-sol`, both using xhigh reasoning. Context-window sizes were not exposed. The models used repository search, terminal tools, and file edits. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used, including available version and capability details - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this documentation does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs - [x] I have described the issue in this PR using the documentation issue template fields - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket or instance details - [x] I have run the relevant local documentation checks; they pass. Blocked runtime checks are recorded above - [x] I have considered tests for this documentation-only change and validated its links and skill metadata - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented the 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 merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f96a1e6406 |
refactor(skills): keep test audit evidence in tasks and PRs (#16833)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents that perform work. > - The test-audit skill guides test maintenance. > - Its Paperclip reference tells agents to commit audit receipts under doc/plans/. > - This adds repository documents to small test cleanups, as seen in #16639. > - This change keeps audit decisions and validation evidence in the task and PR description. > - Test gardening creates no repository documentation unless a human asks for it. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Where is the issue?** `.agents/skills/test-audit/references/paperclip.md`, with related reporting instructions in the entry point, campaign guide, and validation reference. Related example: #16639. **What's wrong?** The skill requires repository audit receipts. A six-line test deletion in #16639 added an 88-line report under doc/plans/. The task and PR already provide a place for this evidence. **Suggested fix** Keep the evidence in the task and a concise PR description. Require an explicit human request before changing repository documentation during test gardening. ## What Changed - Removed the instruction to commit dated audit receipts under doc/plans/. - Added the reporting rule to the skill entry point. - Directed campaign ledgers and plans to the task. - Kept the existing coverage, validation, and delivery requirements. ## Verification - Skill validation passed with `quick_validate.py` from the skill-creator tool. - `git diff --check` passed. - Read the entry point and all bundled references to check for conflicting reporting instructions. - This change edits skill instructions only. Repo-wide typecheck, runtime tests, and build were not run locally. - [PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39253050703) passed on head `d0b68db878fa4da83858da5f74fd25e6120723b5`, including typecheck, test suites, build, and E2E checks. - Greptile reviewed that head at 5/5 with no open findings. ## Risks - Evidence must remain accessible in the task and PR. The instructions still require decisions, keepers, commands, results, and limitations. - An installed copy needs a refresh to receive this source change. An operator can also apply the rule in the agent and routine instructions immediately. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed. Used repository search, instruction editing, and shell validation. ## 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 (skill validation; no runtime changes) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable to this instruction edit) - [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
|
1d24bd8e47 |
docs(skills): add fix-failed-paperclip-run workflow (#16830)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Failed or stalled tasks need a repair that restores useful work without weakening execution safety. > - The existing diagnosis skill stops at a plan and relies on private historical task links. > - A repair can pass a narrow test while still failing in the deployed runtime or permitting duplicate work. > - This PR adds a task repair workflow with failing-before/passing-after evidence, safety tests, real workflow verification, and PR checks. > - The old skill name remains usable and preserves explicit diagnosis-only or caller approval limits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Outdated documentation. **Where is the issue?** `.agents/skills/diagnose-why-work-stopped/SKILL.md`. **What's wrong?** The skill requires a plan approval even when implementation is authorized. Its private task links do not provide usable guidance to other contributors. It does not carry a repair through regression proof, second-order checks, real workflow verification, and a green PR. **Suggested fix** Add `fix-failed-paperclip-run` and route the old name to it. Keep the failure patterns self-contained. Keep explicit diagnosis-only requests and the Terminal-Bench caller's approval boundary effective. Related: #7658 established the maintainer skill location. A search for the old and new skill names found no competing task-repair skill PR. ## What Changed - Added a workflow from incident evidence through a verified repair and current-head PR checks. - Added eight standalone failure patterns with behavioral test oracles and common verification traps. - Replaced the old plan-only workflow with a compatibility entry point. Preserved issue-tree classification and the three liveness invariants. - Distinguished PR readiness, deployment, and recovery of the original task. Reuse an existing sufficient fix instead of creating a duplicate patch. ## Verification - Rename commit `b979b632ee8f1ef57f1e7d6c37c711d1c83f5844`: both skill validators, local reference checks, and whitespace checks pass. CI and review are pending for this commit. - The standard skill validator passes for both skill entry points. - All Markdown references resolve. Referenced repository workflows exist. The new files contain no historical task IDs, private URLs, or machine-specific paths. - `git diff --check` passes. - Manually reviewed scenarios for an existing merged fix, unknown historical cause, unsafe duplicate execution, live-only failure, explicit diagnosis-only scope, and the Terminal-Bench approval boundary. This is instruction review, not a live agent evaluation. - Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. All stopped before execution because pnpm could not fetch and verify the pinned version in the sandbox. This worktree also has no installed repository dependencies. No runtime pass is claimed from these attempts. - No product code changed. At head `90ee31270420d2dac20dc3a41b12cddb5134d6ec`, 55 PR checks passed and 2 were skipped. Typecheck, tests, build, and the aggregate verification gate passed in CI. Greptile is 5/5 with no inline findings or unresolved review threads. ## Risks - The old skill now continues into implementation when a fix is authorized. Its explicit scope rule preserves diagnosis-only requests and approval requirements from callers. - This change is workflow guidance. Structural validation and scenario review do not prove how a future agent will execute it on a live incident. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6-astra`, with tool-assisted history inspection, repository review, and Markdown authoring. The context window size is 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 (skill validation; repository-wide commands could not start, as noted above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no runtime behavior changed) - [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
|
ad9f5edd49 |
docs: teach readable trace waterfall design (#16798)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators use traces to find slow work and explain task execution. > - The Honeycomb skill explains how to find traces and add spans. > - It gives little guidance on how a trace should read when its branches collapse. > - This pull request adds semantic grouping and lifecycle ownership guidance. > - The benefit is a clear overview that preserves useful detail for diagnosis. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #16453, which added this skill. Refs #16419, which added execution preparation and response spans. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The Honeycomb tracing skill under `.agents/skills/honeycomb-tracing/`. **What's wrong?** A trace can contain accurate timings but remain hard to read when most spans share one parent. Local tests can also miss incorrect parentage in exported traces, especially on failure. **Suggested fix** Explain how to group operations by purpose, preserve real parent contexts, and inspect both collapsed and expanded exported traces. Keep the current Observability contract as the source for exact span names and root boundaries. ## What Changed - Add trace design to the skill description and task routing. - Define readable phases, meaningful folds, and real parent contexts. - Add a reference with staging examples, failure and concurrency pitfalls, and checks for exported traces. - Preserve useful measurements and documented links between separate lifecycles. - Update the skill's display description. ## Verification - Passed the skill creator's `quick_validate.py` check. - Checked local Markdown references and skill metadata. - Passed `git diff --check` after rebase onto current master. - All 55 current-head GitHub checks passed. This includes application build, TypeScript and Rust checks, general and serialized tests, runner checks, browser E2E shards, and canary packaging. - Greptile scored commit `714560594b69fb08afe7eb9fff42afef4a38e49a` at 5/5. It found no actionable issues. There are no unresolved review threads. - Local skill validation, reference checks, metadata checks, and whitespace checks passed. The full local application checks did not finish: the cold native runner build was stopped after the full CI suite passed. Full application verification was completed in CI. ## Risks Low risk. This change updates skill instructions only. An agent could apply an example tree too rigidly. The reference states that examples do not replace the current Observability contract. It preserves documented linked roots and scope limits for verification. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with `xhigh` reasoning. Codex used local tools to inspect session evidence, edit Markdown and YAML, and run validation. The host does not expose the context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (skill validation, references, and metadata; application checks passed in CI) - [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
|
7a8b358365 |
docs: add Honeycomb tracing skill (#16453)
Document how to find, configure, and interpret Paperclip application and CI traces in Honeycomb. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
13e5128164 |
docs: preserve runtime and verification lessons (#16379)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane shares execution capacity across requests and agent orchestration. > - A dependency can return a small value while doing slow or repeated work underneath. > - Tests can check that value while mocks hide the behavior that affects other work. > - A later passing retry can also leave an earlier material failure unexplained. > - This pull request records general rules for dependency work, verification, and acceptance. > - The benefit is a durable review habit that applies beyond the runner incident. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15683. Refs #16335. The staging runner incident exposed a gap in how we establish the operational cost of a dependency call. The original platform check read a small field from a process report. The call could block shared execution, and value-focused mocks did not exercise that behavior. The fix replaced that probe with bounded asynchronous work. This proposal addresses the reasoning and evidence gap, without assigning blame or prescribing one API or timeout for future work. The acceptance guidance also preserves material failures after a retry passes. It does not assert that every earlier test failure had the same cause as this incident. Related proposal checked: #14275 covers release sign-off templates. This PR covers implementation assumptions and verification evidence. ## What Changed - Add a scoped rule for dependency work in server, adapter, and runner execution paths. Cover blocking, repetition, cost growth, cancellation, and the effect on unrelated work. - Require evidence that can disprove the consequential assumption introduced by a change. Identify behavior removed by mocks and exercise the relevant boundary. - Register the rule in the Greptile manifest with matching path scope. Existing `AGENTS.md` instructions route coding agents to matching rules. - Add failure preservation to the verification skill. Link it from the repository-wide PR review rule. Keep recovery and resolution distinct. - Include examples and exceptions so cosmetic edits and ordinary pure transformations do not acquire unnecessary test requirements. ## Verification - Passed `git diff --check` and the repository PR template and duplicate-search validators. - Passed a local Python structural check: manifest JSON parses; rule globs and Greptile scopes match; seven representative runtime paths match; five unrelated paths do not; the evidence link and heading resolve; existing agent and reviewer loading instructions are present. - Manually applied the rule to a network-filesystem configuration getter, a repeated remote permission check, and an already-loaded map lookup. The first two need evidence about their new dependency risk. The last does not require fault testing by default. - Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. The installed pnpm launcher could not fetch registry data to verify the requested pnpm version. Using the cached project version reached typecheck, which failed because workspace dependencies are absent (`@types/node` missing). Tests and build remain unverified locally. - Greptile reviewed commit `e56d1ec70f3ebffe697b35cc637975b8d8198681` at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. CI is still running. These structural checks establish instruction wiring, not future compliance by an agent or reviewer. ## Risks - The main risk is adding ceremony to low-risk edits. The rule limits requests to concrete risks introduced by changed behavior and explicitly exempts unrelated work. - Instructions depend on contributors and reviewers reading and applying them. This change adds no automated runtime regression gate. - No application behavior, schema, dependency, lockfile, or workflow changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID, context window, and configured reasoning effort are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, shell tools, and patch editing. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details available in this session) - [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 (guidance-only change; structural validation described above) - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
739f9e40a4 |
docs(skills): add slow-query diagnosis and fix skill (#16303)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage agents that work across tasks and services. > - Slow pages and background work can come from expensive or repeated database queries. > - The query often starts in the Paperclip app while its evidence lives in Paperclip Cloud, Neon, and application logs. > - A useful fix must reproduce the slow SQL locally and preserve its complete results and user behavior. > - The procedure also needs to measure any exceptional migration on a database of realistic size. > - This pull request gives contributors a repeatable skill for that work and for carrying the fix through PR checks. > - The benefit is a clear, measured handoff with fewer query regressions and fewer risky migration proposals. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `.agents/skills/` has no shared procedure for diagnosing and fixing slow Paperclip queries across Cloud and Neon. **What's wrong?** A contributor must reconstruct the path from a slow workspace to its database, capture the service's actual SQL, reproduce it locally, compare complete results, and track the PR through review and CI. That makes it easy to mistake cumulative statistics for a recent request trace or a faster but changed result for a valid fix. **Suggested fix** Add a project skill that covers discovery, baseline and treatment benchmarks, regression checks, migration constraints, and PR follow-through. Related work: #16278, #16286, and #16291 supplied the query cases and local benchmark lessons. No existing slow-query skill PR or issue appeared in the duplicate search. ## What Changed - Add `fix-slow-queries` with a bounded workflow from Cloud discovery to a reviewed PR. - Add references for locating the right Neon database and for measuring full service SQL against complete output comparisons on disposable PostgreSQL. - Require a serious reason for migrations, prohibit boot-time migration workarounds, and require production-size timing and escalation for slow migrations. ## Verification - Run the skill-creator `quick_validate.py` against `.agents/skills/fix-slow-queries`: passed. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test`: 5 files, 20 tests passed, including the repo-wide skill-description budget check. - Check all five local Markdown links, metadata length, final newlines, and whitespace: passed. - Run `git diff --check`: passed. - Review the documented procedure against the cases in #16278, #16286, and #16291: baseline helper isolation, large JSON, older deep links, and latest-commit PR checks are covered. - This change adds instructions only. It changes no database schema or runtime behavior. ## Risks - Provider menus and private Cloud file locations may change. The skill requires contributors to verify the current stack mapping and owning repository before using them. - Synthetic benchmarks do not establish deployed latency. The skill requires a fresh deployed measurement when rollout is authorized. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with tool use and code execution. The served model variant and context window were not exposed to this task. ## 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
