mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 00:05:49 +02:00
df4ee06e2f613649f8331cc18a1b587e6146f8a8
2149
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
df4ee06e2f |
feat(skills): select and validate tracked GitHub branches (#16288)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Skills can track a branch in an authorized GitHub repository. > - Sources previously offered only a default-branch repair action. > - People need to select a listed branch or enter a branch that GitHub has not listed. > - The server must validate the selected ref with the caller's authorized connection. > - This pull request connects the approved branch picker to production APIs. > - Installed skills remain usable while the source changes its tracked ref. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Skills UI, shared API contracts, GitHub source services, and agent API discovery. **Problem or motivation** The default-branch repair action does not let people choose another branch. The settings service also validates the old ref when a caller supplies a new ref other than HEAD. A missing tracked branch can prevent connection repair even when the selected account has repository access. **Proposed solution** Load a bounded branch list with the authorized connection. Mark the default branch. Search listed branches or accept a typed ref. Validate the selected ref before saving. Keep the chosen value after a load error, invalid ref, or concurrent update. Save the selected connection and branch together during connection repair. **Alternatives considered** A default-branch button does not support a named branch. A text field alone does not help people find the repository default or available branches. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the existing Skills source manager. It does not add a new skill import system. **Additional context** Refs #16066 and #16256. This is the production implementation of the approved branch-selection Storybook journeys. ## What Changed - Add an authorized branch-list endpoint and shared response/query types. Register it in agent API discovery. - Validate the requested ref, including the returned commit SHA. Preserve source leases, revision checks, project ownership, skill identities, selections, and installed versions. - Add the searchable branch picker to Sources and connection repair. Allow typed refs during branch discovery and after discovery fails. - Keep save errors in the dialog. Retain the selected branch through a concurrent source update. - Use the production components and API client in Storybook. Add keyboard, touch, loading, retry, invalid-ref, connection-repair, and concurrent-update browser journeys. - Update product documentation and the feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red/green: two new database regressions fail against the previous service and pass against the implementation. - Linux database/service suite: 85 tests passed. This includes source visibility, human/agent authorization, selected connections, immutable versions, and invalid refs. - Rebased branch and review fixes: 94 focused UI, route, branch-validation, and fixture tests passed. Two conflict-message regressions and the stale-retry fixture regression fail before the fix and pass after it. - Storybook build passed. All 26 focused browser journeys passed. - Repository typecheck and build passed. Final UI typecheck passed after the review fixes. - The full local Vitest run was interrupted when the checkout and its dependencies disappeared. It reported missing working-directory/Postgres files and worker startup errors. Its two timed-out tests pass after the checkout was restored. The complete CI suite passed on the final head, `cf5d4c8f0a`: [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38571068332). One unchanged workspace timestamp test required a single rerun. Its release-minus-one-millisecond value can equal the original confirmation time. The rerun passed. - Live acceptance passed on implementation head `5dd935bf14` in an isolated macOS arm64 instance with Node 24.21.0 and an authorized private GitHub repository. The UI loaded the actual default branch, saved branch and selected connection together, and preserved the installed skill/version IDs after reload. An invalid typed ref retained the draft and showed the provider error. A valid typed HEAD ref then saved successfully. The owned runtime and database were stopped after the test. Focused unit, Linux database, and browser suites passed again after the error-handling review fixes. - Greptile reviewed final head `cf5d4c8f0a` at 5/5. Both review threads are resolved; the fresh review has no remaining findings. - Token gates and map/catalog checks passed. - Review entry points: `Skills / Project repository skills / 03 Branch selection components` and `04 Branch selection journeys`. Run `pnpm storybook` to inspect them. - Browser command: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts tests/storybook-visual/skill-source-branch-selection.spec.ts tests/storybook-visual/project-repository-skills.spec.ts`. - Manual check: open an independent GitHub source, choose a new branch, select the default or type a ref, save, and reload. Try an invalid ref and confirm the selection remains in the dialog. For a project-bound source, change its ref in project settings. ## Risks - GitHub discovery is bounded to 100 listed branches. The default branch is always included. Typed refs remain available. - A source can change while the dialog is open. The API rejects a stale revision and the UI keeps the draft for retry. - A ref change schedules the existing refresh pipeline. Installed versions remain available until a successful refresh imports new content. - No database migration or credential storage change is required. Existing HEAD requests remain supported. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The serving model's exact identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f8af817f8d |
fix(ui): make external agent pairing codes copyable (#16274)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - External agents connect through the shared MCP agent gateway. > - Grok setup gives the operator a one-use code for the authorization page. > - The password field hides the code but does not provide a working copy action. > - The pending approval button names Dot before the agent preview loads. > - This pull request adds explicit code copying and a neutral approval label. > - The operator can review the fixed agent without sending credentials to chat. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16219, #15581, #15414. **What happened?** The Grok setup code is in a read-only password field. Ordinary browser copying does not copy that field. The shared authorization page says “Connect Dot with pairing code” before it knows the invited provider. These defects blocked a watched Grok desktop setup before approval. **Expected behavior** An operator can copy the one-use code with a visible control. The code stays hidden and outside the Bot prompt. The authorization page shows the registered client and the fixed company, agent, permissions, and authorizing person before approval. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Choose New agent, Invite an external agent, and Grok Bot. 2. Save the Bot identity and open Connect access. 3. Try to copy the masked code into the Bot's browser authorization page. 4. Inspect the pending approval action before a valid preview loads. **Paperclip version or commit** The fix starts from master commit |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c36281d639 |
fix(skills): repair missing branches and show grouped import progress (#16256)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their reusable skills. > - GitHub skill sources must keep their installed content usable during updates. > - A source can track a branch that no longer exists. > - The UI treats that GitHub error as a connection problem, so saving a valid account does not resolve it. > - Project workspaces also show the same repository several times, and long imports give little feedback. > - This pull request adds explicit branch repair, groups repository imports, and shows import progress. > - People can repair the actual problem and see when their import is working. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16066 and #14713. This fixes the Sources experience introduced by those changes. Related adapter-source PRs #14340 and #14341 cover runtime mounting, not this source-management flow. No overlapping source-management fix was found. **What happened?** An installed source tracked `main` while its GitHub repository used `master`. GitHub returned HTTP 422. The UI showed a general read error and asked for a new connection after a valid account was saved. The project repository list repeated the same repository/ref for each project. Import had no spinner or explanation of queued work. **Expected behavior** Identify an unavailable branch and offer an explicit repair. Retain the selected connection and installed versions. Show one repository/ref row with its projects. Give immediate feedback and show the queued and active import states. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a source with an immutable commit and a saved tracked branch that does not exist. 2. Refresh it, or try to save a valid GitHub connection. 3. Add the same repository/ref to two legacy project workspaces and open Sources. 4. Import that repository and observe the row until installation completes. ## What Changed - Distinguish a missing GitHub revision from access denial and temporary read errors. - Validate both repository identity and the tracked revision when saving a connection. - Offer Use default branch on independent sources and in connection repair. Keep `HEAD` as the default-branch alias after refresh. Preserve skill IDs, versions and selections. - Keep active project refs under project configuration. Reject source-level changes that would alter their tracking. Recheck the ref under the source lock when project attachment races with branch repair. - Group matching repository/ref workspaces. Adopt eligible workspaces and skip pending workspaces. Keep remaining project links inside the existing source card. Allow remaining imports while another workspace is pending. - Show a spinner, busy state and queued/importing text. Keep the saved authorized account selected in connection repair. - Update shared contracts, feature/access maps, database notes and production-component Storybook journeys. ## Verification - Red/green: three local regressions failed on the original code: missing-ref classification, duplicate repository rows, and branch repair instead of another connection prompt. The changed UI/reader tests pass after the fixes. - Live local app with a real authorized GitHub credential: reproduced HTTP 422 for the unavailable branch; used the UI to restore default-branch tracking; confirmed the same connection, skill ID and single immutable version remained. - Live local grouped Paperclip import: one source, two project associations and 52 installed skills. Sources survived reload. No staging data was changed. - All 16 project repository Storybook browser journeys pass on the final head, including keyboard focus recovery after branch repair. These include branch repair, grouped imports, connection selection, recovery, removal and responsive layouts. - Repository typecheck, production build, Storybook build, token gates and 28 map/catalog tests passed. Final UI typecheck and build also passed after grouping remaining project links. - Linux qualification: all 94 focused source, project import, GitHub reader and UI tests pass with supported Node 24. No database tests were skipped. Both review findings failed before their fixes and pass after them. - The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after macOS database suites exhausted the host shared-memory limit. The complete Linux CI matrix is the full-suite gate. The complete Linux CI matrix passes for head `f886e3ac073ec1c6f051fd6429496234f5143694`. - Greptile rates head `f886e3ac073ec1c6f051fd6429496234f5143694` 5/5. Both findings are fixed and all review threads are resolved. - Storybook: `skills-project-repository-skills-02-journeys--missing-branch` and `--duplicate-projects`. ## Risks - Default-branch repair changes the tracked branch only after an explicit user action. Existing execution version pins stay intact. - A selected connection now needs access to the tracked revision, not only repository metadata. - Grouping is by repository and ref. Project access and provenance remain separate and are checked by the existing services. - Legacy source errors contain safe text. The repair-action classifier maps known errors and treats other failures as retryable. No credentials or provider response bodies are returned. - No schema migration, workflow change, lockfile change or staging deployment. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Tool-assisted implementation, code execution and browser verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [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
|
b8ffeb973a |
feat(runner): add experimental Grok Bot agent participation (#16219)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents that perform work for a company. > - The shared Runner owns task admission, authority, receipts and finalization. > - An existing Grok Bot needs to receive assignments and return results through that Runner. > - The Bot also needs governed access when it starts work from its own conversation. > - This PR adds agent-purpose MCP access and routine webhook dispatch. > - It reuses the external-agent Rust Runner and keeps Grok capabilities explicit. > - The provider stays experimental until the real-client managed journeys pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Agent or provider** Grok Bot, distinct from the Grok Build coding runtime in #13882. **Why this adapter is useful** Users can assign work to an existing Bot, receive progress, questions, documents and files in Paperclip, and let the Bot initiate work under its agent permissions. **How the agent is invoked** A webhook-only routine delivers bounded references. Dedicated named-agent OAuth and MCP provide inbound calls. Setup follows [Grok routines](https://cursor.com/help/grok-bot/routines) and [custom plugins](https://cursor.com/help/grok-bot/connect-plugins). The current desktop app needs its Bot-generated Webhook URL navigation link when routine-row clicks fail. The GitHub search found related Grok Build runtime work, but no existing Grok Bot agent provider. This extends the roadmap’s existing agent, Runner, governance and artifact foundations. ## What Changed - Add default-off Grok Bot participation through the shared real Rust external backend, preserving native provider identity guarantees and distinguishing session closure from remote termination. - Bind agent OAuth to company, agent, client, gateway and authorizer; recheck permissions and task-bound execution authority without manufacturing a native identity. - Persist routine configuration, dispatch intents, authenticated acknowledgement and recovery holds. Store URL/key together in encrypted secret storage, use guarded public egress, and never automatically replay ambiguous HTTP delivery. - Reuse native tools, durable waiting, completion assessment and review. Add task-bound file grants through existing artifact storage; suppress proactive echo dispatch and synchronous result wake loops. - Enforce the current native deliverable work-mode policy at file-ticket issuance and use. Add operator retries for confirmed rejected wakes, with retained receipts, stable retry intent and current-authority checks. Recovery locks bindings before routine rows. Thread Stop resolves the selected run and its agent. - Cancel queued and preparing Stop targets before assignment creation, restore saved setup after a failed request and successful retry, and publish the Grok provider descriptor schema. Advance the versioned Copilot source declaration for the shared schema change; its qualification remains pending. - Filter task summaries with the shared privacy policy, preserve feedback admission when wake delivery is blocked, reconcile settled delivery receipts without restoring work authority, and bind every Stop control to its displayed run. Recovery records distinguish dispatch uncertainty from a revoked session. - Add resumable guided setup, credential replacement, consent, management, observed work status and stop/recovery controls, plus an interactive Storybook journey using the production task thread, question form and report card. Grok’s own apps remain available; Paperclip workspace and third-party tools are deferred. ## Verification - Five focused protocol, authorization, person MCP and Runner files: 192 tests pass. The Grok assigned-work case executes the actual Rust Runner, saves a document, uploads/deduplicates a file and reaches ordinary finalization. - Proactive intake/deduplication and renewed-session recovery pass. These use scripted clients and synthetic storage; they are not real-provider acceptance. - Repository typecheck, production build, token gates, map checks and Storybook build/catalog checks pass. The local full-suite campaign was stopped after macOS shared-memory exhaustion repeatedly prevented embedded PostgreSQL startup. No local aggregate pass is claimed. The first clean-worker CI run identified avatar fixture/configuration, flag defaults, feature-card ordering and OpenAPI route-coverage gaps; all four focused regressions pass after correction. Those regressions pass. The latest clean-worker CI run also found a Copilot source-hash declaration mismatch after the shared descriptor update; the corrected declaration passes all 28 integrity tests. The next review corrections pass 144 rendered UI tests, 21 OpenAPI tests and 82 Runner contract/integrity/history tests. The latest database fixtures were blocked at startup by host shared-memory exhaustion; clean-worker CI must execute their new regressions. Full current-head CI now passes: 54 successful checks and four intentional skips. The database regression uses the PostgreSQL driver result shape; file-policy, rejected-feedback and lock-order cases pass on clean workers. Current-head Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Rendered setup steps and outbound-only verification were walked through in Storybook. Simulation cannot enable Done without an authenticated-reply state. - Actual client OAuth, continued access, reconnect and one routine wake with an exact chat acknowledgement were observed separately. This candidate’s live authenticated challenge, assigned/proactive workflows, Linux managed artifact, restart and cleanup are not yet qualified. The provider stays disabled by default. - The separate Cloud ingress change forwards only exact task-bound upload/download paths and preserves host identity and header stripping. - Current Cloud policy reserves Test for pre-merge app/harness experiments; Staging accepts only master-derived revisions. Real-client qualification needs a supported, authorized deployment target and remains outstanding. ## Risks One append-only migration adds routine/dispatch state and extends shared bindings and file tickets. The unshipped migrations were regenerated after upstream consumed their original numbers. Rolling back code retains the durable rows; revoke grants and inspect unknown remote activity before resuming dispatch. Grok cannot confirm remote termination, stream its complete transcript or report spending. Plugins are account-wide and do not isolate credentials between Bots. Real-client managed acceptance remains required before enabling the experimental provider. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code execution and browser/native UI tools. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
e0f30a4c71 |
feat(apps): collapse provider connections behind an "N connections" toggle (#16097)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Apps page shows one card for each provider. Each card lists the
connections for that provider.
