5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	30b753f614	perf(budgets): scope accounting and deliver enforcement asynchronously (#17046) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their paid work. > - Budgets must prevent new work and stop reported overruns. > - Cost settlement also ran serial lifecycle reconciliation for every eligible company agent. > - That made request latency grow with unrelated idle agents and delayed results on stop delivery. > - This change separates atomic admission and accounting from durable asynchronous enforcement. > - Scoped live usage detects overruns without writing provisional ledger charges. > - The result is constant query scope for ordinary settlement and recoverable stop delivery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Settlement and budget checks entered company-wide lifecycle reconciliation. A company with 1,000 unrelated idle agents performed 1,001 accounting transactions for one ordinary cost evaluation. User requests could also wait for provider termination. Running usage checkpoints did not enforce reported monetary exposure. **Expected behavior** Keep the final reservation gate authoritative. Commit charges, scope blocks, and enforcement intent before returning. Deliver stop requests after commit. Read only applicable policies and execution scopes for ordinary charges. Stop long-running work when supported reported or priced usage establishes an overrun. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a disposable company with one company budget and idle agents. 2. Evaluate a charge below the budget with 0, 17, and 1,000 unrelated idle agents. 3. Compare query counts, company accounting transactions, and duration. 4. Use the controlled partial-usage and delayed-stop fixtures to check enforcement and request responsiveness. **Paperclip version or commit** The measured baseline is `6c9b87d0922f1ebfc43e8b0c36889ac5ba7b9837` from `master`. Related public work: Refs #16976, #2006, #3539, #13763, #14296, #16853, #13075. These cover the affected service charge, cancellation, and accounting paths. This change removes their shared reconciliation overhead. ## What Changed - Batch applicable policy exposure under the existing company accounting lock. Preserve exact fractional money and zero-reservation dispatch fences. - Commit a durable final budget dispatch claim before provider I/O. Retain a separate final issue/run ownership transaction through synchronous handoff, without holding the company accounting lock or awaiting provider work. Preserve native recovery lease checks and duplicate handoff fencing. Browser handoff rechecks current policy; it reuses a consumed rate slot only for the identical policy generation. - Separate ledger spend, live observed spend, and effective held capacity. Use the maximum of reservation and live observation for each unfinished operation. - Deliver budget cancellation through the existing coordinator. Revalidate generations and persist queued/running stop fences before external termination. Bound stop concurrency to four. - Apply agent holds only to the affected agent. Project budgets leave other projects running. Project real company transitions in bounded lifecycle batches. - Replace periodic broad reconciliation with durable pending work, startup repair, receipt replay, and concrete retry/window deadlines. Retain drain and idle-safety checks. - Enforce accepted cumulative usage checkpoints without provisional charges. Final accounting atomically replaces live exposure and settles reservations. - Add operator-gated budget spans, regression coverage, map updates, and a real-PostgreSQL comparison harness. No schema or first-party telemetry change. ## Verification - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passes on the final ownership fix, rebased onto `bbcf5dfe98`. Production `pnpm build` passes on final head `4c5f4de8b1`. Map, module-boundary, token, and Storybook catalog checks pass. - Focused real-PostgreSQL coverage includes the 292-case rebased accounting/dispatch run, 63 browser cases, 52 run-control/cancellation cases, 42 policy-generation cases, 77 lifecycle/commentary cases, and the exact Muse confirmation regression. Native executor unit coverage passes all 768 cases. Final ownership coverage passes: 74 adapter/use-case cases, nine public regression cases, and the additional deleted-project race. These exercise competing ownership, budget changes and charges between phases, zero/nonzero duplicate claims, rollback, recovery contention, read-only capacity rechecks, and controlled HTTP startup after commit. Another 74 pure/startup/tracing cases pass. The complete CI matrix and both 5/5 reviews passed on `1ac9b58`; its external security scan identified a stale-owner handoff race. The final fix restores synchronous issue/run ownership fencing after the accounting transaction commits. Final head `8e84f55ce8` has fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero new comments, Paperclip review 5/5, and a passing security scan. The complete latest-head [CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39535189808) passes, including budget, browser, Runner, build, and canary jobs. The unchanged Runner close fixture passed on its sole same-head job retry. - Broad local `pnpm test:run` invocations were stopped before required source updates (rebase and review fixes). They are not claimed as full passes. Final full-suite coverage comes from the complete latest-head CI matrix; local focused coverage and the incomplete broad invocations are reported separately. - Reproduce performance with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-budget-enforcement.ts --baseline-ref=6c9b87d0922f1ebfc43e8b0c36889ac5ba7b9837`; repeat with `--reverse`. The harness uses disposable real PostgreSQL, 20 warm samples per variant/count, and records raw timings, SQL/lock counts, agent reads, unchanged agent state, and query plans. Final production-source measurement revision: `eff713a4f72c7f4b7a4002a701cb481d4bfccd95`; the extended