|
5498e8ba64 |
docs(skills): add maintenance bot setup workflow (#16279)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents, skills, and routines support recurring repository maintenance. > - Setting up that work requires choices about the instance, agent, credentials, repository, and trigger. > - A repeatable setup procedure must preserve those choices and verify saved configuration. > - This pull request adds a skill that configures maintenance bots for any selected maintenance task. > - Each run creates useful PRs and revises them until required checks pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16211 for the test-audit skill that can serve as one maintenance task. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The repository skill library lacks a procedure for setting up a code maintenance agent and routine. **What's wrong?** Users must compose agent selection, skill delivery, scheduling, workspace access, and PR follow-up themselves. The setup must also work through the browser when API access fails. **Suggested fix** Add a standalone setup skill with API guidance and reusable maintenance-run instructions. Support existing agents and new hires. Support scheduled, webhook, and manual triggers. ## What Changed - Add `setup-code-maintenance-bot` with instance and agent selection. - Document harness, provider, AI account, repository, skill, and trigger choices. - Add API setup guidance, browser fallback, paused setup, and saved-field verification. - Add a generic run template with work limits, duplicate-PR checks, and PR revision until current-head checks pass. - Keep private run-to-PR mappings on Paperclip execution issues. Publish internal references only when the target repository permits them. - Add skill UI metadata. ## Verification - Skill frontmatter validator passed. - Relative links, JSON examples, UI metadata, and whitespace checks passed. - Compared API shapes and authorization rules with Paperclip source. - No live agent or routine was created. No maintenance trial was run. - Local application typecheck, Vitest, and build were not run for this Markdown/YAML-only change. - Repository CI and automated review will run on this PR. ## Risks Low code risk. The change adds instructions and metadata only. API details can differ by deployment. The skill requires discovery from the selected instance and verification of saved settings before activation. Browser setup must preserve the same permissions and approval rules. Live setup remains untested. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, tool use, and file editing. The exact deployment model ID 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 - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (skill/document validation; application suites were not run) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no application behavior changed) - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
433d94ee0b |
refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID 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 on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
393d1c4108 |
docs(skills): add standalone test-audit workflow (#16211)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Repository skills guide agents through engineering work. > - Test gardening must preserve useful regression coverage while reducing repeated work. > - Contributors need a local procedure for evidence, validation, and delivery. > - This pull request adds a standalone test-audit skill with a short entry point and focused guides. > - The procedure supports focused cleanups and coordinated audits without requiring an external skill checkout. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The repository has no standalone `.agents/skills/test-audit/` procedure on master. **What's wrong?** Test audits need consistent rules for retaining contracts, proving removal safety, recording cost evidence, and tracking stacked delivery. **Suggested fix** Add a self-contained skill with candidate evidence, validation, campaign, and Paperclip delivery guides. Preserve upstream attribution. Related audit work: Refs #15978, Refs #16022, Refs #16197. The duplicate search found no standalone skill PR. This docs change does not duplicate planned core features in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Add a short test-audit entry point and agent metadata. - Require contract and keeper evidence before removing tests. Apply an authoring gate to added or changed tests. - Define targeted and exhaustive campaign modes, a second review of redundant layers, and full keeper dependency checks. - Document matched baselines, intended-failure controls, selection checks, honest cost claims, and current-head delivery gates. - Add Paperclip commands and invariants. Retain OpenClaw attribution and its MIT notice. ## Verification - The skill frontmatter validator passed with cached PyYAML. - Agent metadata YAML parsed. The default prompt names `$test-audit`. - All eight relative Markdown links resolve. All seven delivery files matched the reviewed source. - `git diff --check` passed. The PR contains only seven Markdown/YAML skill files. - An independent scenario review checked the campaign completion and coverage rules. - Local application typecheck, full Vitest, and build were not run for this documentation-only change. Fresh current-head CI passed: 55 successful checks and two expected skips on `1a9af8ffacd532882f0a01bac8ab3f5063ab9cd9`. - E2E shard 8/8 was interrupted after its assertions passed. A single same-head job retry passed. The interruption cause was not exposed. - Greptile reviewed the current head at 5/5 with no actionable findings. There are no review threads. The PR has no merge conflicts and remains open as requested. ## Risks - Low runtime risk. This PR changes contributor instructions only. - Agents can misapply audit evidence. The skill requires valid keepers and preservation proof, rejects keeper cycles, and makes incomplete audits explicit. - CI routing can change. The guide requires readers to inspect current repository files. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6 wrote and tightened the skill. Its exact deployment model ID and context-window size are unavailable. Independent scenario review and PR delivery used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, repository inspection, and tool execution. The context-window size was not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
252d9b5077 |
docs(storybook): record verification routes for missing examples (#16167)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product capabilities and verification journeys. > - The Storybook catalog links existing examples to those capabilities. > - A capability without a story can need UI examples, CLI checks, or browser checks. > - This pull request records the required verification surface for all 60 current gaps. > - The next Storybook pass can add useful examples without claiming backend proof from mocks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16154. Reconciles the new task-notification capability from #16153. The related PR search found no duplicate of this classification pass. This change follows the merged association corrections. It does not add product behavior or duplicate a roadmap feature. ## What Changed - Add `maps/storybook-map/VERIFICATION.md` with all 60 unassociated capabilities: 49 UI example gaps, eight CLI/operator operations, and three browser verification boundaries. - Record required UI states, separate production checks, source links, and existing test starting points. Keep execution marked not run. - Link the record from the catalog contract. Tell the maintenance skill to keep its rows, counts, and source revision current. - Regenerate the feature index for personal task notifications. Refresh only the inspected recipe/index-dependent review fingerprints. Retain all 223 suites, 2,212 authored IDs, associations, and classifications. - Record the targeted association revisit. It found no additional justified links. ## Verification - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - All 27 catalog, feature-index, and map structural tests passed. - The maintenance skill validator passed. - A source check confirmed that the 60 unique rows match all non-guide association gaps. All report, contract, and skill file links exist. - `git diff --check` passed. - Inspect the eight CLI/operator rows and three browser rows. UI/API capabilities retain both obligations. - Full repository typecheck, tests, build, Storybook build, and live product journeys were not run locally for this documentation and generated-data change. No live proof is claimed. - Final head `a9ef9e8ebc1f41bb7047142704655d08b3e47be7`: all 57 checks/statuses are green (55 successful, two Storybook jobs skipped). Greptile approved this head at 5/5. The review finding is resolved and the PR is mergeable. ## Risks - This source inventory can become stale as capabilities or associations change. The maintenance skill requires refreshing its rows and source revision. - Existing test links identify starting points. They do not certify complete or passing production coverage. - There is no migration, permission change, product behavior change, story removal, or new visual baseline. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with source review, documentation, and checks. It used shell tools and read-only area agents. The runtime did not expose an exact backend model revision 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
69f4bfc3c5 |
docs: add external bot integration skill (#16181)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External agents need a connection, a work lifecycle, and clear authority. > - The Dot integration exposed gaps in setup, idle work, recovery, and Cloud delivery. > - Future integrations need a practical procedure that preserves those lessons. > - This pull request adds a core skill and six focused reference documents. > - The skill gives contributors concrete prompts, test cases, and failure diagnostics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** Repository contributor skills for external agent integration. **What's wrong?** The integration process has no single reusable guide for provider discovery, both work directions, setup, managed Runner execution, and live proof. Lessons from Dot are spread across implementation changes. **Suggested fix** Add `create-external-bot-integration` under `.agents/skills`. Keep the core workflow short. Put detailed contracts, examples, tests, diagnostics, and dated evidence in references. Related public implementation: Refs #15402, #15414, #15581, #15691, #15722, #15734. A search found no duplicate skill PR. ## What Changed - Add a core skill for external agents and its Codex interface metadata. - Add references for the release contract, Runner architecture, onboarding, qualification tests, deployment, and the Dot case study. - Include idle intake, native tool use, scoped authority, receipt recovery, and resource cleanup. - Mark provider facts and code paths as dated evidence. Use public PRs for the source trail. - Change only eight files under `.agents/skills/create-external-bot-integration`. ## Verification - Skill validator: passed. - Interface metadata, Markdown fences, and 49 local links and anchors: passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - PR file scope: verified that all eight paths are inside the skill folder. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed in the isolated worktree. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/skills-catalog packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts`: 10 tests passed after the description-budget fix. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` attempt reported 12 native-session lease test failures. It is not a passing full-suite result. One isolated lease case passed. The PR changes no runtime files. - Final commit `bd7aed82f623ee279c800af2b8b87f7bedd6be5c`: all GitHub checks completed, with 55 success results and 2 skipped results. - Greptile reviewed that exact commit at 5/5. There are no open review threads. ## Risks - Provider behavior and code paths can change. The skill requires current code and official documentation checks before use. - The case study describes one integration campaign. It does not claim that every provider supports the same transport or capabilities. - This change adds contributor instructions and metadata. It changes no application code or database schema. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, filesystem access, shell tools, and code review support. The exact serving endpoint ID 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 - [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
|
5e8e992df2 |
fix(storybook): reconcile capability associations and map omissions (#16154)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The feature map describes user capabilities and verification recipes. > - Storybook holds isolated examples of those capabilities. > - Missing catalog links can hide existing examples. > - Some stories also expose shipped capabilities absent from the map. > - This pull request adds verified source associations and three paired map entries. > - Readers can find existing examples without changing their homes or URLs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16052, #16049 and #16046. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook capability lookup and the feature/agent access maps. **Current behavior** Seventy capabilities have no example link. Some matching stories already exist. Primary-agent preferences and company decision/fast-response services appear only under broad neighboring capabilities. **Proposed behavior** Add source-supported links across 34 suites. Keep shared foundations in place while cross-listing them. Add primary-agent, decision-model and fast-response capabilities to both upstream maps. Retain explicit simulation and partial-example limits. **Reason and benefit** The catalog distinguishes missing associations from missing examples. The upstream map describes three existing product capabilities more precisely. **Breaking changes** None to product behavior, story exports, folders, sidebar titles or URLs. A shared foundation can declare a reasoned `home: "foundations"` override while referencing related capabilities. ## What Changed - Add 55 references across 34 suites. Replace primary-agent suites' reporting-line association with their own capability. - Add three source-reviewed capabilities and their API/actor boundaries to paired maps. - Preserve the shared Foundations home when cross-listing developer design examples. Add a validation regression test. - Record which exports demonstrate each association and what remains simulated or unverified. - Regenerate the catalog and capability data. Preserve all original 223 authored suites and 2,210 story IDs. Retain the two skill-removal stories added by current master, for 2,212 authored stories in total. - Reduce empty example lookups from 70 of 171 capabilities to 59 of 174. Links do not establish complete capability coverage. ## Verification - Passed: 27 catalog/generator/map tests, catalog validation, map structural checks, token gates and skill validation. - Passed: source inventory comparison preserves all authored files, titles, meta IDs and story IDs. - Passed: repository typecheck/build and Storybook build. Final built index has 2,248 entries and preserves all previous entries, including the two skills stories added by current master. - The broad local repository test run was interrupted before completion to resolve a new master conflict. A complete local suite pass is not claimed; fresh CI passed on the reconciled branch. - Browser: Design links to preserved Foundations stories; company-service sections link settings/history/journey suites; decision SetupToHistory passed 12 interaction steps; primary-agent ReplacePrimary passed four steps. No console errors in selected checks. - Greptile: 5/5 on final commit `805a8af62abe589907e7cc6ca1b415ce1e0cc3c0`, with no findings or unresolved threads. - Final-revision CI passed all 57 checks/statuses, including all eight browser shards, server and Runner tests, typecheck and build. The unchanged Cloud-auth mocked-response race seen on a superseded revision did not recur on the final commit. No test expectations were changed. - New agent-access evidence is source-only. Live provider and agent-credential verification is not established. ## Risks - Suite-level associations can represent only selected states. Notes retain those limits and existing review classifications. - In-memory connection drafts do not prove reload persistence. Resume-failure UI does not prove successful continuation. No-op budget controls do not prove relief or resumption. - Three map capabilities document existing behavior. No permission, API, provider or production component changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution and source inspection. The exact runtime model ID and context window 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 - [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