> - Some providers have many connections. For example, a team can have
five OpenAI accounts.
> - Each connection uses a full row. Thus, the page becomes long and
cluttered.
> - This pull request puts the connection list behind a "N connections"
row with a chevron. The user clicks the row to show or hide the list.
> - The benefit is a shorter Apps page. Connections that need action
stay visible.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
UI: the Apps page (`ui/src/pages/apps/Browse.tsx`), the `ConnectorCard`
component.
**Problem or motivation**
A provider card shows every connection as a full row. When a provider
has many accounts, the card is very tall. The page is hard to scan.
**Proposed solution**
When a card has two or more connections, show a "N connections" row with
a chevron below the card header. A click on the row opens or closes the
list. The list is closed when all connections are healthy. The list is
open when a connection needs attention or setup. The row also shows the
count, for example "· 1 needs attention". The list is open while a
search is active. A card with one connection does not show the row.
**Alternatives considered**
- Always show the list. This is the current behavior, and it causes the
clutter.
- Show the toggle for one connection too. This adds a click and gives no
benefit.
- Always close the list. This can hide an account that needs
reconnection, so we did not use it.
## What Changed
- `ConnectorCard` counts native connections, gateway-managed accounts
(Composio, Arcade, Executor), and chat or bot endpoints.
- When the count is two or more, the card wraps the list in the existing
`Collapsible` component. The trigger row shows the count and a chevron
that turns when the list opens.
- The list opens by default when one or more connections need attention
or setup. The trigger row shows how many need attention.
- The `Browse` page sends `defaultExpanded` and the current trimmed
search query while a search is active. A new search opens the list
again, even after the user closed it.
- The upstream account state logic moved into the `upstreamAccountState`
helper. The list render and the attention count use the same helper. The
behavior did not change.
- The attention count and Finish setup action share one predicate. A
verifying endpoint stays visible until setup is complete. Four
regression cases cover provider setup, identity linking, missing setup
metadata, and completed setup.
- New tests in `Browse.test.tsx` cover: open and close with the toggle,
search opens the list, one connection stays inline, and the list opens
when an account needs attention.
- New review story:
`ui/storybook/stories/connection-setup/apps-connection-count-toggle.stories.tsx`
("Apps, channels, and extensions / Connection setup / Connection count
toggle"). It includes production component fixtures for collapsed,
expanded, needs-attention, search-match, single-connection,
page-overview, and unfinished-chat-setup states. The original six story
IDs are retained; the unfinished chat setup fixture adds one ID.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/apps/Browse.test.tsx`: all 84 tests
pass. The new test closes an active search result, changes the query,
then returns to the first query. It fails before the search-reset fix
and passes after it.
- `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: passes (265 story files,
2,520 stories). Story annotations describe the production components,
fixture boundary, and covered capabilities.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passes.
- Full repository typecheck and build passed after the master merge. The
final UI typecheck passes after the setup fix. Final full build and
Storybook build pass on `d4c923d3ce0`. The built index retains all six
prior story IDs and adds the unfinished-chat-setup ID. Chromium checks
pass for all seven states, including the setup action and toggle
behavior. All 54 successful CI checks pass on this head, with two
intentional skips, including all general and serialized test shards,
E2E, typecheck, and build. The fresh Apex review is 5/5 on this head
with no unresolved findings. The separate, unsharded local `pnpm
test:run` invocation has not completed; complete suite verification
comes from CI.
- The stories use local account fixtures and stub navigation. They do
not prove a live provider connection or persistence.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is UI only, with no API or data change.
- Behavior change: users must click to see the connections on a healthy
card with two or more connections. Cards with a problem stay open, so a
broken connection is not hidden.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used in Claude Code
with tool use (shell, file edit, test runs).
OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`) through Codex assisted conflict resolution,
regression tests, and repository verification. This session does not
expose an exact 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
|
ba4fac585d |
feat(agents): show who created an agent in shared companies (#16055)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A company in Paperclip can have more than one human member, and each member can create agents > - The app does not record which person created an agent > - When two or more people share a company, members cannot see who added an agent or who to ask about it > - This pull request records the creator of each agent and shows the creator on the agent Overview tab > - The benefit is clear ownership of agents in shared companies, with no change for single-user companies ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. This description follows `feature_request.yml`. **Subsystem affected** Agents: the agent data model, the agent create path on the server, and the agent Overview tab in the board UI. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip does not record which human user created an agent. When more than one human user works in a company, the agent page does not tell members who created the agent. **Proposed solution** Record the user ID of the creator when a human creates an agent. Show "Created by <name>" on the Identity card of the agent Overview tab. Show this row only when the company has two or more human members. Do not count the synthetic local Board principal as a human member. Do not show the local Board as a creator. **Alternatives considered** Count human users across the full instance. We did not do this. An instance-wide count tells a member of one company that other companies have users. The creator is always a member of the agent's company, so the company count is sufficient. **Roadmap alignment** `ROADMAP.md` has no item for agent ownership. This change is small and additive. ## What Changed - Add the nullable column `agents.created_by_user_id` (`packages/db/src/schema/agents.ts`, migration `0343_new_mentor.sql`). - Set the column in the single agent insert path (`server/src/modules/agent-lifecycle/adapters/records.ts`). The value comes from the authenticated user actor. The server ignores a creator value in the request body. Agents that agents or the system create keep `null`. - Backfill existing agents in the migration. The backfill uses the earliest `agent.created` or `agent.hire_created` activity row that a user actor wrote in the same company. - Add `createdByUserId` to the shared `Agent` type (`packages/shared/src/types/agent.ts`). - Add `ui/src/lib/agent-creator.ts`. It decides if the UI shows the creator row and it resolves the creator name. If the creator left the company, the row shows "Former member". - Add the "Created by" row to the Identity card in `ui/src/pages/AgentDetail.tsx`. If the company user directory request fails, the row shows "Could not load creator". The row does not disappear silently. - Add the Storybook story `Pages/Agent Detail → Shared Company Shows Creator`. - Document the column in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` §7.2. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes. This includes the migration numbering and migration safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `ui`: `tsc --noEmit` passes. - `server`: `vitest run src/modules/agent-lifecycle/__tests__/lifecycle.test.ts` passes (49/49). Two new tests: - The server records the creator from the actor and ignores a creator value in the request body. - The backfill takes the earliest user activity row. It skips agent actors and rows from other companies. - `server`: `vitest run src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts` passes (40/40). A new test checks that a built-in agent enabled by a human records that human, and that automatic provisioning stays unattributed. The gated (pending-approval) provisioning test also asserts the creator. `src/__tests__/built-in-agent-routes.test.ts` also passes. - `ui`: `vitest run src/lib/agent-creator.test.ts src/pages/AgentOverview.test.tsx` passes (10/10). The tests cover these cases: the row shows with two or more humans, the row stays hidden with one human plus the Board, the UI never shows the Board as the creator, the row shows an error when the directory request fails, and the row stays hidden (no error) for agents with no creator or the Board as creator. The last case fails without the fix. - The current Storybook catalog uses source annotations and generated indexes. `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check` passes (264 story files, 2,514 stories). The merge keeps the authored catalog deletion from master. - `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. - Screenshots from the Storybook story (fake data: two human members, Alice Admin and Bob Builder, plus the local Board). The red "Could not load public key" text is a Storybook artifact: the story has no fixture for the public key request. The existing `Dashboard` story shows the same text. **Two or more human members: the Identity card shows "Created by".**  **One human member plus the local Board: the row stays hidden.**  Full Overview tab: [overview-created-by.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b62bd2ea6cf984ce6745f08cc45f44ddf00fb51/pr-16055/overview-created-by.png). The images are on the separate branch `pr-assets/agent-created-by`. They are not in this PR and do not go to `master`. - Manual check: open Storybook at `Pages/Agent Detail → Shared Company Shows Creator`. The Identity card shows "Created by Alice Admin". The `Dashboard` story has one human, so it does not show the row. - Final focused verification on `5a02350cf16050a3cf3cb3f8dc061fe61758c60d`: all 99 tests pass across the two UI suites, built-in-agent suite, and lifecycle suite. The backfill test applies the complete migration twice. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and preserves the company-scoped backfill. Migration numbering and token checks pass. - Full repository typecheck, build, and Storybook build pass. The generated creator story ID is present. A Chromium check renders the production agent page fixture and verifies the creator row and Alice Admin name. Map checks and their 21 tests pass. A fresh Apex review is 5/5 on the current head with no unresolved findings. All 54 successful CI checks pass on this head, with two intentional skips, including all general and serialized test shards, E2E, typecheck, and build. The workspaces-b job passed after rerunning a runner shutdown; no source change was needed. The separate, unsharded local `pnpm test:run` invocation has not completed; complete suite verification comes from CI. ## Risks - Migration: the migration adds one nullable column and runs one `UPDATE` on `agents` with a correlated subquery on `activity_log`. On an instance with a very large activity log, the backfill can take some time. The migration does not lock other tables and does not delete data. - Backfill accuracy: agents with no user-authored create activity row keep `null`. The UI then does not show a creator. This is the same as the current behavior. - Privacy: the row shows only names from the company user directory, and only to users who can already see that directory. - Low risk for single-user companies: the UI does not change for them. > 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 - Provider: Anthropic, Claude Opus 5.5 (model ID `claude-opus-5-5`), run as a coding agent through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit, and test execution), standard context window. OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`) through Codex assisted conflict resolution, regression tests, and repository verification. This session does not expose an exact 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
edcfcaf3f6 |
fix(ui): leave hidden task source defaults to the server (#16220)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task dialog sends project and workspace choices to the control plane. > - Hidden workspace controls must leave automatic source choices to the server. > - The dialog still sent its computed source pointer while those controls were hidden. > - This bypassed the implicit default branch added in #16095 and saved an untyped source choice. > - This pull request omits that automatic pointer and preserves explicit launch context. > - The benefit is that fresh tasks can use the server's safe isolated default source path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16095. A search found no open duplicate for the hidden-selector payload bug. **What happened?** A fresh task created through the board with a project and hidden isolation controls failed setup with “Task workspace access is no longer available.” The dialog sent `projectWorkspaceId` even though the user had not selected a source. The saved task had no workspace-selection provenance. No provider turn started. **Expected behavior** Omit automatic or restored draft source pointers when the selector is hidden. Let the server select and record the project default. Preserve explicit source and execution-workspace context supplied by a launch action. **Steps to reproduce** Hide `workspaces.isolation` through the existing operator setting. Use a project with a default Git source and isolated workspace policy. Create a fresh task from the board. Inspect the creation payload: the hidden automatic source must be omitted. The server must then apply its existing default source contract. A restricted shared source must remain protected. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on Core `c7f4b74111d16f0b57112fa6d0b6a59c2d63bfe8`, which includes #16095. **Deployment mode** Authenticated staging Cloud instance with a configured remote runner provider and operator-hidden workspace controls. ## What Changed - Omit the automatic `projectWorkspaceId` while isolation controls are hidden. - Keep explicit same-project launch source context, including reused workspaces and subtasks. - Add a fresh-default payload regression and strengthen stale-draft and explicit-context controls. - Keep server authorization, trust checks, source fallback rules, visible selectors, and stored old tasks unchanged. ## Verification - Before the repair, the hidden fresh/default and restored-source regressions failed: 2 failed, 3 passed, 79 other cases filtered. - Final rebased source: `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/project-workspace-defaults.test.ts` passed all 87 cases. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Initial UI typecheck failed because this new checkout had not built the plugin SDK. Building that dependency and repeating the unchanged check passed. The failed attempt remains separate from the source regression. - Full repository typecheck, full repository tests, and full repository build have not been run locally for this two-file UI patch. Complete latest-head CI passed with 55 successful checks and two intentional skips. This includes the full repository typecheck, build, general/serialized tests and all eight browser shards. Fresh Apex is 5/5 on `f992823480311691469c6797d5cdff26d76899a2`, with no unresolved findings or recommendations. - No live recovery pass is claimed. The deployed baseline failed before provider startup. A fresh same-project task must pass after this patch is deployed. Existing tasks with untyped source pointers need a separate authorized recovery path. - The old Storybook maps were reviewed at the baseline, then master removed them. The rebase preserves that removal. The final Storybook structural check covers 262 files and 2,485 story IDs. No new Storybook browser, play, render, or visual proof is claimed. ## Risks - Hidden restored draft source choices are intentionally ignored. Explicit same-project launch defaults remain in the request and have controls for normal tasks and subtasks. - Visible workspace choices retain their existing behavior. - This patch fixes one creation path. It does not recover old tasks, relax private source restrictions, or establish a performance fix for slow historical runs. - No data model, endpoint, permission, runner, or Observability changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with code and browser tools. The exact served model identifier 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
|
22d05644f4 |
feat(ui): add Speko voice setup, task calls, and Storybook coverage (#15728)
Runtime #15727 is merged. This PR adds the UI. Qualification follows in
#15729.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed connections.
> - Chat connections already bind external conversations to those tasks.