harness is committed in `4c5f4de8b1`. | Unrelated idle agents | Baseline median / p95 | New median / p95 | Baseline SQL / locks | New SQL / locks | New agent reads | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | | 0 | 1.80 / 2.33 ms | 2.99 / 3.88 ms | 5 / 1 | 7 / 1 | 0 | | 17 | 15.53 / 19.55 ms | 2.24 / 2.60 ms | 90 / 18 | 7 / 1 | 0 | | 1,000 | 978.35 / 1,790.43 ms | 2.16 / 2.52 ms | 5,005 / 1,001 | 7 / 1 | 0 | - These measurements use local PostgreSQL 18.1 and Node 26.4.0 arm64. They isolate the cost-evaluation core and complete admission path, without hosted-region or provider latency. Prior-revision reversed-order controls also preserved the constant query counts; the final measurements above use the final production source. - Complete reserve → final ownership gate → immediate offline provider result is measured separately, with one responsible agent and one active operation at each unrelated-agent count. Admission p95 baseline/new: 0 agents **11.54 / 29.77 ms**; 17 agents **9.31 / 27.62 ms**; 1,000 agents **24.51 / 74.05 ms**. Baseline admission was already scoped; the stronger final fence adds bounded overhead. New counts stay constant at 53 Drizzle statements, three transactions, two company-accounting locks, and five agent-reading statements bound to the responsible agent. Zero unrelated-agent reads, exactly one provider callback per sample, and no leftover runs or holds. All admission scenarios stay below 250 ms. No external provider calls are included. - The partial-usage/delayed-termination fixture passed 20/20: receipt persistence p95 13 ms, receipt return to observed durable Stop fence p95 28 ms, complete receipt-start-to-fence p95 50 ms, unrelated database request p95 1 ms while termination was blocked. After releasing the controlled termination fixture, acknowledgement p95 was 14 ms. These are separately measured phases; fixture acknowledgement is not live-provider termination latency. - Models and provider deadlines are unchanged. No deployment, live inference, or staging acceptance is claimed. A quiet 30-minute follow-up waits for the merged revision on staging, then repeats classifier and controlled budget-stop acceptance in staging, recording hosted bookkeeping, queue delay, and actual provider acknowledgement separately. - Development failures retained: finalizer notification regressions (fixed; 27/27 affected cases passed), invalid browser admission fixture assumptions (fixed; browser coverage now passes 63/63), and first-head lifecycle/dispatch CI regressions (reproduced and repaired). A prior-head Cases E2E test hit its unchanged announcement-dismiss handler race while opening a filter; the same journey passed on `1ac9b58`. The external security review then found a stale-owner race between accounting commit and provider entry; final verification covers a competing run in that gap while retaining provider I/O outside the accounting lock. Early PostgreSQL startup attempts hit local semaphore pressure; serial reruns succeeded. The final-head Runner lane had one failure among 1,823 tests: the unchanged `timeout-attachment` fixture failed at its first process close after 6.28 seconds. The sole same-head job retry passed all 1,819 active tests (four skipped), including that fixture in 1.85 seconds. Three isolated local probes could not run correctly because the Rust fake-provider fixture binary was absent; cleanup masked the original startup failure. CI builds that fixture through its normal lane. These probes are inconclusive and are not counted as passes. ## Risks - This changes accounting, lifecycle, and cancellation ordering. Durable generations, source/sequence checks, ownership leases, and company locking remain required for correctness. - Provider stop acknowledgement can be slow or fail. Stop intent remains pending until existing termination proof succeeds; cancelled row status alone does not acknowledge delivery. - Mid-run limits depend on provider usage reports or supported price calculations. Providers that report only at completion cannot provide exact mid-call detection. - Signals are process-local wake hints for the supported single-active-writer model. Durable state and startup recovery remain authoritative. - There are no migrations, new queue tables, or cached balances. Repeat the classifier and controlled budget-stop acceptance after normal rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and parallel coding agents. The host does not expose the exact backend model revision or context-window size, so those values are not asserted. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-21 07:23:00 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3bbc2104b6	docs: map missing product and operator capabilities (#16990) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map records product entry points and verification recipes. > - The paired agent access map records APIs and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. > - The new index in #16987 made several missing capabilities easier to find. > - Those gaps hid existing assistant, privacy, cost, and operator workflows. > - This pull request adds 15 capabilities with source references, test scope, and manual checks. > - Readers can find these workflows without treating documentation or structural checks as live proof. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16987. Related map work: #16025 and #16214. A search of related pull requests found no duplicate of these additions. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/` and `maps/agent-access-map/`. **What's wrong?