|
fd61dc1dd5 |
docs(skills): distinguish Paperclip verification targets (#16145)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Verification must show which runtime and user journey passed. > - The existing skill centers on an empty instance launched from source. > - Seeded data, reused databases, published packages, and hosted stacks prove different outcomes. > - This pull request makes the target and starting conditions explicit. > - It routes deployment to private Cloud skills and keeps feature checks in Verify Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `.agents/skills/verify-paperclip/SKILL.md`. **What's wrong?** The skill does not distinguish source development, npm installation, staging, and production. It also needs to distinguish fresh onboarding from seeded or reused data and make platform scope explicit. **Suggested fix** Add target selection and focused references. Preserve the existing empty-instance helper. Name the private Cloud deployment skills as a separate prerequisite when deployment is requested. No duplicate documentation PR was found in the open-PR search. ## What Changed - Record artifact, environment, starting data, platform, and journey before testing. - Document dev servers, fresh instances, seeded/reused test drives, and cloned worktrees. - Separate exact-version canary and stable npm verification from source and Cloud evidence. - Document staging and production checks and route deployment to `deploy-paperclip-stack` or `deploy-cloud-harness` in the private Cloud repo. - Limit local ownership helpers to instances created by their launcher. ## Verification - Current-head GitHub CI: 55 passed, 2 skipped, no failures. Typecheck, tests, build, and the aggregate gate passed. Greptile: 5/5, all threads resolved. - Skill validator: passed. - Relative Markdown file links: passed across the changed skills and references (29 links in final validation). - `python3 -m unittest discover -s .agents/skills/verify-paperclip/tests -v`: 2 passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed (structural coverage only). - `git diff --check`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`: attempted; blocked by missing workspace dependencies (`node_modules`, Node type definitions, and the checkout tsx entry point). These are not passing full-suite results. - Existing published-launcher test attempt was blocked by sandbox loopback permissions; it does not provide package-install evidence. - Reviewed commands against development docs, release workflow, and current Cloud runbooks. No live deployment, publication, or production mutation was performed for these documentation changes. ## Risks - Low runtime risk: only skill documentation changes. - Private deployment skills require access to the Cloud repo and must be available before that handoff works. The verifier reports the prerequisite when unavailable. - Workflow changes can make command guidance stale. The skills direct readers to maintained workflows and runbooks before use. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, file editing, shell execution, and GitHub CLI access. The runtime does not expose a more specific model 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 #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (the focused ownership suite; full-suite limits are listed above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no runtime change; existing tests retained) - [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> |
||
|
|
9bd820e687 |
feat(storybook): mirror the complete feature-map index (#16052)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes its user-facing capabilities and verification recipes. > - Storybook provides isolated UI examples for those capabilities. > - The previous organization showed only features with primary story suites. > - This pull request derives the complete Storybook index from the upstream map. > - Readers can find the same features in both places and see related examples or explicit gaps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16046 and #16049. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook navigation and the downstream feature catalog. **Current behavior** The sidebar has 28 primary feature homes. The feature map lists 35. The main guide groups suites alphabetically by area slug. Related examples can live under a different feature. **Proposed behavior** Use the feature map's eight sections and 35 features in the same order. Give each feature an Overview page with all its capabilities, related example links, and missing-example messages. Keep shared foundations outside the product index. Preserve all existing stories and URLs. **Reason and benefit** Readers can move between the feature map and Storybook without learning a second index. A feature without cataloged examples remains visible. **Breaking changes** None to existing story IDs or product behavior. Storybook start and build now reject stale generated feature pages and ordering. Run the catalog generator after upstream changes, inspect the output, and review affected source fingerprints. ## What Changed - Generate 35 feature Overview stories and capability data from the upstream map. Generate the inline sidebar order required by Storybook. - Replace the main guide with the full ordered feature index and search. Link all related suites from feature pages, even across primary homes. - Preserve all 223 authored files, 2,210 story IDs, and the existing docs ID. Keep status, implementation, and fixture classifications visible. - Put the generated Markdown catalog in feature-map order. Keep generated guides outside example counts. - Update maintenance and review skills, documentation, and generator tests. Keep the feature map independent of Storybook. ## Verification - Passed: 16 catalog and generator tests; map checks; token gates; both skill validators. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and the Storybook build. - Built-index comparison preserved all 2,211 previous entries and added only 35 feature overviews. Feature order matches the map. - Browser: inspected the complete index and sidebar, searched for Goals, opened its overview, and followed a related suite under Projects. The original suite renders. - Passed: all 8,170 UI tests in 728 files. Browser checks also covered empty search, capability-ID search, missing-example pages, the original editable-text bookmark, the CLI sidebar label, and searching/opening shared foundations. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after a failure in the unchanged GitHub chat test `authorizes description edits as the editor, never inheriting the original author's access`. That exact test passed alone without code or expectation changes. A complete local repository suite pass is not established. - Original revision CI passed after one runner retry. The merged revision `5ca01c70716f23974680a8019ddc613035d11bc4` passed fresh CI. Local UI typecheck, catalog checks, 16 generator tests, map checks and token gates pass. - Greptile: 5/5 on final commit `5ca01c70716f23974680a8019ddc613035d11bc4`, with all findings resolved. - Master merge: inspected source drift in 61 catalog entries and regenerated INDEX, preserving upstream notes. Marked the sidebar suite that mounts IssueDetail unreviewed for the new activity query; recorded limits for composer and channel-default changes. No stories removed. - Final Storybook build passed. Browser filename searches for `new-task-composer` and `forms-editors` return the expected feature and shared example. - No visual-baseline or full production acceptance claim. The deeper authored scenario groups remain intact. ## Risks - The parser depends on the feature-map Markdown contract. It rejects unknown index rows, omitted feature recipes, and unexpected generated files. - A suite can reference several capabilities. A link proves catalog association, not complete behavior coverage or production parity. - Storybook treats `/` as a folder separator. Sidebar labels use a comma for that character; the guide and page headings retain the upstream name. - No database, API, authorization, or production component changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact runtime model ID and context window 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 - [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: copilot-swe-agent[bot] <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
88bf4c6c1d |
refactor(storybook): organize folders and navigation by feature map (#16049)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product areas and verification entry points. > - Storybook has 223 story suites that show production components, proposals, and retained history. > - The parent PR maps those suites to features, but their folders and sidebar still use unrelated groups. > - This pull request puts the existing suites under feature folders and uses the feature map's names and order in the sidebar. > - Explicit meta IDs preserve existing story links while the titles change. > - Contributors can find stories through the same product structure without losing examples. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16046. This is the requested follow-up. Parent #16046 is merged. This PR now targets master, with its single follow-up commit rebased onto the parent squash merge. The Storybook implementation is unchanged by that rebase. Related open Storybook PRs were checked; this change organizes existing suites and adds no product capability. ## What Changed - Move all 223 story files into folders named for their primary feature area. Keep useful scenario groups below the feature's sidebar label. - Order the sidebar by the eight feature-map sections. Put Overview first and shared Foundations last. Leave areas with no stories out of the sidebar. - Move 19 support files into `ui/storybook/support/` and update relative imports and active documentation. - Preserve all 2,210 story IDs and the single docs ID through explicit CSF meta IDs. Keep all entry names and story exports. - Record stable IDs and sidebar titles in the downstream catalog. Validate feature folders, title prefixes, and IDs. Update the maintenance skill and review evidence. ## Verification - Storybook build passed. Built index comparison against parent `75bd3c977cd828d5222823850339e8204f40eb47` found the same 2,211 entries, IDs, and names. - UI typecheck passed (`ui/node_modules/.bin/tsc -b` from `ui`, invoked as `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`). - UI Vitest project: 728 files and 8,176 tests passed. - Catalog checker and its nine tests passed. Feature-map checks, token gates, and the maintenance-skill validator passed. - Chromium: nine existing play cases and one render case reached `storyFinished: success` with no page exceptions. The guide rendered, sidebar sections followed map order, and a search for `steering/queue` opened its preserved story link. - Source comparison found only meta title/ID changes, rebased relative references, and updated fixture path text in story files. - To inspect: build Storybook, start `node scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs --port 6136`, and open the Overview guide. Expand feature folders and use existing story links. - The complete repository suite was not repeated for this organization change. The parent records a backend timeout that passed in isolation, without a complete broad-suite pass. Visual comparisons remain blocked by the unpublished empty baseline. The separate fixture-server story was not run. ## Risks - Open branches that add stories under old paths will need to choose a feature folder and update the catalog. Cross-feature suites have one primary home and retain related capability references. - Sidebar paths change; story and docs IDs remain stable. Automated references to source paths may need the new location. - This is one requested follow-up with 258 changed files, mostly moves. It exceeds the usual review-size guideline because splitting it would leave the sidebar and folder convention partly migrated. - Browser verification samples ten stories, not all 2,210. Existing production/prototype classifications and review gaps remain unchanged. - Required CI gates and a 5/5 review passed on the original head. Fresh checks and review are running for the rebased head. Catalog validation and all nine checker tests passed after rebase; UI, map, skill, and checker contents are identical to the original reviewed head. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and local browser automation. ## 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
|
9e721264e9 |
feat: maintain Storybook through a downstream feature catalog (#16046)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Storybook supports review of its production UI and proposed designs. > - Its 223 story files have no consistent link to product capabilities or record of component and mock provenance. > - Old compositions can drift while they still look like current product examples. > - This pull request adds two maintenance skills and a catalog that consumes the existing feature map. > - The first audit preserves all stories and fixes proven fixture drift. > - Contributors can now find examples by feature and see what still needs review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook maintenance, feature discovery, and the accuracy of isolated UI examples. **Current behavior** Stories are already centralized under `ui/storybook/`, but their sidebar has 51 top-level groups. Production components, local prototypes, and historical designs are not consistently distinguished. The old guide uses manual coverage claims. GitHub searches found no duplicate feature-map catalog change. **Proposed behavior** Keep existing story locations and IDs. Add a downstream catalog keyed to stable feature capabilities. Record product status, rendered subject, data boundary, and declared review dependencies separately. Use dedicated maintenance and review skills to reconcile drift and report evidence. **Reason and benefit** The catalog makes existing examples reusable without treating mock behavior or old designs as production acceptance. The feature map remains independent of Storybook. ## What Changed - Add `maintain-storybook` and `review-storybook` skills with contributor guidance. - Inventory all 223 story files. Generate a feature index and provide searchable navigation in the existing Overview story. Track direct subjects through relative imports and local wrappers, including the primitives demonstrated by foundation suites. - Add a checker for inventory, capability references, duplicate IDs, and declared-source drift, with eight regression tests. The parser test covers real nested CSF files, export filters, explicit IDs, and play counts. - Preserve historical designs and classify mixed wrappers. Record the initial audit and remaining parity work. - Align the question-dismiss/send fixture with production behavior. Add dismissal and confirmation-reopen regressions and repair the editor selector. - Exclude three exported fast-response fixtures from story discovery and add the missing render-time callback spy. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`, `node --test scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs` (8 tests), and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`. - Passed: validators for both new skills, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`. - Passed: final Storybook build; nine selected browser `play` cases; three fast-response render cases; feature-guide search/link navigation; question-fixture reset on reload. - Built-index comparison preserved all 2,208 original story IDs and added only two new regression cases. - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui` (728 files, 8,176 tests). - The full `pnpm test:run` has reported a 15-second timeout in the untouched backend case `connects advertised Workspace gmail.read without mutating definitions in authenticated`. The exact test passed standalone without changing code, expectations, or timeouts. The remaining broad run was stopped after this failure. The full suite is not verified. - Visual comparison is blocked by the existing empty baseline manifest. The managed-accounts API/DB fixture was not started. See `maps/storybook-map/REVIEW.md` for exact scope. ## Risks - This is an initial inventory and targeted audit. 188 suites still require deeper state and fixture parity review. - Review hashes cover declared dependencies. They do not follow all transitive production imports or prove semantic correctness. - The catalog requires upkeep when stories, mapped recipes, or declared subjects change. Shared mocks still need feature-by-feature contract review. - No production application source, database schema, or upstream feature-map contract changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. Used reasoning, shell tools, file editing, and Chromium browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window 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 - [ ] 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