> - Speko handles voice and telephony, while the selected Paperclip
agent does the work.
> - A call needs durable session authority, ordered follow-ups, and safe
result delivery.
> - This PR adds the Speko setup and call controls to the existing Apps
and task UI.
> - This PR depends on #15727. The qualification suite follows
separately. Speko stays experimental.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Phone and browser voice conversations cannot use the chat connection
task lifecycle. A separate voice runtime is needed to preserve task
authority, retries, and reply history.
**Proposed solution**
Add company-scoped voice sessions, signed callbacks, durable replies,
inbound intake, and an agent-facing outbound-call tool. Reuse existing
tasks, queues, secrets, and publications.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the experimental chat connector entry points under Agent
Chat and Connected Apps. The project owner requested this feature.
Refs #11418 for the original provider catalog proposal. This
implementation uses the newer chat connection infrastructure rather than
an MCP catalog-only integration. Refs #15721 for remote OpenCode
startup.
## What Changed
- Add the Speko Apps catalog entry, provider artwork, and browser SDK.
- Reuse existing agents in setup. Keep the optional Company Phone Agent
in the catalog, with connection instructions available to any assigned
agent.
- Add task voice controls, transcripts, phone callbacks, inbound-line
settings, and call Activity entries.
- Surface retryable connection and incoming-task inventory failures,
preserve active call controls and cached tasks, restore keyboard focus
after recovery, and bound notification polling so a stuck request cannot
hide later results.
- Put Save & exit and Connect Speko in the credential step’s shared
footer.
- Add deterministic production-component Storybook fixtures for setup,
lifecycle, failures, permissions, and phone surfaces.
- Include voice components in the design guide. Stories never request a
real microphone or place calls.
## Verification
- All 27 focused UI/controller regressions, UI typecheck, token gates,
and 28 map/catalog structural tests pass. The shared connection cache
test covers pause/resume invalidation during the 30-second fresh period.
- Storybook builds 157 Speko production-component stories. The complete
prior 156-story set passed all 624 checks on UI source
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
473c80d13f |
Automatically import and update project repository skills (#16066)
Automatically import skills from new GitHub project repositories and update enabled sources in the background. Preserve project-derived access, saved selections, immutable execution versions and explicit pins; add legacy adoption, refresh and connection repair in Sources. Include durable scheduling and bounded work credits, production Storybook journeys, real GitHub-to-routine acceptance receipts and final-head CI/security/Greptile qualification. 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5a6d0d08a7 |
fix: record verified workspace file recovery from tasks (#16104)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Recovery must preserve files and show the next operator action. > - A stopped run can leave a file repair hold after its recovery action is resolved. > - The task notice shows that hold but has no form to record verified file recovery. > - A chat connection can also replace the file repair instruction with a chat retry instruction. > - This pull request adds a file recovery form and preserves the file repair instruction. > - The form records evidence for the original run and keeps the current task status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A retained workspace file hold can block a task after its recovery action is resolved. The task page offers no file recovery form. A chat binding can hide the required file repair instruction. **Expected behavior** An authorized board member can record verified recovery of the original files. The server checks the original stop proof. The task keeps its current status and does not start another run. Chat instructions must not replace file repair instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a stopped legacy run with a retained workspace recovery marker and a resolved recovery action. 2. Open its task page, including a task with a chat connection. 3. Observe that the file hold has no supported form to record verified recovery. Refs: #15857, #15824, #16095. Those PRs address shutdown export, native finalization and workspace source isolation. This PR uses the existing file repair API. ## What Changed - Add a board-only file recovery form with evidence and an explicit file verification confirmation. - Preserve the current task status when recording file recovery. - Project whether the original recovery marker supports file recording. - Keep file repair instructions when a task has a chat binding. - Add UI, route and Storybook examples for success, denial and chat-connected file holds. - Document the recovery flow and update the affected Storybook catalog entries. ## Verification - Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index conflicts. Upstream review notes and classifications are preserved, together with all four retained-file recovery examples and their stable story IDs. Both fix branches also combine without merge conflicts or catalog fingerprint drift. - Passed locally after conflict resolution: 47 tests covering the file recovery UI, execution blocker notice and retained workspace repair route. The earlier ownership-route pass also covered 196 tests. - Passed: UI token gates, the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script tests. Verification inventory counts match all 262 authored suites and 2,485 story IDs. The upstream production verification obligations remain intact. - Passed: full workspace typecheck, build and Storybook build on latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48`. The built index retains all four file-recovery story IDs. - Latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48` has 54 successful checks and two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Apex is 5/5 on that exact commit, with no unresolved findings. The full general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards passed in CI. Local tests use the focused suites above. Storybook browser interactions have not been executed locally. - Manual check: open a task with a retained file hold. Verify that evidence and confirmation are required. Record verified file recovery. Confirm that its status stays unchanged and no run starts. Repeat without board runtime access and with an unverified stop receipt. ## Risks - The form records an operator attestation. It does not recover files itself or prove external action outcomes. - A stale source or missing stop proof must remain rejected by the existing server route. - No database migration or automatic task retry is added. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`), used through Codex with reasoning, repository tools, code editing and test execution. The exact context window size is not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c8efdbfba4 |
test(storybook): add production examples for feature map UI gaps (#16196)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The feature map records the user-facing capabilities. > - Storybook uses the same feature index. > - Step 2 found 49 UI capabilities with no authored examples. > - This pull request adds shipped-component examples with isolated fixtures. > - The catalog records each example's states and remaining production checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16167. The verification inventory is merged; this follow-up now targets master. ## What Changed - Add 37 suites and 257 scenarios for all 49 UI capabilities from the step-2 inventory. Keep existing stories and IDs. - Use shipped pages and components. Simulate API replies, sockets, props, and callbacks at their boundaries. - Activate story API fixtures before the application providers read data. Block unregistered API mutations and restore owned storage/fetch state. - Add browser checks for rendering, declared play assertions, fixture reset, and selected mobile/theme states. Update the catalog and verification inventory. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - UI Vitest suite: 730 files and 8,208 tests passed. Fixture boundary tests: 4 passed. - Map/catalog checks, 27 generator/map tests, and token gates: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. All 2,248 previous built entry IDs remain present. - Pre-reconciliation static browser suite: 260 checks passed (257 scenarios, token fixture reset, and two mobile/theme cases). All non-play stories assert an explicit subject state; 129 play functions passed. - `pnpm test:run` could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL exhausted host shared-memory allocation. The run also reported native-runner test timeouts. Only this task's verified runner was stopped; other jobs and host settings were preserved. - Reconciled onto merged master `252d9b5077`. The six draft stories and new same-browser reset regression passed (7 checks); 16 draft-persistence tests and UI typecheck passed. Static merge verification: 32 affected-subject/draft checks passed, including same-browser reset. Rebuilt Storybook retains all 2,248 original IDs in its 2,517-entry index. Four additional play-result checks passed: visible onboarding reset, pending probe, filtered-empty runs, and optimistic queued-response removal. UI typecheck and 27 catalog/map tests also passed. Final static browser suite on `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 261 checks passed (257 scenarios plus fixture-reset and mobile checks). Latest head `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 55 CI/status checks passed; the two optional Storybook workflow jobs were skipped. Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - No pinned Linux visual-baseline comparison or real provider journey is claimed. ## Risks Fixtures can drift from production contracts. The catalog records inspected sources and their fingerprints. Capability links provide initial isolated UI coverage; they do not certify every recipe variant, real permissions, persistence, or provider behavior. The new examples expose existing UI limits. Plugin discovery failure stays on Loading. Document and environment-list reads lack dedicated failure feedback; Cases and Inbox fall back to empty views after errors. Goal alignment has display views but no assignment control. These findings remain visible in the inventory. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. The exact runtime deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used code generation, shell execution, and browser verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [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> |
||
|
|
2a56e5c734 |
fix(ui): show soft budget incidents as warnings, not hard stops (#16201)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Budget policies limit what an agent, a project, or the organization can spend. > - At the warning threshold (80% by default), the server opens a soft incident. It does not pause the scope. At 100%, it opens a hard incident and pauses the scope. > - The budget incident card always shows the hard-stop design. A soft incident shows "agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", and a "Keep paused" button. > - Operators read this as a paused agent. The policy card and the "Paused agents" counter for the same agent say something different. > - This pull request shows soft incidents as warnings. Hard stops do not change. > - The benefit is that the Costs and Budgets pages give one consistent and correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description I searched open and closed issues and pull requests for "budget incident", "hard stop", "soft incident", and "BudgetIncidentCard". I found no issue for this bug. Refs #14306: that open PR also changes `BudgetIncidentCard`, for failed-action feedback. It does not change the soft and hard labels. The two PRs can conflict in this file. **What happened?** An agent budget policy reached its warning threshold. The Audit → Budgets page and the Audit → Costs overview showed the soft incident as "AGENT HARD STOP" with the banner "This scope is paused. New heartbeats will not start until you resolve the budget incident." The card showed "Raise budget & resume" and "Keep paused". The agent was not paused. Its policy card showed "Warning", and the "Paused agents" counter did not count it. **Expected behavior** A soft incident looks like a warning. It says that work continues. Its actions are "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". A hard incident keeps the current design and actions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an agent budget policy with a $1,000 monthly limit and the default 80% warning threshold. 2. Record $800 of cost for that agent. 3. Open Audit → Budgets. 4. Look at the active incident for that agent. It says "agent hard stop" and "This scope is paused". **Paperclip version or commit** Seen on v2026.1012.0 (`bba6a45`). The same code is on `master` at `721e87ac0`. **Deployment mode** local_trusted (not deployment-specific). ## What Changed - `BudgetIncidentCard` reads `incident.thresholdType`. A `soft` incident shows: - The heading "<scope> budget warning", with amber styling and a warning icon. - The banner "Spending crossed the warning threshold. This warning does not pause work." - The actions "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". They call the same handlers as before (`raise_budget_and_resume` and `keep_paused`). For a soft incident, the server dismisses the incident for `keep_paused`, and the resume step has no effect because the scope is not paused. - A new-budget prefill of the current limit plus $10. Before, the prefill was equal to the current limit, so "Raise budget" did not change the limit. - A `hard` incident does not change: the same heading, banner, styling, prefill, and actions. - The "Active incidents" description on the Costs page now covers warnings and hard stops. - New tests in `BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx` cover a hard stop, a soft warning, and a project hard stop. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx`: 3 tests pass. Before the fix, the soft-warning test failed with `expected 'agent hard stopOpen…' to contain 'agent budget warning'`. - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Costs src/components/Budget`: 31 tests pass. - Manual check in a running instance (v2026.1012.0 with this patch, seeded with an agent at 100% and an agent at 80% of a $1,000 budget), in light and dark themes: - The 100% agent shows the red "Agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", "Raise budget & resume", and "Keep paused". - The 80% agent shows the amber "Agent budget warning", the warning banner, a $1,010.00 prefill, "Raise budget", and "Dismiss warning". - "Paused agents: 1" agrees with the cards. - `ui` typecheck: no errors in the changed files. The local run had unrelated errors in `PluginOrganizationSwitcher` because the plugin SDK was not built. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is UI-only. Hard-stop rendering and behavior do not change. No API, server, or data changes. - The soft card now prefills a value above the current limit. Before, it prefilled the current limit. - PR #14306 changes the same component. One of the two PRs can need a small rebase. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs, Playwright screenshot capture). A human requested and reviewed the change. ## 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 (no `doc/` page describes this card, so no change was needed) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Aron Prins <aronprins@icloud.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
0b0e53029f |
fix: recover saved workspace results automatically (#15824)
## Thinking Path - Paperclip preserves accepted agent results before workspace copyback and result commitment. - A replaced controller can leave a physical copyback owner receipt behind. A lost database lock or expired lease cannot prove that its tar/Git children stopped. - Infrastructure recovery should belong to the runtime and deployment harness; task users should not investigate processes or attest shutdown. - New receipts record the exact deployment. The harness independently verifies that deployment fully stopped and signs a short-lived proof bound to the stack, run, owner and deployment. - The existing guarded reconciler then finishes the same accepted result without a new agent turn. Legacy receipts retain the documented administrator API after independent platform verification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An accepted native result can remain at `workspace_finalizing` with an abandoned physical copyback owner. Repeated recovery sweeps could replace specific instructions with advice to start new agent work. The first version of this PR exposed a shutdown-evidence form in the task; that asks end users to resolve infrastructure details. **Expected behavior** Automatically verify and recover the exact stopped deployment, preserve the original accepted result and existing approval/monitor waits, and show only a quiet task status. Unknown or live workers must remain fenced. Older receipts without platform identity need independently verified operator assistance through the administrator API. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist an accepted native result and a copyback receipt from a prior controller. 2. Replace that deployment before workspace finalization commits. 3. Let the normal finalization reconciler revisit the saved result. 4. With a platform-bound receipt and a fully stopped deployment, recovery should finish automatically. With missing, live, unverifiable or changed ownership, it must not write files or create another provider turn. Related public work: #14402 introduced copyback ownership; #9687 handles dead-run finalize barriers; #15795 handles terminal stale-run cleanup. This change addresses an accepted result whose physical copyback owner prevents commitment. ## What Changed - Record Railway project, environment, service and deployment identity on new physical copyback owners. - Request read-only platform verification from the managed cloud harness. Require an Ed25519 stop receipt with a disjoint purpose, configured signing key, exact stack/run/owner/deployment binding and valid expiry. - Keep live, unknown, malformed, unavailable and legacy owners fenced. Compare the whole prior receipt during ownership takeover, under the existing dedicated advisory lock. - Persist platform proof and audit automatic takeover. Resume normal finalization of the same saved result, preserving task ownership, approved boundaries, monitors and pending confirmations. - Remove process metadata, shutdown evidence, confirmation checkboxes and infrastructure-repair forms from task views. Suppress the duplicate technical owner-recovery card. Show “Restoring saved work…” only from server-confirmed recovery or queued operator recovery; platform identity alone shows the operator-assistance fallback. Remove the status when recovery resolves. - Share current-task, current-running-execution, accepted-result, authoritative-reviewer and newer-execution checks between automatic and operator recovery. Validate after the provider lookup, atomically with the owner claim, and again before file publication; closed or superseded tasks cannot start copyback. - Keep the separately authorized exact-owner API for operator recovery of legacy receipts, with active-lock, live-controller, stale-result and newer-execution rejection. Generic dismissal cannot bypass the copyback fence. - Replace obsolete form stories with production-backed automatic, queued, legacy, completed and mobile examples; retain stable suite IDs. Update the operator runbook and scoped Storybook catalog. ## Verification - Red/green: new platform-proof tests failed before implementation; the database takeover regression failed against the original ownership guard; reduced-UI assertions failed against the original form. All pass after the changes. - Passed: 59 physical-owner/finalization database tests using isolated PostgreSQL, including real reconciler commitment from all three saved-result phases through both automatic and operator recovery. They preserve result identity, exact saved file bytes, pending approval and overdue monitor waits, and create no new run or wake request. Unknown evidence and changed ownership remain fenced. - Passed: 162 focused proof, cloud identity, recovery route, recovery-card and reduced-UI tests. - Passed: full workspace typecheck and build, final server/UI typechecks, token gates, and Storybook build. - Browser inspection: desktop task composition shows only the quiet status; completed example removes it and retains the approval-wait message. Mobile shows the existing bottom navigation with no horizontal overflow. These are fixture UI observations, not live provider acceptance. - A companion harness change implements the actual provider check, signed receipts, server-token authentication and bounded/coalesced provider reads. Its full typecheck and test suite passed: 3,240 passed, 92 skipped, zero failures. This application alone cannot enable platform verification. - The updated full application `pnpm test:run` was stopped after repeated local embedded-Postgres startup failures; it is not claimed green. The same affected recovery suites pass against isolated PostgreSQL. CI passed on final head `9ad5c3529e`: 54 successful checks, two intentional skips, and successful legacy Snyk status. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Global Storybook catalog validation is green: 225 files, 2,224 stories. Its 17 catalog/index tests pass. Master was merged and the inherited index metadata was reconciled after source review. - Review correction red/green: two UI and two database assertions reproduced misleading progress / missing server recovery state; all pass after server-confirmed state was added. All 153 focused server tests and 68 UI tests pass on the final recovery code, including repeated-sweep idempotence. Full workspace typecheck/build, token gates and Storybook build also pass. - Safety regression red/green: stale-task copyback and publication tests failed against the previous guard. The final suite covers changes during proof lookup, closed/cancelled tasks, replaced execution/checkout, newer and queued legacy runs, reassignment and rejected/unbound results, plus the real reconciler selecting closed or superseded tasks. Files remain untouched and no workspace operation starts. - No staging mutations, deployment, live provider probes or live production recovery were performed. The three historical receipts lack deployment identity and still require independent operator proof. ## Risks Automatic takeover requires the companion harness release and configured runtime-identity keys. Deploying only this application leaves unavailable evidence fenced. Legacy receipts are not retrospectively assigned a deployment identity. An authorized operator can still make an incorrect attestation through the fallback API; its administrator gate and exact-owner safeguards remain. Provider history that is missing or deeper than the bounded lookup defers automatic recovery. Copyback can still fail under its existing retained-workspace policy. No migration, telemetry change or cloud provider credential delivery is required. The companion harness PR also has passing CI and a 5/5 review; neither branch is deployed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, browser verification, tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the relevant 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: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
be380ba155 |