** The maps omit public assistant MCP connections, private task and project sharing, subscription fees, cost-recording recovery, agent API keys, keyboard entry points, and several operator CLI workflows. **Suggested fix** Add product recipes and matching access records. Show the full capability IDs in the README index and each page. Keep the existing ID format and all 175 existing IDs. Exclude AI account pools. ## What Changed - Add the `assistant-connections` family with setup, consent, device login, client use, and revocation. - Add `tasks/privacy`, `projects/privacy`, `budgets-costs/subscriptions`, and `budgets-costs/accounting-recovery`. - Add `agents/api-keys`, `agents/managed-agent-setup`, and `navigation-preferences/command-palette`. - Add `cli-operations/feedback-export`, `chat-channels/outbound-email`, and `instance-operations/runtime-setup`. - Pair all 15 additions with access rules, source evidence, manual checks, and explicit coverage gaps. Update the visible index to 35 families and 190 capability IDs. - Add cross-links from existing access, connection setup, search, and CLI recipes. Do not change the schema or add AI account pools. - Clarify that the task Share sheet displays direct and inherited access. Manage inherited access at its ancestor or project source. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas and 190 paired capability IDs, with valid references and contract fields. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes: 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - A comparison with the base confirms all 175 existing IDs remain and exactly the intended 15 IDs were added. The README index matches the discovered feature metadata. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` cannot run because this checkout lacks `storybook/internal/csf-tools` and installed workspace dependencies. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were attempted. All stopped before their task ran: the pnpm 9.15.4 bootstrap could not fetch and verify its registry packages in this environment. - Source review covers the documented UI, CLI, routes, services, and existing tests. No live browser, provider, or authorization journey was run. New access records remain `baseline`, `source-only`, and `not-run`. - Greptile and the Paperclip reviewer both rate current commit `bb8eb797b0a1dc26256faf2f0e57cbe7abc9adcf` 5/5. The inherited-access review thread is resolved. - [GitHub CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39466772379) passes for that commit, including typecheck, build, unit tests, Runner checks, and browser tests. Browser shard 7 passed after one retry for a runner shutdown. All PR checks are successful, neutral, or skipped. ## Risks - Low runtime risk: this change only edits maps. No application behavior, API, dependency, or schema changes. - Source-reviewed recipes can drift or miss deployment-specific behavior. The records state their limits and require live checks before a capability is marked verified. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, 475,000-token context window, xhigh reasoning effort, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 12:47:41 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9ef434fe79	docs: expose feature map IDs and add a recipe index (#16987) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification paths. > - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs. > - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently. > - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and evidence. > - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs. > - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access maps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access companions. **What's wrong?** The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full `plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find the full reference. **Suggested fix** List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors. Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open PR or issue was found by title search. ## What Changed - Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature ID, and full capability ID. - Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and evidence. - Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions. - Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and Storybook guidance headings. - Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep the latest upstream company capability in the index. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175 capability IDs. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and generates the feature indexes and overview inputs. - `git diff --check` passes. - A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index. After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the upstream prose and headings. - Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because `storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and index checks above pass without that dependency. - Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The first attempts of [server shard 3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448) and [server shard 12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932) stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to address these runner interruptions. - To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion. ## Risks - Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no application code or ID schema. - The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep them aligned when a capability changes. - Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix. Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain the same. - Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified for the environment reasons above. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell commands, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 12:00:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2c96f76780	feat(connections): add model-backed prompt injection prevention ... Add opt-in OpenRouter checks at existing tool-result boundaries with regex fallback, service accounting, and settings on Connections. Make migration 0362 safe to replay over existing or partially applied schema state. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 11:32:25 -05:00
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>	2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00