|
7d9b93aee2 |
docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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
|
cc88b61c09 |
feat: add portable verification skills and refresh the feature map (#15983)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to select verification recipes. > - The repository needs separate skills to create a verifier, maintain recipes, and run checks. > - Shared recipes must match current routes, controls, and prerequisites. > - This pull request adds portable verification skills and updates the existing map. > - The benefit is a repeatable verification workflow with clear ownership and evidence limits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15288, which added the existing feature map. The related test cleanup in #15978 changes test ownership; this PR changes skill instructions and recipes. **Issue type** Missing documentation and outdated verification instructions. **Where is the issue?** The project-local skills in `.agents/skills/` and the recipes in `feature-map/`. **What's wrong?** The repository lacks the portable creation and maintenance skills. The verifier mixes live verification with map editing. Some recipes describe old controls or omit required flags, identities, and provider setup. **Suggested fix** Import the skills and their complete references from Paperclip's pstack fork. Keep the existing map in its current directory. Let the verifier read recipes and report drift. Let the maintenance skill update the map. ## What Changed - Add `create-verification-skill` and `maintain-verification-skill` from the portable fork of Poteto's pstack. Include invocation policies, all feature-map examples, self-contained attribution notices and the full MIT license in each skill folder. - Use the existing `feature-map/` directory and Poteto's recipe format. Omit the fork's separate runtime skill and runtime-skill dependencies because Paperclip supplies execution. - Add `verify-paperclip` with executable launch, readiness, onboarding, and cleanup helpers. Use isolated temporary data and separate evidence directories. - Make `verify-paperclip` consume the map and report recipe drift. Give map editing to `maintain-verification-skill`. - Review all 35 feature files and correct 30 recipes. Clarify routes, flags, current controls, persistence scope, and the limits of linked tests. - Remove the unrelated Conference Room flag change from the onboarding smoke helper. - Add a standard-library ownership test. It proves that doctor and stop reject a foreign checkout without stopping its live server. A delayed-exit fixture also proves cleanup waits for runtime exit. - Keep audit screenshots and scratch reports outside the repository. No product code, migrations, lockfile, or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed after rebase: metadata validation for all three skills, Python syntax and executable checks, JavaScript syntax, 35-entry map/index consistency, relative links, license preservation, and `git diff --check`. - Ran one isolated live audit before rebase. Checked task persistence, document upload/download bytes, goal hierarchy, project edits, search, local process Agent Chat, question replies, queued-message discard/stop, and a harmless loopback MCP call. - Checked local settings and draft flows. Synthetic cost events reached a small budget limit and paused the test agent. These checks do not prove external model quality or provider billing. - Checked cleanup of the audit server, database, local MCP fixture, and workspace service inventory. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Greptile: 5/5 on commit `4344ac4df7`. The cleanup finding is fixed and its review thread is resolved. A fresh review is pending for the notice relocation. - Passed: `python3 -m unittest discover -s .agents/skills/verify-paperclip/tests -v`. Both tests pass: the foreign fixture stayed alive after rejection, and owned cleanup waited for delayed runtime exit. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - All GitHub CI checks were green on commit `4344ac4df7`. The cloud-auth browser shard passed after one retry for a disposed mocked API response. The notice relocation passed skill metadata, relative-link, and license-preservation checks; fresh CI/review is pending. - The full local `pnpm test:run` did not complete. It was interrupted after nearly 30 minutes once the complete CI suite passed on the same commit. Exit code: 130. The new helper safety tests passed locally. The local full-suite checklist item stays unchecked. - Full live coverage is incomplete. Authenticated multi-user checks and external provider journeys need their own identities, credentials, and targets. - The corrected onboarding helper could not be re-tested after removing the flag mutation. Two fresh launches failed before server startup. Direct PostgreSQL initialization reported exhausted shared-memory IDs or limits. The host had free disk space. No host-wide limits or unrelated instances were changed. ## Risks - Recipe drift can return as the UI changes. The map records verification scope, not proof of a passed journey. - The new helpers assume a source checkout with installed dependencies, Python, Node, and `lsof`. The onboarding helper also needs Playwright. - The local audit found observations that need separate investigation: an action test returned fixture data while the connection control showed Off and native profiles existed; a failed status-card setup task left the card showing Setting up. Workspace service start also did not reach a running state. This PR does not change product behavior or redefine those outcomes as success. - The main audit trace did not finalize during browser shutdown. Screenshots, text captures, and iteration results were retained. - Live evidence was captured before rebase. The onboarding helper re-test and full provider/auth qualification remain incomplete. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, read-only source subagents, file edits, shell commands, and browser automation. ## 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 - [ ] 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
|
18989a9e73 |
docs: add eval guide, authoring skills, and public history hub (#13535)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its evaluations test both the Runner and complete product workflows. > - The guides and run histories are in separate places. > - The shared Evalbook viewer can make the test boundary unclear. > - This pull request names the two families and adds a guide, authoring skills, and a public hub. > - Contributors can choose the correct test and inspect its history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** Runner and Product E2E evaluation guides, case-authoring procedures, and public result navigation. **What's wrong?** There is no single entry point. A report format can be mistaken for an execution boundary. There are no dedicated case-authoring skills for these two families. **Suggested fix** Add a guide and three skills. Link both existing histories from a public hub. Keep existing campaign URLs and grading unchanged. ## What Changed - Add `doc/evals.md` and links from existing guides. - Add the `paperclip-evals`, `add-runner-eval`, and `add-product-e2e-eval` skills. Install copies in `~/paperclipai/.agents/skills`. - Add a static hub builder that reads the existing public history feeds. - Show a dated snapshot for each family. Label partial campaigns and preserve measurement dates across report refreshes. - Document publication and refresh commands for https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. ## Verification - Seven Python summary tests pass: `python3 -m unittest discover -s scripts/evals-hub -p 'test_*.py'`. Run these checks directly; this PR does not modify package scripts. - All three skills pass the skill-creator `quick_validate.py` check with `/usr/bin/python3`. - Build tested with saved history fixtures and the live public feeds. - Desktop and mobile browser checks pass. The mobile page has no horizontal overflow. - Published https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. Browser check: HTTP 200, no page errors, all eight links return HTTP 200, no mobile overflow. - Independent skill exercises found the existing Notion-decline case and a direct Runner permission-denial case. Roster validation with an explicit run ID passes. - Missing refresh measurement date: regression fails before the fix and passes after it. - `git diff --check` passes. - No paid evals were run for this documentation and reporting change. The preceding head passed typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, runner verification, browser E2E, and the canary dry run. Checks for the latest commit are pending. Local repository-wide typecheck, test, and build were not repeated because no product code changed. ## Risks The hub is a dated static snapshot. It can lag behind the linked histories until an operator refreshes it. A changed history schema stops the build. Existing archives and grades are not modified. The published guide link is pinned to the reviewed commit so branch deletion cannot break it. Later builds can use master. ## Model Used OpenAI gpt-6-astra for implementation and review. OpenAI gpt-5.6-luna for documentation and independent skill checks. Both used repository tools and code execution. Context window sizes are not exposed by 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (latest commit pending) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (preceding head was 5/5; latest commit pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f1d57863d2 |
fix: make connection checks and task handoffs reliable (#13404)
Preserve connection-probe outcomes through cleanup, reduce unrelated startup work, and report selected Claude authentication accurately. Make artifact download actions match their labels. Route delegated feedback through its active child, retain accepted messages across completion, and avoid redundant worker runs for proven closing notes. Preserve explicit follow-ups, human input, company boundaries, source provenance, and mixed issue references. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9132e8279f |
chore(skills): allow verified PR merges (#13313)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses repository skills to guide agent work. > - The PR preparation skill controls the pull request workflow. > - One hard rule prevents an agent from merging a verified pull request. > - The requested workflow must permit that action when other authority allows it. > - This pull request removes only that one rule. > - All other PR safety and review rules stay unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The `prepare-paperclip-pr` agent workflow. **Current behavior** The skill always prohibits the agent from merging a pull request itself. **Proposed behavior** The skill no longer adds that universal prohibition. Other permissions and workflow rules still apply. **Reason and benefit** An authorized workflow can merge a verified pull request without conflict with this skill. **Breaking changes** The skill no longer blocks every agent-initiated merge. ## What Changed - Remove the single universal no-merge rule from the PR preparation skill. ## Verification - Confirm the pull request changes one file and deletes one line. - Run `git diff --check` against the pull request commit. ## Risks - An agent can merge when its other instructions and permissions allow it. - Existing review, CI, and work-preservation rules remain in place. > 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, 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
890ab9acfe |
feat(release): thorough notes skeletons — nest each PR's summary at creation (#12124)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release workflow drafts the upcoming stable's notes skeleton the moment a beta publishes > - That skeleton was a bare list of commit subjects, so the notes only reached the shipped stable's depth after a later authoring pass during the soak > - Stable release notes are consistently verbose and thorough; the initial draft should start that way too > - This pull request nests each referenced PR's own summary under its subject line at creation time, and states the density bar in the authoring skill > - The benefit is a thorough raw document from day one of the soak, with no LLM tokens in Actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The `draft_stable_notes` skeleton generated at beta publish (`scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh`). **Current behavior** The skeleton groups bare commit subjects by conventional-commit type. All substance arrives later, when a maintainer or agent rewrites it — reviewed maintainer feedback: stable notes are a lot more verbose, and the initial beta notes should be consistent with that. **Proposed behavior** Each subject that references a PR carries that PR's own summary nested beneath it — the PR template's "What Changed" bullets, else the first prose lines — fetched best-effort via `gh` and skipped silently when unavailable. The release-changelog skill now states the density bar explicitly: the beta-keyed draft ships verbatim as the stable's notes and is written at the previous stable's depth from the first pass. **Reason and benefit** The notes author starts from a thorough raw document instead of a commit list, and beta-time notes match the verbosity the stable will ship with. ## What Changed - `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh`: `enrich_pr` nests PR summaries under subjects; best-effort (`gh` failure or `DRAFT_NOTES_SKIP_PR_ENRICHMENT=1` degrades to today's output); pipefail-safe when a "What Changed" section has no bullets. - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: the `draft_stable_notes` step gets `GH_TOKEN` so `gh` can read PR bodies. - `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`: "write at full stable depth from the first pass" guideline. - `scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs`: three new tests — enrichment rendering via a fake `gh`, silent degradation without one, and the sparse-body case that previously killed the script under `set -o pipefail`. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs` — 11 pass. - Live run against the real repository for the current beta (`2026.818.0-beta.1`, 172 commits): exit 0, 439 nested summary lines; spot-checked entries carry the correct PRs' What Changed bullets. - `bash -n` on the script; `release.yml` re-parsed as YAML. ## Risks - Low: the publish path is untouched; enrichment is read-only `gh` calls in the post-publish draft job and degrades to the current skeleton on any failure. Roughly one API call per commit in the range (~170 today) — well inside the token's rate budget, adds a couple of minutes to a job with a 10-minute timeout. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) ## Pre-submission 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
927ef58d04 |
docs(skills): changelog entries describe deltas, not repeats (#11663)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Stable release notes are drafted per release from the commit range
since the previous stable
> - Features evolve across consecutive releases, so a correct range
still produces entries that re-describe what the previous notes already
introduced
> - The first channel-train draft did exactly that for four themes, and
review caught it against the published previous changelog
> - This pull request adds the missing framing rule to the changelog
skill and mirrors it in the Discord skill
> - The benefit is that consecutive releases read as a progression
instead of repeating themselves
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The authoring guidance in `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`
and `.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`.
**Current behavior**
The skills define the range and the sections but say nothing about
features the previous stable's notes already introduced. A draft for a
follow-up release naturally re-describes them as if they debuted
(observed in the v2026.821.0 draft: the chat conversation view, sandbox
output streaming, the raised import cap, and the channel system — all
already announced in v2026.817.0's notes).
**Proposed behavior**
The changelog skill instructs the author to read the previous stable's
notes first and phrase already-introduced features as deltas ("last
release introduced X; this release makes it the default"), demoting
follow-through themes out of Highlights. The Discord skill's highlight
guidance mirrors the rule.
**Reason and benefit**
Consecutive changelogs read as a progression; readers of both releases
never see the same debut twice.
## What Changed
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`: a "describe deltas, not
repeats" guideline in Step 4, with the read-the-previous-notes
instruction and the headline-demotion rule.
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`: one
mirrored bullet in the template notes.
## Verification
- Docs-only; proofread. The rule matches the fix applied to the live
v2026.821.0 draft (#11661), which is the worked example of what it
prevents.