fix(ui): hide agent-created tasks by default (#16157)
Hide agent-created, system-created, and chat-channel tasks from independent collections by default. Preserve task hierarchy context and existing inbox participation. Add a saved opt-in checkbox without helper text. 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
|
aded4197e5 |
fix: make multiplayer task toasts personal (#16153)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A company can have several human users and shared agents. > - Live task events currently produce toasts for any user who can read the task. > - This makes unrelated work interrupt other users. > - This pull request checks each user's task participation before it permits a toast. > - Users receive relevant task notifications while company views continue to refresh. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Company task activity and agent failures produce noisy toasts for users who have no involvement in the task. **Expected behavior** A task qualifies when the viewer created it, commented on it, is its assigned user, deliberately acted on it under the Mine rules, or has an explicit user mention in its description or a non-deleted comment. Viewing, agent ownership, responsible-user attribution, and parent participation alone do not qualify. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in as two users in the same company. 2. Have the second user create and update a task that does not involve the first user. 3. Observe a task toast in the first user's company view before this fix. The duplicate PR search found no existing change for personal task-toast eligibility. ## What Changed - Extract the existing Mine participation predicate without changing Mine behavior. - Compute task eligibility from stored tasks, comments, and run associations after WebSocket access checks. Use an exact indexed comment-mention lookup with `LIMIT 1`. - Add optional `toastEligible` metadata to each viewer's event copy. Keep it off the shared event bus. - Require eligibility for live task activity and task-linked run errors. Suppress generic agent errors. - Continue cache updates for quiet events. Refetch visible comments when authenticated events omit hydration details. Ignore stale socket callbacks after account or company changes. - Document toast semantics and add feature-map and agent-access-map coverage. - Add persisted-data, socket, UI, and authenticated browser regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit: `1dc4f9402c5883744738cfe236ad00fa0bb5ca4c`. - All 55 current-head checks passed. Two Storybook checks were skipped because this change does not affect that coverage. - Greptile approved this exact commit with 5/5. The security scan passed. Both review threads are resolved. - Local `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - The focused socket/UI suite passed 123 tests. The persisted eligibility suite passed 9 tests, including long history, exact viewer matching, and regex escaping. The existing Mine service suite previously passed 140 tests. - The named browser case `task toasts follow personal involvement in multiplayer` passed against the final commit in an isolated authenticated instance. It used two real sessions, real WebSocket delivery, and persisted tasks, edits, comments, and mentions. It verified quiet unrelated activity, viewing alone, first and historical mentions, own-action suppression, visible-task suppression, and live cache refresh. - A prior-head server shard passed its single rerun after a fixture-cleanup deadlock. The final-head CI run passed without a rerun. - The broad local run remained in progress when CI completed the full test suite. Local focused checks and CI provide the completed test evidence. ## Risks - This intentionally reduces live notifications. A new client stays quiet against an older server that omits eligibility. - Eligibility queries add work to live event delivery. A lookup failure suppresses the toast and still delivers the authorized event. - Deleted mentions cease to qualify unless another participation rule applies. Historical comment authorship retains the existing Mine behavior. - No database migration or notification-settings change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with implementation, tests, documentation, and PR preparation. It used repository tools, shell commands, and browser automation. The runtime did not expose an exact backend 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
|
2ad36f4ff2 |
Fix skill source removal with a keep-or-delete choice (#16150)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - GitHub sources import skills and keep their updates together.
> - Disconnect only disabled a source and kept its read-only imports.
> - A disabled source could not be removed or imported again.
> - Removing a source needs an explicit decision about its imported
skills.
> - This pull request removes the source after the user keeps editable
copies or deletes the imports.
> - Existing disabled sources use the same removal flow.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #15731, #14713.
**What happened?**
Disconnect left the repository on Sources. Its Disconnect action was
then disabled. The saved repository still blocked a new import.
**Expected behavior**
Remove the repository from Sources. Require a choice to keep editable
copies or delete its imports. Allow removal of sources that are already
disconnected.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Import a repository in Skills → Sources.
2. Choose Disconnect source.
3. Observe the disconnected row and disabled removal action.
4. Try to import the repository again.
**Paperclip version or commit**
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
df06df2306 |
fix(slack): allow direct messages without at-mentions (#16151)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connections let people start and continue agent tasks. > - The Require at-mention setting currently applies to channels and direct messages. > - A person who sends a direct message has already selected the agent. > - This pull request exempts direct messages from mention checks, including queued work. > - People can talk normally in DMs while channel messages keep the configured mention rule. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15612, which introduced the Require at-mention setting. Searches found no duplicate PR for the DM exemption. **What happened?** With Require at-mention enabled, a plain Slack DM does not start or continue agent work. New Slack connections enable the setting by default. **Expected behavior** Direct messages do not need an at-mention. Top-level DM replies remain top-level. Channel messages and channel thread replies still follow the saved mention setting. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Allow direct messages and Require at-mention on a Slack connection. 2. Send a plain DM from an authorized sender. 3. Confirm the agent responds without an at-mention. Send a plain follow-up and confirm it also works. 4. Confirm unmentioned channel messages remain filtered when Require at-mention is enabled. 5. Disable Allow direct messages and confirm new DMs remain blocked. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline: `eb06c9fedd`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. Automated tests use disposable local Postgres and provider fixtures. This change has not been deployed or retested in live Slack. ## What Changed - Exempt DMs at inbound admission, task mutation, work authorization, and heartbeat queue claim. - Keep channel mention checks and all existing sender, endpoint, and destination checks. - Update regressions for new connections, follow-ups, deferred delivery, and coalesced queued messages. - Clarify the Slack settings copy, connection documentation, and verification maps. - Refresh the affected Storybook review references after source inspection. ## Verification - Passed 55 Slack and durable scheduler tests with Vitest on the current rebased commit, including admission through the extracted inbound module. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` on the rebased PR commit. - Passed token gates and map checks. - Passed Storybook catalog validation after rebase: 223 files and 2,210 stories. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after three failures in the unchanged tool-access suite. All 418 tests in that suite passed in a standalone rerun. The focused regressions passed; full GitHub CI remains the merge gate. - Greptile reviewed commit `b0293fa6571403c5e01c30bb7b5fcc5e91b88c97`: 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. All 55 GitHub checks passed on this commit; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - No live Slack messages were sent during implementation verification. ## Risks Existing Slack connections now accept authorized plain DMs even when Require at-mention is enabled. Allow direct messages and sender authorization still apply. Queued DM work follows the same exemption. Channel behavior and DM reply routing are unchanged. No schema or migration change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. 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 #` / `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> |
||
|
|
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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
4a641d0980 |
fix(ui): default human task replies to the latest assigning agent (#15594)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks let agents ask a person for input. > - The reply composer needs a useful default recipient. > - A recent comment does not identify the agent that assigned the task. > - The old fallback can select the person who is writing the reply. > - This change uses the latest agent assignment and keeps manual choices. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** When an agent assigns a task to a person, the reply composer can select that person or a different commenter. A data refresh can also replace a manual selection. **Expected behavior** For a task assigned to the current person, select the latest agent that assigned it to them. If no such assignment exists, use the latest other commenter. If neither exists, leave the recipient empty. Keep explicit choices during refreshes. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Have agent Alpha assign a task to a person. 2. Assign it to agent Beta, then have Beta assign it to the same person. 3. Open the task as that person. 4. Check that the reply composer selects Beta. 5. Select another recipient. Refresh task data. Check that the selection stays. Related work: #15091 shares task composer controls. This change fixes recipient defaults. ## What Changed - Read real assignment changes from REST and native runner task activity, in time order. - Record human assignee fields in native create and reassign activity. - Ignore unchanged assignment fields and assignments to other people. - Use the assigning agent before comment hints for human-owned tasks. - Connect the suggestion to current and classic task composers and pipeline replies. - Keep manual selections when suggestions change. - Add regression tests and document the fallback. - Use tasks with no assignee in the attachment receipt tests. This keeps the tests on the comment route. Dismiss announcements through the real UI. - Record human and agent assignees in REST creation receipts. Include child creation in the assignment history resolver. ## Verification - Focused tests cover assignment order, creation, other recipients, unchanged fields, fallback, and manual selections. - Browser fixture uses the real composer and assignment resolver. It selects Beta and keeps a manual human selection after history refresh. - Passed: 223 focused tests across four suites. - Passed: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - Passed: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`. - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates`. - The initial CI run passed full build, typecheck, Rust, unit tests and seven E2E shards. The attachment shard exposed tests that relied on the old self-selection default. The tests now select the recipient explicitly. - Native assignment regression tests and resolver tests pass: 40 tests. - Attachment E2E suite: 10 passed; one page-load timing failure passed on an isolated rerun. All 11 cases passed across the suite and rerun. - Previous full CI passed at |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7d7f55e4be |
fix(apps): show user avatars and center access rows (#15577)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their access to apps. > - The app access page shows people with linked chat accounts. > - The identity response omitted the user's saved image. > - The row placed the avatar beside only the first name line. > - This change returns the image and centers the avatar beside both name lines. > - People can recognize linked accounts and still see initials when no image is available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The app access page showed initials even when the linked Paperclip user had a profile image. The avatar was above the vertical center of the Disconnect button. **Expected behavior** Show the linked user's saved image. Center it beside the Paperclip and chat names. Keep initials when no image is available. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Link a Slack account to a Paperclip user with a profile image. 2. Open the app's Access tab. 3. Inspect the person's avatar and the two name lines. Searched public issues and pull requests. No duplicate fix was found. Related avatar work in #15095 concerns agent uploads, not linked user profiles. ## What Changed - Return `paperclipUserImage` from the chat principal service and declare it in the API and client types. - Use the shared avatar primitives and center the avatar beside the full name block. Keep full names available in hover text. - Add image and initials examples to the existing Storybook access story, with image and alignment checks. - Extend the service test to check saved images and missing images. ## Verification - Token gates and `git diff --check` pass. - The 33 existing chat setup and identity-link UI tests pass. - The OAuth installer service regression test passes. - Chromium rendered the Storybook Access story at desktop and mobile sizes. The avatar, name block, and Disconnect button centers all measured 307 CSS pixels on desktop. - UI typecheck passes. Full repository typecheck and build stop at the Rust runner because this workspace has no `cargo`. The initial parallel typecheck also exceeded the 4 GiB workspace limit. The full local test attempt was stopped as memory approached the 4 GiB limit; it has no complete verdict. CI passed the full build, typecheck, test, and E2E lanes on the initial commit. The previously reviewed commit passed 54 checks with two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Master was merged on October 10 to resolve an import conflict; fresh CI is running for `24badb742d331c1b6ee3e90cbd06defefe5cd634`. Token gates and whitespace checks pass after conflict resolution. The single retry after CI runner shutdowns passed. Greptile gives this commit 5/5, with both review threads resolved. ### Screenshots The Storybook fixture shows an image, fallback initials, and a pending account.   ## Risks Low risk. The API field is additive and needs no migration. The image uses the same avatar primitive as other user identities. Missing or failed images retain the initials fallback. Other chat providers share this access row. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. Tool use and code execution. 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 #` / `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> |
||
|
|
56a0bf0d49 |
Support test Cloud connector identities (#16033)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its Cloud connector uses an environment-bound identity to call a hosted broker. > - The identity parser and enrollment flow accept development, staging, and production. > - A separate test broker needs its own environment identity. > - This pull request accepts test identities and maps the test broker to that environment. > - Known hosted brokers still reject identities from other environments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Cloud connector configuration and self-host enrollment. **Current behavior** The app rejects an identity with environment `test`. Self-host enrollment infers development for the test broker. **Proposed behavior** Accept `test` identities at `https://test.paperclip.app`. Infer test during self-host enrollment. Reject development, staging, and production identities at that broker. Continue to reject test identities at the production and staging brokers. **Reason and benefit** Branch testing needs a separate broker so test identities and requests stay in their selected environment. The existing identity, enrollment, and signature flow can provide that isolation with a new allowed environment value. **Breaking changes** Existing environment values and broker checks keep their current behavior. Older app versions cannot use test connector identities. ## What Changed - Add `test` to managed and self-hosted connector environment types and validation, and to the board API enrollment status type. - Infer test from its hosted broker and enforce the matching environment. - Test enrollment persistence, signed request environment/audience claims, and broker mismatch rejection. - Document test broker configuration in the development guide. ## Verification - Connector, enrollment, and board API-client suites passed: 63 tests across three files. Board UI typecheck and token gates passed after synchronizing its enrollment response type. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed, including after rebasing onto current master. - `pnpm test:run` completed its general server stage: 17,867 passed, 105 skipped, and 9 failed across 5 files. The runner stops at that failing stage, so it did not run subsequent workspace/serialized stages locally. All nine failures also reproduce on the unchanged base commit in a separate checkout. Five skill-related cases resolve an unrelated ancestor skills directory; two workspace cases accept a remote main branch that their fixture expects to be absent; two permission-cleanup cases return macOS `ENOTEMPTY` instead of the expected permission error. - Current-head GitHub CI passed, including full general and serialized test suites, typecheck, build, runner checks, and browser e2e. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - `git diff --check` and Gitleaks passed. ## Risks The new environment value is additive. The test broker must support test identities before use. This change preserves existing signature handling, managed identity overrides, and rejection of mismatched identities at known hosted brokers. A local full-suite pass is not claimed; the nine failures above also occur without this change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning and tool execution. The exact serving 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 - [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: Dotta <34892728+cryppadotta@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f329b24ee1 |
feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749)
Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries.
Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head
|
||
|
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
|
dabb8c5daf |
test: remove repeated setup and strengthen regression proof (#16022)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its tests protect company boundaries, approvals, durable tasks, credentials and the board UI. > - Several owner suites repeat large database fixtures and render frames. > - Some tests repeat stronger proof or pass when the behavior they describe is broken. > - This pull request shares exact setup, removes proven duplicate cases and repairs weak observations. > - It preserves distinct security, lifecycle, concurrency and user-facing contracts. > - The benefit is 5,027 fewer test lines and stronger regression checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15978. This continues the merged test-audit cleanup in [PR #15978](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15978), which removed 11,976 test/support lines. The savings in this pull request are additional. Related open work: [PR #13460](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13460) changes legacy OAuth parent/version lock ordering. This pull request retains those production paths and the existing lock-order test. Its secrets changes compact fixtures and repair the two AWS wrapper exclusion observations. Scoped title searches found no open duplicate audit or fixture-consolidation PR and no matching audit issue. The problem is described here using the enhancement template. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The maintenance and regression value of the existing server, UI, CLI, shared and wiki-plugin test suites. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting test code. Two UI modules also lose unused test inspection exports. **Current behavior** Owner tests repeat database rows, service inputs, HTTP setup and render frames. Some cases repeat stronger assertions. Two AWS lock tests record only cleanup events, so an AWS provider write can happen inside the held lock without failing those observations. Several other negative tests accept or do not observe the wrong result. Worktree fixtures also use a temporary path alias that conflicts with the existing canonical-path checks on macOS. **Proposed behavior** Use small local helpers that preserve exact inputs, fresh allocations, callbacks, query order and await positions. Remove only cases with named stronger keepers. Tighten negative assertions and observe actual AWS provider entry while a confirmed lock holder remains parked. Resolve temporary fixture roots to their canonical paths. **Reason and benefit** Remove 5,027 net test lines and 15 redundant registered executions. Remove 11 lines of unused UI inspection exports. Keep every distinct company, actor, approval, credential, persistence, stale-write and concurrency contract. No wall-time speedup is claimed for setup compaction. **Breaking changes** None for application behavior, APIs or stored data. The removed exports expose private UI test state and have no remaining callers. ## What Changed - Consolidate repeated runtime, workspace, portability, route, tool-access, policy, gateway and state-service fixtures. - Share repeated UI render frames and CLI/wiki-plugin setup while retaining the original actions and expected results. - Remove 15 repeated case executions only where the audit records an exact stronger keeper. - Repair weak HTTP/UI negative assertions and two AWS account-home lock observations. Keep the existing durable results and cleanup behavior. - Remove the unused `__inflightGetCount` and `__secondTickInternals` inspection exports. Keep observable request coalescing and ticker lifecycle checks. - Canonicalize temporary worktree fixture paths without weakening production path checks. - Record the owner decisions, savings, independent preservation reviews and validation in [the dated audit report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-rounds.md) and [the compact control evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa/doc/plans/2026-10-12-test-audit-controls.json). ## Verification - Complete owner and retained-sibling baselines passed before each audit cutover. Independent reviewers checked the full original tests, actual helper bodies, exact inputs, receipt provenance, async order, fresh allocations and case registrations. - All 14 UI/route/wiki mutations failed at their intended assertions: ten UI/API/ticker controls, one route control and three wiki persistence/receipt controls. Each mutated production source was restored to its exact original bytes. - Both old AWS lock tests passed with their respective AWS-only lock bypass. Both repaired tests failed at the intended assertions with the same bypasses. These give 16 intended failures and two passing weak controls across 18 executions. Each source was restored exactly. - Final complete state-owner/sibling run: 329/329 passed at code revision `64370831ebe191e5ce092f85f79b6fb661df7e16`. - Final `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates` and `pnpm build`: passed at the same code revision. - Delivery head `58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa` includes the evidence commit and master `4b766b872993045a2e787404f0475503683e5ded`. All 27 audited test files and both application files match the locally verified code revision byte-for-byte. Current-head CI validates the integrated branch, including the incoming master changes. - All eight production-owner SHA guards for the 16 deliberate failing mutation controls still match the integrated delivery checkout. The mutation receipts therefore apply to those current owners. - Full default `pnpm test:run`: **failed** with exit 1 at frozen code revision `64370831ebe191e5ce092f85f79b6fb661df7e16`; HEAD and tracked source bytes remained unchanged. The first general-server group reported 878 passing files, four failing files and six skipped files; 17,846 passing cases, 24 failing cases and 105 skipped cases. Later groups did not run. Failures were `http-log-redaction` (socket hangup), `public-mcp` (initial 15-second timeout followed by hosted token “Refresh before subscribing” failures), `remove-test-home` (macOS `ENOTEMPTY` where permission errors were expected, plus cleanup failure), and `workspace-git-snapshot-streaming` (300-second timeout). All four failing test files and the relevant cleanup/MCP production owners are unchanged by this audit. Full local success is not claimed. - Focused complete-owner diagnosis at the same frozen revision: 149/152 passed, three failed, zero skipped. `public-mcp` passed 82/82 and `http-log-redaction` passed 66/66 unchanged. The two `remove-test-home` cases reproduced macOS `ENOTEMPTY` against an expected `EACCES`/`EPERM` contract; the 32 MiB workspace snapshot case reproduced its existing 300,000 ms timeout. HEAD and tracked files stayed clean. Exact blob comparison confirmed all four test files and the relevant cleanup/MCP owners match both inspected master `4b766b872993045a2e787404f0475503683e5ded` and the frozen local revision. The three remaining local failures are unresolved; no timeout, retry or assertion was weakened. - Current-head CI: [workflow 38299262149](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38299262149) has passed runner selection and created all downstream test/typecheck/build gates; those gates are queued, with no failures reported. Greptile completed successfully at `58c5c4aa241c85f4665a3159c192888bbb2a5cfa` with [5/5 and zero comments](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16022#issuecomment-6131457592). All review threads are resolved or absent. This pull request will remain open after verification. Reviewers can reproduce the required workspace checks: ```sh pnpm -r typecheck pnpm check:token-gates pnpm test:run pnpm build ``` Browser suites were not run. Their sources and user journeys are unchanged by this audit. ## Risks - A fixture helper can hide a specialized input or change object freshness. Full-program expansion checks and independent reviews preserve the exact old inputs and execution order. - Removing duplicate proof can remove a distinct contract by mistake. The audit records the keeper for each deletion; all distinct security and lifecycle cases remain. - Concurrency checks can miss progress during a fixed delay. The AWS repairs record actual provider entry, confirm holder entry, use measured entry windows, require exact final event order and drain both operations in `finally`. - The full local default run failed. Focused diagnosis reproduced two macOS cleanup failures and one existing snapshot timeout in unchanged owners; these remain unresolved. Current-head CI is pending. No test deadline, retry policy, skip or CI shard was weakened to obtain a pass. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6, reasoning, repository inspection, code execution and delegated audit/review. The runtime does not expose the exact served model identifier or context-window size; those values are unavailable and are not inferred from the model catalog. ## 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 - [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
|
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
|
f0e12c8519 |
Add managed Slack setup with an independent own-app path (#15679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connects a person to an agent through an installed app and a verified identity. > - Independent installations must remain usable without Paperclip Cloud or manager credentials. > - Approved Cloud deployments can use Slack manager grants to create and install each agent's app. > - Both paths should share credential storage, identity checks, recovery, and the existing runtime. > - This pull request adds gated managed setup and keeps independent app setup under Advanced. > - It also makes ongoing connection settings and personal test messages easier to use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Slack setup, connection settings, tenant credential storage, and the Cloud connector handoff. **Problem or motivation** Approved deployments need an installation flow without pasted configuration tokens. Open-source users must retain their independent Slack app flow. A connection manager also needs a simple way to check a bot from Settings. **Proposed solution** Use the managed path when the instance is configured to support it. Choose agent and Connect are the two visible stops. Continue starts authorization or installation. Use your own app remains under Advanced before creation. Save personal manager grants by company, Paperclip user, Slack user, workspace, and manager app. Reuse only verified identities for test messages. Unknown identities must complete a private Slack connection challenge before linking and receiving the test DM. **Alternatives considered** A shared bot would change each agent's Slack identity. Requiring Slack CLI or a hosted service for self-hosted users would remove independent installation. **Roadmap alignment** This maintainer-requested change improves Connected Apps and experimental Agent Chat. It adds provisioning and management controls to the existing Slack runtime. **Additional context** The companion Cloud broker profile is a separate deployment prerequisite. Managed setup remains gated. Existing-app adoption is deferred. ## What Changed - Extract Slack registration, provider requests, completion, customer-owned setup, managed setup, and personal manager grants into focused services. Preserve the compatibility facade and independent removal cleanup. - Add company-scoped manager grants and a registration reference through an additive, idempotent migration after current master. Keep runtime credentials separate from app-registration secrets. - Add authenticated manager authorization, sealed handoff, serialized refresh and revocation, app creation, managed installation, and installer-bound OAuth fallback. - Preserve creation intent, block automatic uncertain recreation, save credentials before downstream checks, and validate app, workspace, bot, scopes, and installer identity. - Add the two-stop production wizard and ordered stories. Keep the own-app, manual, existing-app, and legacy-draft paths. - Simplify Settings. Open Slack configuration targets the saved app. The test-message action has its own row. Remove the old manual-avatar section, channel-message section, and broken permissions link. - Add paginated account discovery and a private connection challenge for unknown accounts. Expired invitations stop waiting and offer a new private invitation. Save send receipts before provider dispatch and preserve confirmed delivery when activity logging fails. - Reinstall the saved managed app on explicit reconnect, replace revoked credentials, and resume completion. Persist reconnect intent and duplicate-request receipts without creating another app. - Update provider browser tests, recovery tests, secret redaction, setup documentation, and the agent prompt. Preserve current master's durable verification scheduling. ## Verification - Full workspace typecheck and repository build passed on `56d389d47a`. The subsequent reconnect retry fix in `288364eada` also passed UI typecheck and UI build. - 114 focused Slack registration cases and 13 production managed-wizard cases passed, including fresh-token reconnect, retry after installation failure, and duplicate reconnect requests. - All nine affected Slack browser cases passed against the production UI and a disposable fixture server. They cover managed setup, automatic setup, own-app selection, refresh, recovery, mobile behavior, and connection settings. - Eight focused real-database test-message cases passed. They cover a private ownership challenge, saved grant reuse, account pagination, revoked and conflicting links, workspace mismatch, disabled DMs, revoked membership, audit failure, ambiguous dispatch, and secret canaries. - UI token gates and the production Storybook build passed. - Greptile reviewed exact head `288364eada5d9c114fad991ff634612639d06672` at 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. - The full repository test suite and current-head CI are running. Their final results will replace this line before merge. - Earlier live feature previews created two bots in the authorized Paperclip Slack workspace and reused one personal manager grant. Local managed Continue created and installed a bot without a configuration token or a separate Add to Slack action. Avatars, welcome DMs, signed callbacks, and direct replies were observed. A Settings test DM also arrived in the signed-in user's Slack account. - Earlier staging thread qualification required manual publication recovery for one bot. Current-head live qualification remains required before enabling the production default. Fixture results do not establish Slack approval behavior in other workspaces. ## Risks - Personal manager tokens can create apps. They stay in scoped vault entries. The manager client secret stays at the broker. Company, actor/session, origin, and app identity checks apply throughout setup. - The additive migration must also work on qualification instances that applied earlier branch migrations. Table, column, index, and constraint creation is idempotent. - Creation and message timeouts can leave uncertain outcomes. Saved request IDs prevent automatic duplicate dispatch. - Unknown Slack identities must receive and complete their private challenge while signed in. Account selection alone does not grant Paperclip permissions. Existing revoked or conflicting links are not overwritten. - A development-only manager transport uses an explicitly configured private credential file for local qualification. Production ignores this transport; no manager credentials are bundled with open source. - Managed rollout requires Slack approval, the companion broker deployment, configured secrets, and final live qualification. Removing a connection does not delete its Slack app. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The session does not expose the exact serving 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 #` / `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 - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
a9830414c7 |