## Risks
- None; docs-only.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
664052f8ea |
feat(release): draft stable notes at beta publish, read them from master at promotion (#11567)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release channel system promotes builds canary → nightly → beta → stable, and stable releases publish a GitHub Release from `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` > - The stable lane requires that notes file to exist inside the promoted source commit, but the file is named for the promotion date, which is unknown when the source commit is created > - A promoted beta can therefore never pass the notes check: every happy-path stable is forced through the candidate-branch fix path, with a soak-gate justification, for a notes-only change > - This pull request drafts the notes automatically when the beta is published and lets the stable promotion read them from `master` > - The benefit is a walkable stable happy path: the soak gate stays exact, notes get a real review window during the soak, and the justification path returns to its real purpose (cherry-picked fixes) ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The stable promotion path in the release channel system (`release.yml`, `scripts/release.sh`). **Current behavior** `release.sh stable` requires `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` in the checked-out source tree, and `publish_stable` checks out the exact promoted SHA. The soak gate requires a `beta/v*` tag to point at that same SHA. No commit can satisfy both for a promoted beta, so a stable promotion must cut a candidate branch with a notes-only commit and bypass the soak gate with a written justification. Release notes are also written at promotion time, under time pressure, with no review window. **Proposed behavior** When a beta publishes, a `draft_stable_notes` job generates a grouped notes skeleton at `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` and pushes it to a machine-owned branch; a human opens the PR and edits it during the 3-day soak. The stable preflight resolves notes before the `npm-stable` approval gate: source-tree notes first (the candidate fix path, unchanged), then the merged beta-keyed file on `master`; it fails early with the missing path named when neither exists. After the stable ships, a canonicalization job pushes a branch that moves the file to `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`. Related (not duplicates): #11006 and #11008 introduced the nightly and beta lanes this builds on; older changelog PRs (for example #10669) authored notes manually at promotion time, which is the flow this replaces. **Reason and benefit** The happy path becomes: promote the exact soaked SHA, no justification, notes reviewed during the soak instead of written at the gate. The `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` invariant still holds durably via the canonicalization PR. ## What Changed - `scripts/release.sh`: new `--notes-file PATH` (stable only) overrides where the pre-publish notes check looks, so notes can live outside the source checkout without dirtying the worktree. - `scripts/create-github-release.sh`: same `--notes-file` override for the GitHub Release body. - `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh` (new): deterministic skeleton generator — commit subjects from the newest stable tag (falling back to the previous beta, then full history) to the beta's source commit, grouped into Features / Fixes / Other. - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: - `draft_stable_notes` job after `publish_beta`: runs the generator and force-pushes `release-notes/v<beta-version>`; the job summary links the compare page. It recreates the beta tag locally if the tag push was rejected (the known workflows-permission case), so drafting is not blocked on manual tag recovery. - `preflight_stable`: computes the target stable version (`release.sh stable --print-version`) and resolves the notes source (`source_tree` → `master_beta` → fail early / warn on dry run); new outputs. - `publish_stable`: materializes `master`-side notes into `RUNNER_TEMP` and passes `--notes-file` to both scripts; outputs the published stable version. - `canonicalize_stable_notes` job: pushes the `git mv` branch after a stable that used `master`-side notes. - `doc/RELEASING.md`, `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`: document the drafted-notes flow, the preflight resolution order, and the canonicalization step; the LLM changelog flow now targets the draft branch during the soak. - `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`, `.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`: the notes-authoring skills now describe this flow — range ends at the beta source commit (not `HEAD`), the file is beta-keyed on the `release-notes/v<beta-version>` branch (seeded with `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh` for betas that predate the automation), and the canonicalization link caveat is called out for announcements. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs` — 6 tests, temp git-repo fixtures: grouping, stable-tag range, previous-beta and full-history fallbacks, default output path, malformed version, missing tag. - `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs` — unchanged suite still green. - `bash -n` on both changed shell scripts; `release.yml` re-parsed as YAML. - `./scripts/release.sh stable --print-version` unchanged (prints the next stable version); `--notes-file` on a non-stable channel fails with a clear error. - Not exercised end-to-end: the new workflow jobs need a real beta publish to run. The first beta after merge is the live test; the draft job is additive and cannot affect the publish result (it runs after `publish_beta` completes). ## Risks - Low risk to publishing itself: `--notes-file` defaults preserve today's behavior everywhere; the draft and canonicalization jobs are additive and run after the publishes succeed. - The preflight now fails a real stable run when no notes are found. That is the intended fail-early behavior (it previously failed later, inside `publish_stable`, after the `npm-stable` approval). - `draft_stable_notes` force-pushes only the machine-owned `release-notes/v<beta-version>` branch; a beta re-cut regenerates it cleanly. - The stable version computed at preflight could differ from the published one if a run crosses UTC midnight between the two jobs; the materialized notes are passed by path, so the publish still succeeds, and the canonicalization job uses the actually-published version. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) ## Pre-submission 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
adfb357223 |
docs(skills): maintain the release-credits exclusion list (#11588)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Stable release notes end with a Contributors section that credits
community contributors
> - The release-changelog skill excluded founders from that list, but
had no rule for non-founder core contributors
> - A release-notes draft therefore credited two core contributors as
community contributors
> - This pull request makes the exclusion list canonical in the
changelog skill and adds the core contributors
> - The benefit is that release credits consistently mean "community",
with one list to maintain
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The Contributors rules in `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`
and the Community-section rules in
`.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`.
**Current behavior**
The changelog skill says to exclude "Paperclip founders (e.g.
`cryppadotta`, `forgottendev`, `devinfoley`, `sockmonster`,
`scotttong`)". Core contributors who are not founders are not covered,
so drafts credit them in the community list. The Discord skill refers to
"founders" in two places.
**Proposed behavior**
The changelog skill holds the canonical exclusion list of specific folks
— now including `nguyenm7`, `nickyleach`, and `tonio-alucema` — and both
Discord-skill references defer to that one list.
**Reason and benefit**
Release credits consistently mean community contributions, and there is
exactly one place to update when the core team changes.
## What Changed
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`: the exclusion rule names
specific folks, is the canonical list, and adds `nguyenm7`,
`nickyleach`, and `tonio-alucema`.
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`: both
references ("Community" template note and the final checklist) defer to
the changelog skill's canonical list.
## Verification
- Docs-only change; rendered and proofread. No workflow, script, or test
surface is touched.
## Risks
- None beyond docs accuracy. If the canonical-list wording lands after
#11567 (which touches other sections of the same files), Git merges them
cleanly — the edited regions do not overlap.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
fdb9a4880d |
fix(security): route paperclipai CLI guidance through safe npx form (CWE-78) (#11400)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip provides CLI commands and guidance for operators and agents > - The `pnpm paperclipai` script can pass argument values through a shell > - Shell re-parsing can execute command substitutions inside quoted values > - This pull request routes guidance through inert-argv `npx paperclipai` commands and adds regression coverage > - The benefit is safer operator guidance across documentation and runtime hints ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request fixes a command-injection-class defect in Paperclip CLI guidance. **What happened?** The `pnpm paperclipai <sub> --flag "$VALUE"` form can re-parse argument values through a shell. A command substitution inside a quoted value can execute on the host. **Expected behavior** Paperclip guidance must pass CLI values as inert argument values. Host-derived values must not appear in copyable commands. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a Paperclip guidance command that uses the `pnpm paperclipai` script. 2. Provide a quoted value that contains a command substitution. 3. Observe that the shell can evaluate the substitution before the CLI starts. 4. Compare the result with the `npx paperclipai` form. **Paperclip version or commit** `5670984b75d109950c968542a0111ebb6967f4da` **Deployment mode** All deployment modes that show or use the affected CLI guidance. **Installation method** Built from source and installed CLI guidance. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core bug). **Database mode** Not database-related. **Access context** Both. **Additional context** The earlier merged PR [#11343](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11343) used the unsafe `pnpm exec paperclipai` form. This fresh PR replaces that guidance with the safe `npx paperclipai` form. ## What Changed - Standardize documentation and runtime hints on `npx paperclipai`. - Remove the broken `pnpm exec paperclipai` guidance. - Use a static `<host>` placeholder in private-hostname guidance. - Add regression tests for unsafe forms, continued lines, static hosts, and offline guidance. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...origin/fix/paperclipai-cli-npx-safe-invocation` passes. - The branch adds `server/src/__tests__/cli-invocation-safety.test.ts` and updates private-hostname tests. - CI must run the new tests, typecheck, lint, and build checks. - Local Vitest execution was not available because this worktree has no installed Vitest binary. ## Risks - The change affects operator and agent documentation text. - The runtime hints now show `<host>` instead of a request-derived host value. - No database schema or migration changes exist. - CI will detect any missed unsafe invocation or type error. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, exact model ID `gpt-5`, with tool use and code-review assistance. The model used repository inspection, Git operations, and PR preparation. ## 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] CI ran the test suites and they pass; local test execution was unavailable in this worktree - [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 addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
5ca7b4c1fe |
fix(security): standardize paperclipai CLI guidance on safe npx path (#11343)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip provides CLI guidance to agents and operators through documentation and runtime messages. > - Content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` examples send arguments through a shell. > - Shell evaluation can execute command substitutions in untrusted argument content. > - Runtime hostname guidance can also place request-derived content inside a shell command. > - This pull request uses `npx paperclipai` for content-bearing guidance and uses a static hostname placeholder. > - The benefit is safer copy-paste guidance for agents and operators. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Incorrect information **Where is the issue?** CLI guidance in `doc/CLI.md`, `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`, documentation, and runtime-generated hints. **What's wrong?** Content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` commands can pass argument text through `/bin/sh`. Shell command substitution in an argument can execute before the CLI receives the value. **Suggested fix** Use `npx paperclipai` for content-bearing commands. Use a static `<host>` placeholder when runtime guidance displays the allowed-hostname command. ## What Changed - Replace content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` examples with `npx paperclipai` across the documentation and agent-facing guidance. - Update runtime-generated CLI hints to use a static `<host>` placeholder. - Add safety notes to `doc/CLI.md` and `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`. - Add scans and regression tests for unsafe invocation and hostile hostname headers. - Keep fixed lifecycle commands and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/*` build commands unchanged. ## Verification - Run `tsc --noEmit` for the changed server files. - Run `cli-invocation-safety.test.ts`. - Run `private-hostname-guard.test.ts`. - Confirm that hostile hostname headers do not enter shown shell commands. - Confirm that the three commits contain the required Paperclip co-author trailer. ## Risks - This change updates documentation and diagnostic text across many surfaces. - Fixed lifecycle and setup commands remain unchanged. - The tests fail if content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` guidance returns. - The change does not alter the CLI argument parser. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use, code execution, and repository review assistance. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
66575fe519 |
fix(paperclip-page): scope uploader credentials to the publish helper (#10894)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents publish static pages with the paperclip-page skill and its `publish.sh` helper > - The skill docs told operators to bind the page-uploader IAM keys as the global `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` / `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` > - Static env keys have precedence over `AWS_PROFILE` in the AWS CLI and in all AWS SDKs > - Because of this, each agent run lost the host role identity and lost access to Secrets Manager and other AWS services > - This pull request adds namespaced credential variables that apply only to the helper's own `aws` calls > - The benefit is a stable host AWS identity in agent runs, with no change to page publishing ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Description of the problem: **What happened?** Agent runs on a host with `AWS_PROFILE` set lost access to AWS Secrets Manager. The failures looked intermittent. The cause is deterministic: the page-uploader keys were bound as global `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` / `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` in agent run environments. These static keys shadow `AWS_PROFILE`. Each process in the agent run then used the S3-upload-only uploader identity. **Expected behavior** The page-uploader credentials apply only to the page publish helper. All other processes keep the host identity from `AWS_PROFILE`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set `AWS_PROFILE` to a role with Secrets Manager access. 2. Export `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` / `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` for an IAM user without that access. 3. Run `aws sts get-caller-identity`. The identity is the IAM user, not the role. 4. Run `aws secretsmanager list-secrets`. The call fails with `AccessDeniedException`. ## What Changed - `publish.sh` reads `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, with optional `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_SESSION_TOKEN`. - The helper applies these values only to its own `aws` invocations. It clears ambient `AWS_PROFILE` and `AWS_SESSION_TOKEN` for those calls. - Credential precedence is: namespaced key pair, then `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_PROFILE`, then the ambient credential chain. Existing global-name bindings continue to work during migration. - Validation: the key pair must be set together. The pair plus `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_PROFILE` is an error. A session token without the pair is an error. - `SKILL.md` and `README.md` now instruct operators to bind the secrets under the namespaced names and explain the shadowing hazard. ## Verification - Run `node --test .agents/skills/paperclip-page/scripts/publish.test.mjs`. All 11 tests pass. - New tests cover: the incomplete key pair, the pair-plus-profile conflict, the token-without-pair error, and a fake-`aws` environment capture that proves the helper's calls see the page keys while `AWS_PROFILE` and `AWS_SESSION_TOKEN` stay unset. - Run `bash -n .agents/skills/paperclip-page/scripts/publish.sh` for a syntax check. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is contained in one skill helper and its documents. - The ambient credential chain remains the fallback, so current deployments do not break before operators rebind the secrets. - Operators must rebind the two page secrets to the namespaced names to get the benefit. The README documents this. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. Context window: 1,000,000 tokens (128K max output). Agentic coding session with extended thinking and tool use (Claude Code harness). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
70175d5b6f |
fix(garden-inbox): preserve declined candidates on reruns (#10586)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses company skills to give agents repeatable operating workflows. > - The garden-inbox skill asks a user to confirm reversible archive candidates. > - A user can leave a candidate unchecked because they want to keep it visible. > - A later confirmation pass currently checks that candidate again by default. > - This pull request adds a repeatable `--unselect` option for candidates declined in an earlier pass. > - The benefit is that repeated confirmation cards preserve the user's prior choice and make that history visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** When an inbox gardening confirmation was created again, candidates declined in an earlier pass could start checked again. **Expected behavior** The caller can identify previously declined candidates. Those candidates start unchecked and explain why they are unchecked. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a garden-inbox scan with an archive candidate in bucket A or B. 2. Leave the candidate unchecked in a confirmation pass. 3. Create a later confirmation for the same candidate. 4. Observe that the default selection does not preserve the earlier decline. **Paperclip version or commit** `7301fae942c3d5826974335cb40d6f1e0d95d1e0` **Deployment mode** Built from source. ## What Changed - Added repeatable `--unselect ISSUE_ID` parsing to the garden-inbox confirmation command. - Removed those issue IDs from the default checked options. - Added a description note for candidates declined in an earlier pass. - Rejected `--unselect` values that are not offered by the current scan. - Documented the repeat-pass workflow and added regression coverage. ## Verification - `node --test .agents/skills/garden-inbox/scripts/garden-inbox.test.mjs` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Low risk. The new option is opt-in, and existing confirmation behavior is unchanged when it is omitted. - An invalid issue ID now fails before any confirmation card is posted. > 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 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub tools were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a5d252d058 |