Preserve repository dependencies when importing GitHub skills (#15731)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its Skills library imports reusable instructions from GitHub. > - Some skills depend on shared files and sibling skills outside their folders. > - Directory-only imports lose those dependencies. > - This pull request keeps repository files together and lets users select which skills appear in the library. > - Agents receive the original files and paths through the existing skill delivery system. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14713. Related: #13656. **Current behavior** GitHub imports copy independent skill directories. Shared scripts, policies, helper skills, and credit files can be omitted. One shared-file error can block every skill. **Proposed behavior** New imports keep repository files together at the scanned commit. Show all skills with their folders and select every skill by default. Collapse individual package files. Omit unsupported or oversized files with a warning. Import available content without repair choices or an extra confirmation. Keep warnings on the saved source. **Reason and benefit** Skills can read their shared repository files after Paperclip delivers them to an agent. Original instructions stay unchanged. Users can inspect included files and understand omissions before and after import. ## What Changed - Store immutable company-scoped repository snapshots and associate them with skill versions. Regenerate the migration after merging master. - Preserve original bytes, binary encoding, and executable modes. Shared-file changes version each usable selected skill. Pinned versions retain their original files. - Deliver a discovery wrapper with the original tree under `.paperclip-repository/`. Preserve invocation policy when present. Fork and create-from-existing retain repository files. - Keep repository files together for new UI imports. Show every skill, select all by default, and collapse package files. Remove the packaging-mode menu. Keep the mobile import footer visible. - Warn about symlinks, submodules, oversized files, missing references, and invalid optional manifests. A malformed skill remains selected with a Needs setup warning. Usable skills still publish, and its original file remains repository support content. Source warnings persist through refresh. Unsafe execution and secret-disclosure findings omit the affected files before snapshot publication. - Expose saved repository files in the installed skill viewer, including binary encoding and executable flags. Reads use the immutable company-scoped snapshot; relative instruction links resolve from their original repository directory. - Audit delivered inventories and derive trust from all repository files. Accept evaluation prose while retaining dynamic-execution findings. Read blobs in one bounded Git batch and check budgets before reading support files. Imports never execute setup commands. - Add scanner, database, delivery, UI, and browser regressions. Update Storybooks, screenshots, and documentation. ## Verification - 69 focused scanner, Git snapshot, delivery, and PostgreSQL lifecycle tests passed. They cover partial imports, warning persistence, missing references, binary files, executable modes, copies, pinned versions, cancellation, company isolation, and batched Git reads. - 110 import, skill-detail, selection-tree, saved-file link, and Markdown renderer tests passed. A file-switch regression failed before the resolver fix and passed afterward. Browser walkthroughs cover the all-selected open tree, repository preview, non-blocking warnings, missing references, setup problems, warning persistence, and mobile layout. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed. Runner E2E TypeScript checks and design-token gates passed. The full serial local suite was attempted and stopped after over an hour. The existing 40,000-file Git streaming stress test failed after 303 seconds on macOS; the broad local suite is not counted as passed. All 55 applicable PR checks passed on the final commit, including the full sharded CI suite. Two optional Storybook workflows were skipped; the five local Storybook walkthroughs passed. - On October 12, live campaigns imported the private Poteto repository through the production GitHub Sources UI, selected architect and bro, and invoked them with native Codex on local and Daytona. The source connection was disabled before invocation. Independent filesystem inspections matched every supported Git blob, size, and executable mode. Both tasks completed and cleanup passed. Campaigns: `local-2026-10-12T15-07-39-504Z` (both environments), `local-2026-10-12T16-08-39-682Z` (local), and `local-2026-10-12T16-03-33-938Z` (Daytona). Each of the two selected skills received all 234 supported repository files. Later changes only affect the installed-file viewer and documentation. This qualifies skill delivery and instruction reads, not every Poteto workflow or adapter. - A manual source-checkout test drive imported a synthetic private GitHub repository with a symlink, an oversized file, a missing reference, and malformed skill metadata. Available skills published with their shared checklist. The walkthrough found duplicate warning text after import; the final UI fix removes that duplicate. The file viewer exposes saved repository dependencies and resolves authored relative links without changing the instructions. A follow-up live refresh omitted unsafe helper files with warnings, preserved every safe file byte, and survived a server restart. Screenshots below use the production UI with Storybook fixtures. They do not replace the live GitHub and runtime checks. <details> <summary>All skills visible and selected by default</summary>  </details> <details> <summary>Import stays available with warnings</summary>  </details> <details> <summary>Repository file inspector</summary>  </details> <details> <summary>Mobile import</summary>  </details> ## Risks - Each selected skill carries a repository copy in the runtime. The database stores each snapshot once. Runtime transfer and storage increase with the number of assigned skills. - Runtime budgets remain: 9,990 repository entries, 1 MiB per file, and 61 MiB total. File omissions are recorded as warnings. Source-access or download failures retain installed versions. - Import success does not prove that every skill can run. Environment dependencies, credentials, delegation tools, and schedules still need configuration. Imported setup scripts are not executed. - Live runtime coverage is native Codex on local and Daytona. Other adapters use the shared delivery path but were not exercised in these campaigns. The roadmap marks Skills Manager as shipped. This extends the existing importer. Related pull requests were checked. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, automated tests, and browser tools. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1e0cfcb4fc |
test: retire redundant suites and consolidate owner coverage (#15978)
Retire duplicate ACPX and Codex proof after migrating unique assertions to their behavioral owners. Consolidate repeated fixtures and exact case matrices while preserving lifecycle, protocol, company, credential, approval, and ordering contracts. Remove the unused runtime-controls compatibility path and document test ownership and preservation evidence. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
762d680daf |
feat(ui): upload files directly in task artifacts (#15964)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage agent work and retain its context. > - Task documents and attachments keep that context with the task. > - The Artifacts panel showed output but could not accept a new file. > - Uploading through a message can require resuming a paused task. > - Existing document and attachment APIs can save files directly. > - This PR adds direct uploads and a drop target to the task panel. > - People can add context while keeping work paused and unassigned. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The task Artifacts panel and its existing document and attachment APIs. **Subsystem affected** ui/ — React board UI. No server, schema, or API changes. **Current behavior** The Artifacts panel cannot upload a file. It also excludes files uploaded by people. The message composer can require a task to resume before it submits attachments. **Proposed behavior** Use the upload icon or drop files anywhere in the open Artifacts panel. The target includes the header, padding, and existing cards. Files save directly to the task without a message or a pause change. **Reason and benefit** People can prepare a handoff on a paused, unassigned task without starting agent work. Markdown becomes a task document. Other supported files use attachment storage. **Breaking changes** Files from people now appear in Artifacts alongside agent output. Promoted attachments still appear once. A repeated Markdown filename creates a separate document instead of replacing an existing revision. Existing APIs and limits stay the same. **Additional context** Related upload API work: Refs #7472 and Refs #7248. This PR adds the missing task-panel entry point. ROADMAP.md lists Artifacts and Work Products as available; this is a scoped UI improvement. ## What Changed - Add an upload icon with no visible label or background. - Accept file drops across the full task panel, including the desktop portal header and mobile tabs. - Show per-file progress and inline Retry and Dismiss actions. - Import Markdown under a new document key and retain existing revisions. - Include files from people in Artifacts and dedupe promoted attachments. - Add component and task-journey stories for empty, populated, loading, error, mobile, and drag-over states. - Add real browser tests for persistence, pause preservation, duplicate document names, full-panel drops, and partial failure recovery. ## Verification - Five Playwright tests passed against an isolated instance started by the source `test-drive` command. The document API, attachment storage, pause holds, downloads, and task UI were real. Only the explicit upload failure was injected. - The browser tests verified desktop and mobile uploads, document reading, persistence after reload, no task comments or runs, header drops, preservation of original and hidden internal documents, reserved filename handling, and upload retry. - 163 focused UI tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - The full Vitest suite is running after repair of an exhausted local PostgreSQL shared-memory pool. The initial run failed to initialize PostgreSQL. Six unattached segments had no living creator or last-user process; removing them restored free slots. - CI and the current-head Greptile review are pending. ## Risks - Artifacts now includes user files, so existing tasks can show more cards. - Uploads retain the server's authorization, file-type, size, and revision checks. No migration is needed. - Binary attachment uploads use the existing API. A transport failure with an unknown save outcome can retain the existing API's retry ambiguity. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact runtime snapshot ID and context-window size were not exposed to this session. The model used repository inspection, code editing, shell tools, 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 - [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
|
db2f00947b |
fix(runner): include Claude ACP in the server package (#15912)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server ships a copy of Paperclip Runner for native agent execution. > - The Claude ACP bridge is a runner dependency, but it was absent from the server package. > - The runner resolves this bridge dynamically, so the import-based packaging check missed it. > - A Claude session then failed before startup and showed a generic connection error. > - This pull request ships the qualified bridge and reports a missing runtime with repair steps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server install with the vendored runner could not load `@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp/package.json`. The runtime test suggested checking the model or provider connection. The task reported an interrupted runner session. **Expected behavior** The server package includes its qualified Claude ACP runtime. A missing bundled runtime reports an installation error and explains how to repair it. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a server install with the vendored runner and no Claude ACP bridge. 2. Select the Paperclip Runner ACP harness and the Claude provider. 3. Run the runtime test or open a session. 4. Observe a missing-module failure before Claude starts. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `e733bddc45`. This branch is based on current master. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server built from source. Related: #15224 upgrades the Claude bridge. This PR fixes its omission from the server package and keeps the current qualified version. A future bridge upgrade must update the server pin too. ## What Changed - Add Claude ACP `0.73.0` to the server dependencies and bundled dependencies. - Pin the qualified Claude SDK and bridge dependencies in the npm bundle producer graph. Publish its native packages as consumer optional dependencies instead of shipping the producer executable. - Bind source-built vendored runners to the shared pnpm dependency store while retaining the server manifest as the provider authority. Keep published npm and self-rooted deployment roots unchanged. - Include dynamically resolved Claude and Codex bridges in the vendor dependency check. - Preserve the missing-package category through the sidecar, Rust transport, and native session executor. Stop automatic retries for this installation failure. - Show **Runtime missing** in the runtime test and task thread. Explain the reinstall or rebuild, server restart, and runtime test steps. - Add regression tests and document the repair procedure. ## Verification - Red/green comparison with the production sidecar: the same missing-package setup returns a raw require-stack error on the original code and an actionable, non-retryable missing-runtime error on this branch. - The rebuilt server's vendored Claude installation probe passes using the source-server authority selected by the launcher, without starting a provider or making a model request. - Focused server verification: 830 tests passed. Runner installation and sidecar error tests: 83 passed, with 6 platform-specific skips. Packaging tests: 28 passed. Rust transport tests: 7 passed. - Source/deployment authority tests: 3 passed. Red/green packaging tests include a Linux-produced Claude SDK bundle, actual npm pack, and closed executable admission on Linux x64 and macOS ARM64/x64. - Full UI suite: 8,113 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the rebased branch. - Full current-head CI passed, including all general and serialized test lanes, Runner Rust/Vitest verification, typecheck, build, and all eight e2e shards. Greptile reviewed `d6a2741834ff922956560f2f689382827bbaf9e0` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - Local full-suite limitation: an earlier parallel attempt hit Postgres startup failures and timeouts; the affected server tests and a database fixture passed in isolation. The subsequent serial `pnpm test:run` was stopped while still running after complete CI passed. Focused local tests, full UI tests, typecheck, and build completed as listed above. - Token gates and `git diff --check` passed. ## Risks - Bundling the Claude bridge increases the server package size. The producer graph retains the qualified SDK version and existing isolation patch. Native platform declarations move to the published server manifest, while the runtime keeps its exact version, declared-slot, no-follow, and executable digest checks. - The new failure category is permanent. Operators must repair the server installation before they retry the task. - Existing failed runs retain their recorded error. The clearer message applies to new runtime tests and runs. - No database schema or migration changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The system reports the model family; the exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, browser inspection, 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> |
||
|
|
1b4c803816 |
fix(costs): preserve usage attribution and explain unavailable run costs (#15948)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The cost ledger records usage and controls agent budgets. > - Some runs lose the selected model or API billing category before their usage reaches the ledger. > - The dashboard reports missing costs but does not identify the affected runs or the available actions. > - This pull request preserves usage attribution and adds a compact view of cost gaps grouped by agent. > - Operators can inspect runs, open agent settings, and record saved costs without starting new agent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15634, #11938, #15879. This follows the merged subscription reporting in #15634. The older proposal in #11938 addresses part of ACP model attribution. This change also rejects conflicting models across a turn, fixes credential-backed billing capture, and explains cost gaps in the existing dashboard. The Pi receipt recovery work in #15879 covers a separate adapter recovery path. This PR preserves unresolved receipts and does not recover provider usage or reprice past entries. **What happened?** ACP results use the requested model even when the runtime selects a model. Native and OpenCode API runs can report unknown billing despite a matching API credential. The dashboard shows notices without links to the affected runs. These gaps make API and subscription totals harder to interpret. **Expected behavior** Record the model selected by the runtime. Identify API billing only from a matching credential. Keep costs unresolved when reliable usage or pricing is absent. Show the affected agents and runs. Offer an accounting retry only when saved evidence is ready. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run an ACP agent with its model left unset, or use a matching API credential with a native or OpenCode agent. 2. Inspect the recorded model and billing category for the run. 3. Open Costs Overview for a period with unpriced usage or terminal runs awaiting receipts. 4. Inspect the notice and try to find the affected run or the relevant agent settings. **Paperclip version or commit** Current master at `657e71584a0`. The patch is rebased on that commit. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server and local development. The cost detail tests use a disposable PostgreSQL database. ## What Changed - Preserve the runtime-selected ACP model in checkpoints and final results. Conflicting models across one turn remain unpriced. - Share credential-backed API billing checks across native and OpenCode results. Keep unknown billing when the provider and credential do not match. - Add company-scoped cost detail and accounting retry endpoints. Board viewers can read details but cannot retry. Agents and foreign companies are denied. - Limit each detail category to 25 entries. Use one consistent database snapshot and sparse indexes matching the filters and sort order. Add the unknown-billing count to the existing summary query. - Replace the notice with an expandable count line. Group entries alphabetically by agent. Show the saved blob icon, link each name to configuration, and put run and retry links beside the date. - Preserve estimate and unavailable-price labels on Providers and Billers; keep retry confirmation after the resolved notice disappears. - Fetch details only while expanded. Retain the last loaded details after a refresh error. Retry saved accounting only; do not rerun the agent. - Add capture, database, authorization, UI, and Storybook coverage. Update the implementation contract and cost reporting guide. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after rebase. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm build-storybook` passed after rebase. - `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check` passed. - 1,086 focused tests passed across 17 files. These cover ACP, native and OpenCode capture, PostgreSQL reports, route authorization, OpenAPI, Costs UI, and existing accounting regressions. - Desktop and mobile browser checks passed during UI review. They cover lazy expansion, alphabetical groups, loaded blob icons, configuration and run links, keyboard retry, and layout overflow. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted with command-scoped `init.defaultBranch=master` for Git fixtures. It was stopped after a native session recovery failure reproduced on unchanged base `657e71584a0` (`archives a damaged prior epoch before completing guarded same-task replacement with real runnerd`). An MCP upload case failed in the broad run but passed in isolation on both the base and PR branch. These local limitations do not affect the 1,086 passing focused tests. - Current-head CI is green, including all unit test lanes, serialized server suites, runner checks, typecheck, build, policy, and eight browser shards. Apex re-review is 5/5 on `56de60effdb`; all four original findings are addressed and every review thread is resolved. - PostgreSQL applies migration `0333` in the integration fixtures. EXPLAIN ANALYZE on the production detail statements uses the new sparse indexes behind 5,000 healthy records in each table. - Ten provider/biller card cases cover missing and estimated prices; the retry test covers row removal and notice unmount. A live Storybook browser check verifies the confirmation and updated count. - Run `pnpm storybook`. Open **Costs / Subscriptions / Cost Data Quality Details** to inspect the production page with representative fixtures. ## Risks - Model and billing metadata change for future runs. Estimates still require complete usage and a supported price. No past cost amount is rewritten. - A missing final receipt remains unresolved for budget checks. The display changes after fifteen minutes; that time limit never authorizes settlement. - Accounting retry is a write action. It retains the existing company checks, receipt fences, idempotency, and audit logging. - Detail reads are bounded and run only after expansion. They poll every 30 seconds while open. No provider probe or new summary query is added. - Migration `0333` adds two partial indexes; it changes no stored cost amounts or table columns. Index creation scans the existing tables and may briefly block writes during deployment. No lockfile or workflow change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code editing, browser checks, and test execution. The exact serving model ID, reasoning setting, and context window were not exposed to 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: Codex <noreply@openai.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
4611d6e95a |
fix(restore): retry sandbox copy-back before holding the task for repair (#15920)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Legacy sandbox runs copy the agent's workspace files back to the host when the run settles. > - When this copy-back fails one time, the server keeps the sandbox and puts a board-owned repair hold on the task. > - The hold blocks new messages. Only an operator API runbook can clear it. The board shows that runbook text, so users do not know what to do. > - Many copy-back failures are transient: a dropped transfer, a provider error, or a merge lock that another restore holds. > - This pull request retries those failures automatically while the run still has its merge baseline and before any host file changes. > - The benefit is that most failures repair themselves, and the remaining holds explain the situation in plain language. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14590 (related: no-replay recovery holds) **What happened?** A legacy sandbox run finished its work, but one workspace copy-back attempt failed. The task then showed "Recovery needed" with operator-only steps ("verify its exact stop receipt … record workspaceRepairEvidence"). Messages from the user stayed saved and were not delivered. **What did you expect?** Paperclip retries a transient copy-back failure automatically. If a repair is still necessary, the task says clearly what happened and who must act. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run an agent in a legacy sandbox environment. 2. Make the workspace copy-back fail one time, for example with a dropped transfer or a held merge lock. 3. Open the task. It is blocked behind a repair hold, and new messages wait. **Additional context** Separately, distinct live events can render toasts with the same title and body (for example, two runs of the same agent that both succeed). The toast list showed both, and the desktop app forwards each one as a notification. ## What Changed - `packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.ts`: retry the workspace copy-back up to three times in total, with a 2 s and then a 5 s backoff. A retry occurs only when the failure is `restore_failed` or `restore_lock_timeout` and no host workspace file was written. The merge now marks the first host write in `beforeApply`, which runs under the merge lock before any write. - Unsafe archives, permission failures, and failures after the merge started writing are never retried. Each retry uses a new temp directory and a new imported Git ref. - New optional `workspaceRestoreRetryDelaysMs` input, so tests can shorten the backoff. Nested repository restores receive the same value. - `ui/src/components/ExecutionBlockerNotice.tsx`: for a workspace repair hold, the notice now says what happened in plain language. The stored operator runbook text moves under "Technical details". - `ui/src/context/ToastContext.tsx`: also dedupe toasts on their visible tone, title, and body inside the existing 3.5 s window. - `doc/workspace-restore-locks.md`: document the automatic retry. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts src/workspace-restore` (218 tests pass). New tests cover: - a retry after a dropped transfer, - a retry after a merge-lock timeout, - a stop after three attempts, - no retry for an unsafe archive, a permission failure, or a failure after the merge started writing. - The existing step-diagnostic test now uses failures that persist across retries. It still expects one diagnostic per failed step. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/context/ToastContext.test.tsx src/components/ExecutionBlockerNotice.test.tsx src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider` (120 tests pass). - `tsc --noEmit` for adapter-utils passes. `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` is clean. - Not fully run: the full adapter-utils suite has two failures in `github-launcher*.test.ts`. They read the managed GitHub credentials of the local sandbox environment and do not touch restore code. UI `tsc -b` reports five errors in `PluginOrganizationSwitcher.tsx`, which is not changed here, because the plugin SDK is not built in a fresh install. ## Risks - A copy-back that fails before the merge can take about 7 s longer before it reports a failure. Lock timeouts can take up to about 97 s in total (three 30 s lock waits plus backoff). Settlement already waits for the copy-back. - The retry logic depends on `beforeApply` running before the first host write in `mergeDirectoryWithBaseline`. That is true today, and a comment marks it. - A Git bundle import before the merge can leave unreferenced Git objects after a retry. They are harmless, and the existing ref cleanup still runs on each attempt. - Content-based toast dedupe can hide a second toast with identical text inside 3.5 s. That is the intended behavior. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic) in the Claude Agent SDK, with tool use (shell, file edit, code search) and a subagent for code exploration. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip Agent <agent@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
f331d386dc |
fix(ui): attribute stackless unhandled rejections with event and lifecycle facts (#15940)
Diagnostics only for Sentry PAPERCLIP-FRONTEND-G: record trusted/synthetic unhandledrejection origin, promise kind, and coarse page lifecycle facts without reading rejected values. Co-Authored-By: Amy (Opus) <claude@users.noreply.github.com> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
bfe7c6357d |
fix(ui): stack confirmation prompt and hide raw custom target keys (#15895)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents ask the board for decisions with `request_confirmation`
interaction cards
> - The compact task-chat card puts the prompt and the target pill in
one `justify-between` flex row
> - An agent can send a `custom` target with only a machine `key` (for
example `github:org/repo:pull:16`) and no `label`
> - The card shows that raw key as a mono pill that does not shrink, so
the card splits about 50/50 and the prompt is squeezed into the left
half
> - This pull request stacks the prompt above the pill and hides custom
targets that have no human label
> - The benefit is a readable, full-width confirmation prompt without
meaningless identifier pills
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A pending confirmation card split its body into two columns. The prompt
used the left half. A pill with the raw text
`github:paperclipai/paperclip-desktop:pull:16` used the right half. The
line breaks in the prompt were also lost.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction with a multi-line
`prompt` and `target: { "type": "custom", "key":
"github:org/repo:pull:16" }` (no `label`).
2. Open the task chat for the issue.
3. See that the prompt and the key pill share one row, split about
50/50.
**Expected behavior**
The prompt uses the full card width and keeps its line breaks. A custom
target key is an identifier for idempotency and stale detection, so it
does not show as display text. A target pill shows only when the target
has a human label.
## What Changed
- `TaskChatCompactInteractionCard`: stack the prompt full width with the
target pill below it. This applies to the confirmation and the
checkbox-confirmation cards.
- `TaskChatCompactInteractionCard`: keep line breaks in the prompt
(`whitespace-pre-line`, `break-words`).
- `TaskChatCompactInteractionCard` and `IssueThreadInteractionCard`:
show no target chip for a `custom` target without a `label`. Labeled
custom targets (for example connection authorization) and
`issue_document` targets do not change. The stale-target chevron shows
only when both chips show.
- Add regression tests for the stacked layout, the hidden unlabeled key,
and the labeled link pill. The tests cover the compact confirmation and
checkbox-confirmation cards, and the thread card pending chip and
stale-target expiry (with labeled, unlabeled, and mixed custom targets,
and the chevron rule).
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`: add a "Keep Screenshots Out of the Repo" section.
Contributors attach review screenshots to the PR on GitHub. They do not
commit them to the repository.
## Verification
- `cd ui && npx vitest run
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatInteractionCard.test.tsx
src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx`: 2 files, 100 tests
pass. If you revert the `isDisplayableRequestConfirmationTarget` guard,
3 of the new thread-card tests fail.
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: all gates clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`: no errors in changed files.
The only errors come from `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk/ui`, which had no
built `dist` in the local workspace. These errors are not related to
this change.
- Manual: create a confirmation as in the steps above. The prompt is
full width and no key pill shows. Add `label: "PR #16"` and an `href`. A
`PR #16` link pill shows below the prompt.
### Screenshots
These are Storybook renders of the compact task-chat card at 720 px. The
three cards are: a confirmation with an unlabeled custom target (the
reported case), a confirmation with a labeled custom target, and a
checkbox confirmation with an unlabeled custom target.
The images load from an earlier commit of this PR. A later commit
deletes them, so they are not part of the merged change.
| Before (light) | After (light) | After (dark) |
| --- | --- | --- |
|
| 
| 
|
## Risks
- Low risk. This is a UI-only change. No schema or API change.
- Agents that send a custom target without a label lose the visible
pill. The key was never readable display text. To show a pill, agents
set `label`.