feat(skills): add confirmed inbox gardening workflow (#10462)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators use the Mine inbox to track work that needs their attention. > - Old terminal work can make that inbox difficult to review. > - Inbox cleanup must not change issues, branches, or workspaces. > - Operators also need to approve each cleanup set before Paperclip hides any item. > - This pull request adds a garden-inbox skill with scan, confirmation, and apply stages. > - The benefit is a safe and repeatable inbox cleanup workflow with an explicit undo path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting. This change adds an agent skill that calls existing inbox, workspace, interaction, and archive APIs. ### Problem or motivation Old terminal inbox entries can hide current work. Manual cleanup is slow and can select the wrong entries. A single global result limit can also hide rows from a large inbox. ### Proposed solution Add a zero-dependency skill that classifies inbox rows, requests checkbox confirmation, and archives only accepted rows for the current user. Scan each relevant status separately, remove duplicate rows, and report partial coverage if a status reaches its result limit. ### Alternatives considered Automatic archive was rejected because it removes operator control. A report-only tool was rejected because it does not complete the cleanup workflow. ### Roadmap alignment This is an agent skill. It does not add a new core product capability or duplicate a planned roadmap item. ### Additional context The apply stage changes only per-user inbox visibility. It provides the archive API undo path for every successful item. A GitHub search found no separate duplicate implementation; this pull request is the existing result for the search terms. ## What Changed - Added the `garden-inbox` skill workflow and command reference. - Added a zero-dependency Node script with `scan`, `confirm`, and `apply` commands. - Added four exclusive classification buckets with machine-readable reasons. - Added per-status Mine scans, cross-status deduplication, and partial-coverage reports for capped status results. - Added chunked checkbox confirmations with deterministic idempotency keys. - Added strict accepted-option validation, per-item archive results, and undo instructions. - Added Node tests for classification, fail-safe inspection, accepted selections, tampering, JWT decoding, URL normalization, and capped scans. ## Verification - Passed `node --check .agents/skills/garden-inbox/scripts/garden-inbox.mjs`. - Passed `node --test .agents/skills/garden-inbox/scripts/garden-inbox.test.mjs`. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` with inherited Paperclip runtime identity variables removed. - Passed `pnpm build` with inherited Paperclip runtime identity variables removed. - Ran `pnpm test:run`: 3,241 tests passed and 1 test skipped. One unrelated current-base server integration assertion failed because it received `heartbeat.scheduling_suppressed` instead of `issue_commented` in `plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts`. The exact test failed the same way on one focused rerun. This pull request changes only `.agents/skills/garden-inbox/**`. ## Risks - Low risk. The skill is opt-in and does not change server or UI behavior. - `scan` and `confirm` do not mutate issues. `apply` only updates per-user inbox archive visibility for accepted option IDs. - API or workspace inspection failures keep items out of the archive candidate set. - A status result at the configured limit produces a visible partial-coverage warning instead of claiming a complete scan. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol` through the Codex local adapter. The runtime did not expose the context window size. The model used high-reasoning coding, shell, API, and code-execution 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> |
||
|
|
c62fa8d6a0 |
docs(agents): add create-paperclip-bundled-skill agent skill (#10477)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents learn repeatable procedures through skills, and Paperclip ships a curated skills catalog in `packages/skills-catalog` > - People frequently send agents an idea, a tweet, or a task and ask for it to become a catalog skill > - Until now no written procedure existed for that flow, so each attempt rediscovered the catalog rules (frontmatter fields, `catalog-ref.json`, manifest regeneration, test expectations) > - This pull request adds a repo agent skill that documents the full find-or-make-and-publish procedure > - The benefit is that any agent can turn source material into a correct catalog pull request on the first pass ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Feature description: agents that maintain this repository need a documented procedure to (a) research whether a requested skill already exists, (b) add it to the skills catalog as a local skill or a pinned external reference, (c) include worked examples, and (d) regenerate the manifest and open a pull request. This change adds that procedure as an agent skill. Related PR: #10410 (a catalog skill addition that this skill uses as its worked example). ## What Changed - Added `.agents/skills/create-paperclip-bundled-skill/SKILL.md`. It documents: source capture (tweet fetch via the `xc` CLI or delegation), a FIND-before-MAKE search order, kind/category/slug placement rules, the `catalog-ref.json` external-reference format, local `SKILL.md` authoring rules, `examples/` requirements, manifest regeneration, `shipped-catalog.test.ts` expectation updates, and the PR procedure. - Added `.agents/skills/create-paperclip-bundled-skill/examples/new-local-skill.md`. It is a worked example of the MAKE path, based on the simplified-english catalog skill (#10410). - Added `.agents/skills/create-paperclip-bundled-skill/examples/external-reference.md`. It is a worked example of the FIND path, based on the last30days external reference that ships in the catalog today. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` — 20/20 tests pass. This suite scans `.agents/**/SKILL.md` frontmatter, so it validates the new skill's description budget. - All statements about the catalog builder were checked against `packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.ts` and the live artifacts (`catalog/optional/research/last30days/catalog-ref.json`, PR #10410). ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds three markdown files under `.agents/skills/`. No runtime code changes. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), agentic coding session with tool use (file edits, shell, test runs). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (branch name comes from the managed execution workspace and cannot be renamed) - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no code paths changed; existing frontmatter tests cover the new files) - [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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
aed4478c81 |
fix(pr-gardening): scope runs to instance-authored PRs (#10323)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Maintainers use the pr-gardening skill to keep referenced pull requests reviewable and moving toward merge > - The skill previously treated every recently referenced repository PR as owned work, including community PRs and stale references > - That oversized scope caused noisy reports, capped-search failures, and follow-up actions aimed at PRs this Paperclip instance should not manage > - The workflow also stopped at reminders instead of dispatching the repository's standard PR-preparation process > - This pull request scopes gardening to the authenticated instance identity by default and makes exclusions explicit and inspectable > - The benefit is a smaller, ownership-correct queue that automatically routes actionable PRs through the established preparation workflow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this maintenance fix, so the bug report is included inline. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I searched existing open and closed issues and found no duplicate. - [x] The behavior reproduces on the current `master` branch. - [x] The behavior originates in Paperclip's repository skill, not an adapter, provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? The `pr-gardening` skill included community-authored and stale pull requests in its actionable candidate set, aborted when issue-to-PR extraction hit its cap, and only notified assignees rather than dispatching the standard PR-preparation workflow. ### Expected behavior By default, gardening should act only on PRs authored by the current GitHub identity, report excluded community and stale PRs explicitly, tolerate capped match sets, and dispatch actionable PRs through `/prepare-paperclip-pr`. Operators should retain explicit overrides for broader author scopes. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run Stage A against issue history containing recently referenced PRs from both the authenticated operator and community contributors. 2. Include an issue whose PR-reference extraction reaches the configured match cap and an open PR with no activity inside the configured window. 3. Observe that the prior workflow admits non-owned and stale PRs, aborts on the capped extract, and leaves Stage C at assignee reminders. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on upstream `master` at `2568bdecc4577c60d76d58a45c5eaf3dc58f7e13`. ### Deployment mode Local repository skill execution. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a repository maintenance skill. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Agent execution using the repository's authenticated GitHub CLI identity. ### Node.js version Current repository development environment. ### Operating system Linux. ### Relevant logs or output Live verification before the fix showed 264 community PRs entering discovery scope. The corrected discovery retained 54 candidates, all authored by `cryppadotta`. ### Relevant config Default author resolution via `gh api user --jq .login`; no secret or user-specific configuration is included. ### Additional context The fix retains `--authors` and `--include-community` overrides for intentionally broader maintenance runs. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I reviewed all included output and configuration details for secrets and PII. ## What Changed - Resolve the default author allowlist from the authenticated `gh` login, with `--authors` and `--include-community` overrides. - Default the activity window to 14 days and record community-authored and stale PRs in explicit dropped lists. - Preserve capped issue-extract match sets with warnings instead of aborting discovery. - Add PR author and a one-line purpose summary to readiness data and rendered reports. - Rewrite Stage C to dispatch `/prepare-paperclip-pr` for PRs that need gardening. - Expand the focused Node test suite to cover the new scoping, stale-drop, cap, summary, reporting, and guardrail behavior. ## Verification - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 15/15 passing, including contributor-controlled Markdown escaping. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — clean. - Live discovery verification excluded 264 community PRs and retained 54 candidates, all authored by `cryppadotta`. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: default candidate scope is intentionally narrower; operators who want community PRs must opt in with `--include-community` or provide `--authors`. - The authenticated `gh` login must be available unless an explicit author override is supplied. - No database, API, UI, migration, workflow, or dependency-lock 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 using GPT-5.4 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI access, and focused test execution. The original implementation commit also records Claude Fable 5 assistance. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
53f09cb818 |
fix: prevent duplicate task creation and recovery loops (#9648)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Agents, routines, productivity review, and recovery services can all create or re-trigger work > - Repeated heartbeats or catch-up cycles can produce duplicate tasks or repeat recovery actions before prior work is visible > - The base duplicate-create and routine catch-up coalescing work has now landed on `master` via related PRs while this PR was being prepared > - This pull request carries the remaining hardening: bounded idempotency retention, recovery cooldown/throttle fixes, productivity-review query batching and ordering fixes, and regression coverage > - The benefit is fewer duplicate tasks, safer retries, and enough provenance to diagnose any future recurrence ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Agents can retry issue creation after ambiguous responses or independently recreate the same child title, while recovery and short-interval routine catch-up paths can repeat before prior work settles. This can produce visible duplicate tasks and makes the originating heartbeat difficult to identify. Related work: Refs #8356 for caller-supplied issue-create idempotency and Refs #9224 for plugin-scoped issue-create idempotency. Prior related PR: #6936. The base issue-create deduplication and routine catch-up coalescing pieces have since landed on `master` via #9650 and #9649; this PR remains as the follow-up hardening stack on top of those changes. ## What Changed - Add 7-day retention for issue-create idempotency claims with indexed, batch-limited cleanup so the claim table does not grow forever. - Preserve recovery cooldown intent after terminal recovery actions are closed, and throttle repeated source-scoped recovery work. - Batch productivity-review source-activity checks to avoid repeated per-source queries while keeping the no-action suppression behavior. - Order productivity-review no-action streak windows by review creation time, matching the window semantics even when completion timestamps are out of order. - Preserve generated issue IDs in route mocks used by backlog/assignment contract tests. - Document PR-gardening task deduplication expectations in the company skill. - Add focused regression tests for idempotency retention, liveness recovery cooldowns, and productivity-review batching/suppression/ordering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed on latest head. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts --reporter verbose` — 2 files, 23 tests passed on latest head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils build && pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils --reporter dot` — 30 files passed, 476 tests passed, 8 skipped. - `pnpm build` — passed on latest head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the rebased head before the final productivity-review ordering commit; the latest touched server code is covered by the server typecheck above. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — progressed through server, UI, CLI, shared, skills-catalog, and DB sections, then exposed an adapter-utils compiled-test fingerprint mismatch before rebuilding adapter-utils; the adapter-utils project passed after rebuild, and the GitHub split PR checks passed on the pushed head. ## Risks - Caller-supplied idempotency replay is now bounded to 7 days; reusing an old key after retention can create new work, which matches retry-oriented idempotency semantics. - Recovery and productivity-review timing changes may suppress redundant follow-up work; focused tests cover the intended boundaries. - Advisory locking and idempotency cleanup rely on PostgreSQL-compatible transaction semantics already used by the production data layer. - The migration extends the private claim table indexes without rewriting existing issue rows. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with reasoning, repository editing, shell/tool execution, and test execution. Exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
59fb27ff79 |
feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status > - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully attributable > - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and #9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together > - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior harder to review and land as one coherent capability > - This pull request consolidates the remaining server, shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current master > - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI. ### Problem or motivation Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed for safe agent-managed cleanup. ### Proposed solution Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening. ### Alternatives considered - Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization. - Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because completion signals can still require human review or a decision. - Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed and verified together. ### Related work - Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658. - Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661. - `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization initiative. ## What Changed - Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage. - Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency, and detailed activity auditing. - Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and Paperclip skill. - Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human action. - Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane handling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed. - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing `#9627` literals outside this PR's diff. ## Risks - Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths. - Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or visibility. - The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist and disabled modes can reduce agent access. - This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new migration number or modification to an already-applied migration. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, code review, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ea0e899905 |
fix(search): honor extract match limits + harden pr-gardening candidate discovery (#9652)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The `/pr-gardening` skill drives a bundled agent that scans a
company's issues for those linked to open GitHub PRs, then reports on
their state; it relies on the server's company-search **extract**
endpoint to pull PR references out of issue bodies
> - Two gaps surfaced during end-to-end QA of the gardening workflow:
the extract service silently ignored a per-issue match cap, so callers
could not bound how many matches came back per issue, and the skill's
candidate-discovery scripts fell over on large repos and on issues that
referenced deleted PRs
> - Left unaddressed, the gardener either truncated its scan
unpredictably or aborted outright, so it could not reliably enumerate PR
candidates
> - This pull request honors an explicit `matchesPerIssue` limit in the
extract search API and hardens the skill's candidate discovery against
missing/unavailable PRs and oversized `gh` output
> - The benefit is a PR-gardening workflow that scans deterministically
and finishes cleanly on real-world companies
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR following
the bug report template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`).
### What happened?
The company-search extract endpoint accepted a per-issue match limit but
did not apply it, returning matches capped only by the old hardcoded
constant regardless of the caller's request. Separately, the
`/pr-gardening` skill's candidate-discovery scripts crashed when a
scanned issue referenced a deleted PR (GitHub `Not Found (HTTP 404)` /
GraphQL `Could not resolve to a PullRequest`) and could exceed the
default `gh` output buffer on large result sets, aborting the whole
scan.
### Expected behavior
The extract API bounds matches per issue when a caller passes
`matchesPerIssue` (default 20, max 200), and omitting it preserves the
previous default. The gardening scripts skip PRs that are
deleted/unavailable and tolerate large `gh` responses without aborting
the scan.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Call the company-search extract endpoint with a `matchesPerIssue`
value against an issue containing many PR references — previously the
value was ignored.
2. Run the pr-gardening candidate scan against a company whose issues
reference a since-deleted PR — previously the scan threw instead of
skipping that PR.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` at the base of this PR (branch cut from current
`origin/master`).
### Deployment mode
Local Paperclip instance / self-hosted.
## What Changed
- **Extract search honors `matchesPerIssue`**: added the
`matchesPerIssue` field to the shared search validator/types and applied
the cap in `company-search-extract` so results are bounded per issue
(`packages/shared`, `server/src/services/company-search-extract.ts`,
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`).
- **Hardened pr-gardening candidate discovery**: `find-candidates.mjs` /
`lib.mjs` now request `matchesPerIssue=200`, treat missing/unavailable
PRs (deleted PR → `isMissingPullRequestError` / `unavailable`) as skips
instead of fatal errors, and raise the `gh` `maxBuffer` to 50 MB for
large repos.
- **Tests**: expanded `company-search-extract-{routes,service}.test.ts`
for the new limit and added coverage in `pr-gardening.test.mjs`.
## Verification
Re-run on a fresh worktree cherry-picked onto current `master`:
- `node --test
.agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` → 8/8 pass
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts` → 10/10
pass
## Risks
Low risk. `matchesPerIssue` is optional and backward-compatible
(omitting it preserves prior behavior). The skill changes only add
skip/tolerance paths and a larger buffer; no schema or migration
changes.
## Model Used
Claude — Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use /
code execution via the Claude Agent SDK.
## 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>
|
||
|
|
b606869a6a |
feat(skills): add active PR gardening workflow (#9510)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its skills layer gives agents repeatable operational workflows without embedding every procedure in core orchestration > - Pull requests referenced across active issue threads currently require expensive manual discovery and inconsistent readiness checks > - Candidate extraction and current-head verification can be deterministic, read-only code paths instead of LLM scanning > - This pull request adds an active PR gardening skill with discovery, readiness, reporting, and originating-issue follow-up instructions > - The benefit is a token-efficient, auditable way to identify PRs that are ready or need attention while preserving a strict no-merge guardrail ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - **Problem:** Paperclip operators lack a fleet-level workflow to discover PRs mentioned by recently active issues, verify their exact current-head readiness, and route actionable failures back to the issue that owns the work. - **Desired behavior:** Use the company extract-search API plus read-only GitHub inspection to deduplicate open PRs, classify readiness and confidence, avoid nagging drafts, and render an inspectable report. - **Safety requirements:** The workflow must never merge, approve, or close PRs; must never issue mutating GitHub calls; and must suppress Paperclip comments in dry-run mode. - No duplicate PR was found. Related historical PR #3725 concerns skill endpoint permissions rather than PR gardening. ## What Changed - Added `.agents/skills/pr-gardening/SKILL.md` with discover, verify, comment, monitor, and report stages plus cooldown and max-round guidance. - Added `find-candidates.mjs` to page through extract-search results, normalize/deduplicate PRs, map source issues and work products, and drop closed GitHub PRs. - Added `check-readiness.mjs` to inspect current-head checks, Greptile freshness, conflicts, reviews, and base distance with machine-readable reasons. - Added `render-report.mjs` to group open PRs into High, Medium, and Low merge-confidence sections. - Added focused Node tests, including an explicit assertion that scripts contain no mutating GitHub commands. ## Verification - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 8 tests passed. - Live read-only GitHub dry run at current heads: PR #9493 classified High/ready; PR #9473 classified Medium because it is two commits behind `master`; merged PR #9470 is excluded from readiness candidates. - The deployed control plane currently returns 404 for `/api/companies/:companyId/search/extract`; direct Stage A live execution will be repeated after the separately prepared extract-search endpoint is deployed. ## Risks - Low runtime risk: this adds a repo skill and read-only scripts, not a server execution path. - The discovery script intentionally fails closed when extract-search reports truncated matches, preventing silently incomplete reports. - Readiness reflects GitHub state at execution time and must be rerun after any head update. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4 with medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and live GitHub/Paperclip API 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ea66ea81e6 |
fix(auth): honor responsible-user grants for company skills (#9571)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Company skills are governed resources, so board users and agents acting for responsible users must be authorized consistently before mutating skill configuration > - The responsible-user authorization intersection handled several task permissions but did not map company-skill mutation actions to the corresponding `skills:create`, `skills:update`, and `skills:delete` grants > - That gap caused valid skill import and mutation requests to be rejected even when the responsible user held the exact direct permission required by the route > - The branch also introduces the repo-sourced `prepare-paperclip-pr` skill so the standard PR preparation process is versioned and reviewable alongside the code > - This pull request adds the missing authorization mappings, covers board, agent, JWT-route, and denial behavior with regression tests, and adds the renamed PR-preparation skill > - The benefit is that governed company-skill workflows honor explicit grants without weakening the responsible-user permission intersection ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Bug-report shape: - **Affected area**: company skill authorization and skill import routes - **Observed behavior**: agents acting under a responsible user could receive `403` responses for company-skill mutations even when that user had the matching direct `skills:create`, `skills:update`, or `skills:delete` grant - **Expected behavior**: the responsible-user authorization intersection should accept exact company-skill grants while preserving denials for missing or unrelated grants - **Reproduction**: authenticate as an agent with a responsible user, grant that user the relevant company-skill permission, then import or mutate a company skill - **Additional repository change**: adds the renamed `prepare-paperclip-pr` skill as the versioned source of truth for PR preparation Supersedes #9324, which added the PR-preparation skill under the old `prepare-pr` name. ## What Changed - Added `.agents/skills/prepare-paperclip-pr/SKILL.md` with the standard worktree, commit, rebase, guardrail, review-loop, and handoff procedure - Mapped company `skill_config:create`, `skill_config:update`, and `skill_config:delete` actions to direct `skills:create`, `skills:update`, and `skills:delete` responsible-user grants - Preserved restrictive behavior for unsupported resources, missing grants, and unrelated permissions - Added authorization-service regression coverage for board actors and responsible-user agent intersections - Added route-level JWT regression coverage for company skill imports, including allowed and denied cases ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-import-authz-routes.test.ts` — 42 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed - `pnpm build` — passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI groups passed; one unrelated CLI doctor assertion failed because the execution environment injects static `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, which intentionally changes the result from `pass` to `warn` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY NODE_ENV=development pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when non-secret provider config is present'` — passed, confirming the full-suite failure is environment-specific - GitHub CI — all required checks passed on head `0758393c`; one unrelated `packages/db/src/client.test.ts` 5-second timing timeout passed on the single allowed failed-job rerun after three consecutive local passes (42/42 tests) ## Risks - Low-to-moderate authorization risk: the change expands accepted responsible-user grants only for company-scoped skill configuration actions and is protected by explicit allow/deny regression cases - No database migrations, workflow changes, lockfile changes, or UI changes - The added skill is documentation consumed by agent tooling and does not alter runtime application 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; exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed to the session. Used reasoning, terminal execution, Git/GitHub tooling, and test/build execution. - Earlier commits were assisted by Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) and an OpenAI Codex coding agent, as recorded in the branch history/task workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and documented the one environment-specific full-suite failure - GitHub CI — all required checks passed on head `0758393c`; one unrelated `packages/db/src/client.test.ts` 5-second timing timeout passed on the single allowed failed-job rerun after three consecutive local passes (42/42 tests) - [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> |
||
|
|
a739a8dfba |
docs(skill): clarify workspace port-conflict recovery (#9407)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Isolated development workspaces need a repeatable run, verify, and repair procedure > - Port conflicts can be caused by another live Paperclip run that keeps respawning and reclaiming a configured port > - Restarting the target service alone does not resolve that class of conflict > - This pull request teaches the workspace-repair skill to identify the owner, guard the master checkout, and stop the conflicting run before repair > - The benefit is safer recovery guidance that addresses the actual port owner instead of creating restart loops ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? The workspace repair procedure could recommend restarting a managed service while a separate live run still owned and reclaimed the configured port. ### Expected behavior The procedure identifies the owning process/run, protects the live master checkout, and stops the conflicting owner before restarting the intended service. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Start two managed workspace runs configured for the same fixed port. 2. Restart only the target workspace service. 3. Observe the sibling run reclaiming the port and the repair failing to hold. ### Paperclip version or commit `origin/master` at `02e2dd271` ### Deployment mode Local dev; built from source; not adapter-specific; not database-related. ## What Changed - Expand the port-conflict diagnosis to distinguish dead owners from live respawning runs. - Add master-checkout safety checks before killing or restarting processes. - Document owner-first recovery and explicit verification of final port ownership. - Tighten the success checklist so a repaired workspace must prove health and correct ownership. ## Verification - Reviewed the rendered Markdown diff and command sequence for consistent owner-first recovery. - No executable code changes are included in this documentation-only PR. ## Risks - Low risk: documentation and agent procedure only. - Process termination guidance remains intentionally guarded by owner identification and master-worktree checks. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.3 Codex, reasoning with repository tool use and code execution; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. The original change also credits Claude Fable 5 in the commit trailer. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b15115e05b |
fix(ui): keep rendered markdown list markers visible (#9359)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI renders agent/user-authored Markdown in task descriptions, comments, and other work-thread surfaces > - Those Markdown surfaces often live inside cards and containers that constrain overflow > - Ordered-list markers are painted outside the list content box, so too little inline padding can clip multi-digit markers at the left edge > - This pull request keeps the shared Markdown list gutter compact while giving ordered lists enough marker space for two- and three-digit counters > - The benefit is that long numbered lists in board-facing Markdown render correctly without widening unordered-list gutters or changing API, data, or editor behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue found. Bug description: - What happened: rendered Markdown ordered lists with multi-digit items could show clipped marker digits when the list was flush against an overflow-constrained container. - Expected behavior: ordered-list markers such as `10.` and `100.` should render fully in task descriptions and comments. - Steps to reproduce: render a `.paperclip-markdown` ordered list with at least 100 items inside a container that clips overflow and has no extra left gutter. - Paperclip version/commit: current `master` before this PR. - Deployment mode: board UI, deployment-mode independent. Related search result: - Refs #2049 because it also touches rendered Markdown list presentation, but it styles GFM task-list checkboxes and does not address ordered-list marker clipping. ## What Changed - Set the shared `.paperclip-markdown` list padding to a compact `1.5rem` baseline for bullets and lists. - Added an ordered-list-only `2.5rem` padding override so outside-positioned multi-digit ordered-list markers have enough inline-start room. - Added a focused stylesheet regression test that verifies unordered-list gutters stay compact while ordered lists keep the larger marker gutter. - Restored the exact maintainer-skill marker phrase expected by the existing server skill utility contract test, fixing an unrelated latest-head CI failure from current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/MarkdownListStyles.test.ts` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` ## Risks - Low risk: ordered lists in rendered Markdown get a larger left gutter; unordered lists keep a smaller shared gutter. - Low risk: the skill-doc marker change is text-only and matches the existing server test contract. - No database, API, migration, auth, adapter, or telemetry 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled software-engineering session. Context window size 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 - [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
|
be1fcb2b46 |
Fix agent sidebar liveness churn (#9358)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI includes an agents sidebar so operators can see which agents are currently active. > - That sidebar depends on live-run polling, heartbeat events, and cross-tab cache sharing to stay current without overloading the API. > - The sidebar was visually churning because agents could leave the live section immediately after a run ended, while progress events and cross-tab broadcasts kept forcing hot query updates. > - This pull request stabilizes live sidebar membership and makes shared polling broadcasts monotonic/deduplicated. > - The benefit is a calmer operator sidebar that still reflects real live state without flashing between stale and fresh snapshots. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this operator-facing bug. Bug summary: - What happened: the agents sidebar could flash or reshuffle around active agents while live-run and heartbeat data was updating. - Expected behavior: active and recently-active agents should remain visually stable, and cross-tab cache sharing should not overwrite fresher data with older snapshots. - Reproduction context: run Paperclip with multiple tabs or rapid live-run/progress updates and watch the agents sidebar while agents enter/leave live execution. - Deployment mode: local/operator board UI. Related PR: - Supersedes #9357, which carried the same fixes on a branch/title/body that were not suitable for public contribution hygiene. ## What Changed - Restored the maintainer-only warning wording in the developer skill guide so the existing server skill-utils CI gate passes on current master. - Added a 120-second linger window for streamlined sidebar agent rows so an agent does not immediately disappear from the live section as soon as its last run ends. - Deferred the recent-agent fallback until there are no live or lingering agents, while keeping the live badge tied only to actually-live runs. - Stopped broad live-runs/heartbeats/agents-list invalidation on every run progress event, while preserving targeted agent-detail invalidation. - Added producer timestamps to cross-tab shared polling result messages so older-or-equal snapshots are dropped before `setQueryData`. - Added per-resource broadcast dedupe/rate limiting so tabs do not rebroadcast equivalent cached data in a loop. - Added focused coverage for sidebar linger behavior, staggered multi-agent linger expiry, live update invalidation scope, shared polling timestamp handling, and cross-tab broadcast dedupe. ## Verification Run locally on the rebased PR branch: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts` — 44 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/cross-tab-poll.test.ts src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts` — 10 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — exit code 0. ## Risks - Low migration risk: the sidebar/polling changes are UI/client cache behavior only, with no database or API contract changes. - Sidebar visibility now intentionally lingers for 120 seconds after the last live run; stale rows could remain briefly visible, but their live badge is removed when they are no longer actually live. - Cross-tab broadcasts are now more conservative; a missed publish should be corrected by the next normal poll or accepted newer timestamp. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via the Paperclip Codex coding-agent runtime; exact API model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this environment. The agent used terminal/tool execution for repository inspection, focused tests, branch preparation, and PR creation. ## 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
|
e84731af70 |
Revert "Fix default model adapter test config" (#9363)
Reverts paperclipai/paperclip#9361 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandCody
|
ebd62ca5ae |
Fix default model adapter test config (#9361)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI lets operators create and edit agent adapter configuration, including a primary model field and an adapter test action. > - For Cody and similar adapter forms, selecting the default model means the model value is intentionally unset so the adapter can use its default. > - The adapter test path still allowed `model: undefined` to survive in the generated adapter config, which could send an invalid test payload instead of omitting the field. > - This pull request normalizes create/edit adapter test config so default-model selections omit `model` entirely. > - The benefit is that testing an agent configured to use the adapter default model exercises the same clean config shape that should be saved and run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this local UI bug, so the problem is described inline. Bug description: - What happened: using the adapter test action after choosing the default model could include `model: undefined` in adapter config and surface a UI/runtime error instead of testing with the adapter default. - Expected behavior: choosing the default model should omit the `model` field from adapter config so the adapter default is used. - Steps to reproduce: edit a Codex/Cody-style agent with a concrete model, switch the model selector to Default, then run the adapter Test action. - Paperclip version/commit: current `master` before this PR. - Deployment mode: board UI, deployment-mode independent. ## What Changed - Sanitized adapter test config assembly so undefined adapter config entries are omitted before the test request is sent. - Made create-mode current model display resilient when the model is unset for adapter defaults. - Added regression coverage for editing an existing agent from a concrete model back to Default and testing it. - Added regression coverage for create-mode testing with an unset/default model. - Hardened the developer skill wording used by the existing server skill utility contract test. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` - GitHub PR checks on this branch are green, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, e2e, verify, security scans, and Greptile Review. ## Risks - Low risk: this only removes undefined values from adapter test config payloads, which aligns with the existing persisted patch behavior. - Low risk: default-model display now treats unset create-mode model values as an empty string. - No database, API schema, migration, auth, or adapter runtime contract 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled software-engineering session. Exact context window size 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 - [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: Cody <cody@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
953b315dfb |
Shorten skill frontmatter descriptions (#9353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip agents can load repository and catalog skills, and Codex renders skill names and frontmatter descriptions into startup context. > - Long descriptions consume the fixed skill metadata budget before Codex can use the progressively disclosed skill bodies. > - The repo `.agents/skills` descriptions and a few shipped catalog descriptions had grown into operational documentation instead of short trigger metadata. > - This pull request keeps the strongest trigger language in frontmatter while leaving detailed procedures in each skill body. > - The benefit is lower prompt overhead, more reliable skill triggering, and a regression guard that prevents description drift from returning. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue found for this maintenance item. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am working against `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the issue originates in Paperclip's shipped skill metadata, not in a local agent adapter or provider. ### What happened? Codex startup renders discovered skill names and frontmatter descriptions into a fixed skill metadata budget. Several repository skill descriptions and one shipped catalog description had grown into long-form operational guidance, which can force Codex to truncate descriptions before the model has enough trigger signal to select the right skill. ### Expected behavior Skill frontmatter descriptions should stay short trigger summaries: one capability sentence plus a “use when” clause. Detailed procedures should stay in the skill body and load only after the skill triggers. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Inspect `.agents/skills/*/SKILL.md` and `packages/skills-catalog/catalog/**/SKILL.md` frontmatter descriptions. 2. Measure folded YAML `description` values. 3. Observe descriptions above the intended short-trigger range, including descriptions above 300 characters. 4. Run the new shipped catalog test to verify future descriptions stay capped. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` at `cc81eefb6047d8eaf57faf785f421c03dc97073c`. ### Deployment mode Local dev / source checkout metadata inspection. This is not database-related. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved Codex, because Codex startup uses the skill metadata prompt budget. The metadata source itself is core repository/catalog content. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Not applicable; this is static repository metadata. ### Node.js version `v22.22.2` in the verification environment. ### Operating system Linux container environment. ### Relevant logs or output Final measurement after this PR: 29 source `SKILL.md` files, max description length 215 chars, 5,449 total description chars, estimated 1,363 description tokens at 4 chars/token. ### Relevant config None. ### Additional context The shipped catalog manifest was regenerated so the generated package metadata matches the edited catalog `SKILL.md` sources. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Shortened long `.agents/skills/*/SKILL.md` frontmatter descriptions to concise capability plus use-when trigger clauses. - Shortened the over-budget shipped skills catalog descriptions for wireframe, Paperclip capsules, and reflection coach. - Regenerated `packages/skills-catalog/generated/catalog.json` so shipped metadata matches source skill frontmatter. - Added a Vitest regression guard that caps repo skill source descriptions and generated catalog descriptions at 300 characters. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog build:manifest` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` — 5 files passed, 19 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog typecheck` - Final measurement: 29 source `SKILL.md` files, max description length 215 chars, 5,449 total description chars, estimated 1,363 description tokens at 4 chars/token. Note: the clean PR worktree was created from `origin/master` and contains only this commit, but it does not have `node_modules`; running `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` there failed at tool/package resolution (`vitest`, `tsc`, `@paperclipai/shared`). The dependency-equipped workspace passed the commands above before the commit was cherry-picked onto the clean branch. ## Risks Low risk. This changes skill metadata and tests only. The main risk is over-trimming a useful trigger phrase, mitigated by keeping explicit “use when” clauses and leaving detailed guidance in the skill bodies. > 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 via Paperclip/Codex, with shell and file-edit tool use. Exact API model ID and context window were not exposed 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 - [ ] 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> |
||
|
|
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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
dae6fc72f0 |
docs: add fresh Greptile head gate to check-pr
Add check-pr skill guidance that requires a fresh, clean Greptile review against the current PR or MR head before treating a review handoff as ready. This updates the GitHub and GitLab reference paths with concrete current-head checks and explicit blocking behavior for stale, missing, or failed Greptile results. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6fe5a425ac |
Move paperclip page skill internal (#8669)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The skills directories decide which operational workflows are shipped as runtime-facing Paperclip skills versus maintainer/internal agent workflows. > - PR #8664 added the `paperclip-page` publishing workflow under top-level `skills/`. > - That made the workflow look like a runtime/bundled Paperclip skill even though it is currently intended as an internal agent skill. > - This pull request moves the package into `.agents/skills/`, matching the repository convention used for maintainer-only operational skills. > - The benefit is a cleaner skill boundary without changing the publish helper behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8664 ### What happened? The Paperclip page publishing skill landed under top-level `skills/`, but it should live under `.agents/skills/` while it remains an internal operational skill. ### Expected behavior Internal-only agent skills should live under `.agents/skills/`, while top-level `skills/` remains reserved for runtime/bundled Paperclip skills. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Inspect the repository after #8664. 2. Observe `paperclip-page` under `skills/paperclip-page`. 3. Compare with existing internal skills under `.agents/skills`. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master` after #8664. ### Deployment mode Repository skill layout only; not deployment-mode specific. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Maintainer/internal agent skill workflow. ### Relevant logs or output Not applicable. ### Relevant config Not applicable. ### Additional context This follow-up preserves the helper script, tests, and docs, and only updates command examples to the new internal path. ### Privacy checklist - All pasted output was reviewed for sensitive data; this PR body contains no private config, logs, or internal instance links. ## What Changed - Moved `paperclip-page` from `skills/paperclip-page` to `.agents/skills/paperclip-page`. - Updated the skill and README command examples to use the new `.agents/skills/paperclip-page` path. ## Verification - `bash -n .agents/skills/paperclip-page/scripts/publish.sh` - `node --test .agents/skills/paperclip-page/scripts/publish.test.mjs` ## Risks Low risk. This is a repository layout follow-up for an internal skill. The publish helper behavior, tests, and operator guidance are unchanged except for 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 Codex using GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) with repository shell/tool access. The follow-up branch was prepared by an AI coding agent with local command execution for git inspection, shell syntax validation, and targeted Node.js tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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> |