## Merge Note
The first commit was authored as Paperclip. When you squash-merge, keep
this trailer in the squash body:
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <Paperclip-Paperclip@users.noreply.github.com>
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code agent
harness with tool use (shell, file edit). Standard context window.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||
|
|
3d3b8d4371 |
fix(external-objects): distinguish hidden GitHub repos from genuinely-missing objects (#15906)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issues reference external objects such as GitHub pull requests. The instance resolves their status and shows it in the UI. > - GitHub returns 404 both when a pull request or issue does not exist and when the repository exists but the configured credentials cannot see it. GitHub hides private repos behind a 404 on purpose. > - The resolver treated every 404 as a terminal not-found verdict. It froze references to inaccessible repos forever, and marked them "Not found (Stale)". > - This pull request probes the repository metadata to tell the two cases apart and keep frozen objects re-checkable. > - The benefit is accurate statuses instead of permanent "Not found" labels for repos the instance cannot see. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this report. **What happened?** - The issue properties panel and markdown decoration showed many GitHub pull request and issue references as "Not found (Stale)" even though the objects exist. - GitHub returns 404 for objects the configured credentials cannot access, not only for objects that are truly gone. - The resolver treated every 404 as a terminal not-found verdict, so those references were frozen and showed a misleading "stale" liveness. - Detected-but-unresolved GitHub objects were labeled "Not yet resolved" in inline markdown, which did not match the pill label "Not yet refreshed". **Expected behavior** - A reference to a repo the credentials cannot see should surface as authorization-required, not as a permanent "Not found". - A truly missing object should still be "Not found". - A terminal object (merged, closed, or confirmed not-found) should not be labeled "Stale", because it is never refreshed again. - Inline markdown statuses should match the pill statuses. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure GitHub credentials with no access to a private repo. 2. Add a comment or issue description that links to a pull request in that repo. 3. Wait for the external object resolver to run. 4. Observe the reference labeled "Not found (Stale)". **Paperclip version or commit** - `master` at `e733bdd` (before this change). **Deployment mode** - Self-hosted server. ## What Changed - Added a repository visibility probe to the GitHub external object provider. - A 404 for an object now probes the repository metadata with the same credentials: - Repository visible: the object genuinely is gone. Keep the not-found snapshot. - Repository hidden: return an authorization-required result instead of a terminal not-found verdict. - Probe failed (network, rate limit, 5xx): return an unreachable result and retry later. - A rate-limited repository probe (403 with `x-ratelimit-remaining: 0`) is treated as uncertain, not as missing access, so it retries instead of showing a misleading "Requires auth". - Re-check previously frozen GitHub not-found objects on their normal schedule so they self-heal once credentials or repo visibility improve. A frozen object is only re-checked until a probe confirms the repo is visible; once confirmed deleted, it is terminal and no longer polled. - Cleared any terminal verdict when a refresh fails, so a failed refresh does not freeze an object. - Kept terminal objects from displaying the "stale" liveness label. - Matched the inline markdown status label to the pill status label, so detected-but-unresolved GitHub objects say "Not yet refreshed" instead of "Not yet resolved". - Skipped the liveness suffix in markdown links and status icons when it duplicates the status label (e.g. no more "Requires auth (Requires auth)"). - Cached repository visibility probes per company+repo + credential fingerprint, so many objects in the same repo share one probe per refresh cycle instead of each issuing its own — and a verdict obtained under one token is never reused by a later refresh running under a different credential. ## Verification - Added provider tests for visible, hidden, failed, and rate-limited repository probes, per-company/per-repo probe caching, and probe-verified not-found snapshots. - Added service tests for terminal-object liveness, for re-checking frozen GitHub not-found objects, and for ensuring probe-verified not-found objects are never re-queued. - Added UI tests asserting unresolved GitHub objects render as "Not yet refreshed" (not "Not yet resolved") and that failed-first-refresh labels do not repeat the liveness text. - Ran `npx vitest run src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts` in `server/`: 34 passed (incl. provider + service suites). - Ran the external-object markdown/pill/icon suites in `ui/`: 97 passed. - `ci / Typecheck + Release Registry` and all other CI gates pass on this head. Local `tsc` could not run to completion in the execution sandbox (the sandbox memory cap killed it), so CI typecheck is the authoritative gate. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is confined to the GitHub external object provider and the external object service. - A repo that genuinely does not exist and a private repo both return 404 for the probe. Both now surface authorization-required or a retry instead of an immediate not-found freeze, which stays re-checkable and self-heals. - Re-checking frozen not-found objects adds at most one repository probe per affected object until the probe produces a definitive verdict, after which the object is terminal and no longer polled. Probe results are cached per company+repo+credential, so a credential rotation always re-probes instead of inheriting a stale verdict. > 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 - Provider: DeepSeek via OpenRouter, model ID `openrouter/~deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-latest`, running inside the Paperclip opencode adapter (`opencode_local`). - The model produced and assisted with the reasoning and code changes; the execution workspace, test suite, and git/PR steps above were run by the same agent run. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details — the branch name is assigned by the managed execution workspace and the harness requires keeping it - [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 current head (all `ci / *`, Greptile, Socket, and review checks pass) - [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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a7dd5284b5 |
feat: add company fast-response acknowledgements (#15748)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Human messages start agent work through task, chat, and external-channel intake. > - Agent startup can delay the first visible response. > - A small direct model call can acknowledge the request while normal work starts. > - This response must remain separate from evidence that the agent answered or completed work. > - This pull request adds optional company-wide fast responses with durable receipts, access checks, and cost accounting. > - Users receive prompt acknowledgement without changing the agent execution path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: database, shared contracts, server orchestration, connections, and UI. **Problem or motivation** Users can wait for an agent to start before they receive a contextual response. Generic progress messages do not confirm what the user asked. An acknowledgement must not falsely complete work or satisfy an unanswered turn. **Proposed solution** Add a disabled-by-default experimental fast-response model using an existing shared API connection. Generate one short acknowledgement for each accepted human turn. Use the existing agent identity and external publication outboxes. Retain platform provenance and account for the inference independently. **Alternatives considered** Running the acknowledgement through the agent runtime adds startup latency. Restricting implementation to OpenRouter leaves other existing API connections unsupported. This change supports all existing API connections and uses OpenRouter for live verification. **Roadmap alignment** This extends existing agent communication and connection settings. ROADMAP.md and open pull requests were checked. No duplicate fast-response implementation was found. The maintainer supplied the feature plan directly. ## What Changed - Add Experimental fast responses to instance settings. Keep the feature off by default. Enforce the flag at intake, dispatch, and publication. - Move Decision model and Fast response setup to company Settings → Connections when the experiment is enabled. Place Connections below Environments. Separate the model sections with clear headings and a divider. Keep Decision model in General when the experiment is off. Route Costs setup links to the available settings page. - Make the acknowledgement prompt a multiline template string. Ask for a brief, positive response in the user’s language. - Add settings, connection/model selection, sponsorship, fixed-sample testing, and Costs history. - Add a Vercel AI SDK text service for existing native, routed, Bedrock, and local API connections. - Add durable per-turn requests, a bounded worker, a three-second admission deadline, and one inference attempt. - Integrate task creation, task and agent chat, steering, queued follow-ups, experimental board chat, shared chat intake, and email. - Preserve receipt provenance and exclude receipts from completion, recovery, interaction resolution, and agent wakeups. - Recheck authorization, source validity, real replies, budgets, and destination binding before publication. Preserve accounting for suppressed or uncertain outcomes. - Add provider contracts, database race tests, channel outbox tests, UI tests, Stories, and documentation. Keep decision-model execution unchanged. ## Verification - Local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after rebase. The UI typecheck and build also pass after the final navigation fixes. All 37 focused navigation tests pass. The first full local `pnpm test:run` invocation reported seven chat failures. All seven passed in isolated reruns after fixture updates and host cleanup. This invocation was stopped after the full final-head CI suite passed. - Initial local database tests hit macOS shared-memory exhaustion. A diagnostic confirmed `shmget: No space left on device` with the system limit of 32 IDs. Three abandoned, unattached PostgreSQL IPC headers were reclaimed. The isolated rerun passed all 31 fast-response and channel tests. The two additional Slack regression cases also passed in a separate rerun. No active database was stopped. - UI token gates pass. Provider contract tests cover all supported API connection types. Fast-response tests cover uniqueness, authorization, budgets, expiry, cancellation, restart, real-reply races, and the experimental flag. - The test drive verified that disabling the experiment hides Connections and redirects its direct URL. Enabling it restores the saved OpenRouter setup. After restart on the final commit, the OpenRouter settings sample returned “Sure, I’ll take care of fixing the border around the settings panel.” in 428 ms. It used 260 input and 31 output tokens and recorded $0.0000576 in reported cost. - Earlier live OpenRouter verification produced a receipt in 1.013 seconds for a new task. The real agent then supplied its substantive answer. A separate settings test took 1.34 seconds, used 246 input and 23 output tokens, and recorded $0.0000361. - Live Slack verification on final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` passed for a fresh initial task and a follow-up in a disposable bot DM. The initial acknowledgement appeared 2.405 seconds after the Slack message and 1.413 seconds after durable acceptance; the follow-up appeared in 2.322 seconds and 1.160 seconds respectively. The recorded generation/settlement durations were 898 ms and 697 ms. The initial call used 291 input / 39 output tokens and cost $0.00006705; the follow-up used 281 / 47 and cost $0.00007035. - The Slack acknowledgements retained the assigned agent identity and `origin: fast_response`, source-turn references, and no fabricated run ID. A status snapshot after the initial receipt showed the task still `in_progress` with its real execution run. The agent then read the CSV fixture and correctly reported two ready items, two blockers, and their owners. Both replies stayed in the originating DM, and no duplicate generic working message followed the delivered contextual acknowledgements. The `new` command started a fresh conversation session without generating a fast response. - An earlier eligible Slack turn generated a response but suppressed publication. Its reported cost was retained, generic progress remained, and the real agent completed the requested result. This is recorded separately from the two delivered acknowledgements; the history did not expose a precise suppression reason. - Slack verification used real signed provider events, the existing intake/publication paths, and a user-approved temporary webhook-only HTTPS tunnel. Subscriptions were limited to direct-message events. The test bot was paused and the tunnel stopped afterward. Live channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified; their mocked tests cover intake, destination binding, publication, and continued underlying work. - Greptile reviewed final commit `24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` at 5/5. Both new review findings are fixed and all threads are resolved. [Final-head CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38060015730) passed. This includes grouped server/chat/workspace tests, serialized suites, runner checks, browser journeys, typecheck, build, release registry, policy, and the canary dry run. - Manual check: enable Experimental fast responses. Open company Settings → Connections. Select a shared API connection and model. Save and use Test response. Submit a task message and confirm that its receipt does not complete the task. ## Risks - The migration adds receipt and configuration tables plus accounting references. It uses idempotent statements and follows the current migration sequence. - A slow provider, authorization change, or real-agent reply can suppress an acknowledgement. Existing progress feedback remains available. - Unknown provider billing retains a reservation until reconciliation. External deliveries with uncertain outcomes must not be blindly repeated. - Live Slack initial-task and follow-up DM journeys pass. Live Slack channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified. The PR remains a draft and records these gaps. Final-head repository CI and automated review pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose an exact model snapshot ID or context-window size; these 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
40bb466d78 |
fix(ui): align chat connection and recovery cards (#15771)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task pages show external chat connections and recovery notices.
> - These cards use different widths, colors, and spacing.
> - The difference makes related task information harder to scan.
> - This pull request gives these cards one shared surface.
> - The benefit is a consistent task page for chat and email users.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The external chat banner and recovery notice have different backgrounds,
padding, and widths. The first banner needs more space above it.
**Expected behavior**
Connection, recovery, workspace repair, and task email cards use the
same surface. The chat cards have the same width.
**Steps to reproduce**
Open a task with an external Slack conversation and a recovery notice.
Compare the two cards. Open the Tasks / Context notices story to compare
the updated cards with an AgentMail email card.
## What Changed
- Add a shared token-based surface for task context cards.
- Put chat recovery notices in the same width container as the
connection banner.
- Add space above the connection banner.
- Apply the surface to task email cards and workspace export repair.
- Add a Storybook view with per-card width, color, padding, and corner
checks.
- Give the workspace recovery card its own React key to prevent
duplicate connection banners.
## Verification
- Passed `pnpm check:token-gates`.
- Passed 57 tests for ExecutionBlockerNotice, WorkspaceExportRecovery,
and the external chat banner.
- Passed UI typecheck and UI production build.
- Captured desktop and mobile browser screenshots from the real
components with fixture data. The three cards have equal widths,
backgrounds, padding, and corners.
- Full local typecheck needs Cargo, which is absent in the task
environment. Full tests and build could not complete within the
environment memory limit. Remote typecheck, build, all test shards, and
security checks pass on commit
|
||
|
|
30c8aa1cc1 |
fix(ui): remove workspace from task and inbox filters (#15788)
updated 14 checked lines erclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board shows tasks in a list and in the inbox > - Each of those screens has a filter menu > - The filter menu includes a Workspace section > - The list already shows the workspace name, and the user can group by workspace > - This pull request removes Workspace from those filter menus > - The benefit is a shorter filter menu. The workspace label and the group option stay ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. This description follows the enhancement template. Related pull request: Refs #15403. That pull request also edits the task list. It does not remove the Workspace filter. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The filter menu on the task list and the inbox. **Subsystem affected** ui/ — React + Vite board UI **Current behavior** The filter menu shows a Workspace section when isolated workspaces are on. The user can select one or more workspaces there. The task list also shows the workspace name as a label. The user can group the list by workspace. A workspace value in the page address also limits the list. **Proposed behavior** The filter menu does not show Workspace. The workspace name stays in the list. Group by workspace stays. A workspace value in the page address still limits the task list. A click on a workspace name in the list still limits the list to that workspace. **Reason and benefit** The filter menu repeats a choice that the list and the group control already give. Removal of that section makes the filter menu shorter. Saved links that include a workspace value still open the same limited list. **Breaking changes** The filter menu no longer lets the user pick a workspace. A saved workspace query still works. Decision filters are not part of this change. ## What Changed - Remove the Workspace section from the task list filter menu - Remove the Workspace section from the inbox filter menu - Keep workspace labels, group by workspace, and workspace query scope - Update the filter menu test so it checks that Workspace is absent - Drop a saved workspace selection when preferences load, and keep the other saved filters ## Verification - Run `corepack pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/components/IssueFiltersPopover.test.tsx src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx src/lib/issue-filters.test.ts src/components/IssueColumns.test.tsx` from `ui/` - Result: 5 files passed, 111 tests passed - Open the task list filter menu. Confirm that Workspace is not a section - Open the inbox filter menu. Confirm that Workspace is not a section - Open a task list with a workspace query. Confirm that the list shows only tasks for that workspace - Group the task list by workspace. Confirm that the groups still appear - A browser check of the live screens was not run in this workspace ## Risks - Low risk. The change removes a menu section. It does not change filter matching - A user who used the menu to pick a workspace must use the workspace label or the page address - Pull request #15403 also edits the task list. Merge order can cause a small conflict in `ui/src/components/IssuesList.tsx` ROADMAP.md does not plan this filter removal. This change does not add a core feature. ## Model Used - Provider: xAI - Model: Grok 4.7 - Capabilities: tool use, code edits, and test execution ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
de042e79ef |
fix(ui): keep code-block pastes in the nested editor (#15773)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People write a routine description in a rich markdown editor > - That editor contains a nested code block for literal text > - A paste that starts with a markdown mark, such as a dash, goes to the outer editor > - The text does not appear in the code block > - This pull request sends that paste to the nested editor as literal text > - This pull request also adds a copy control next to the Overview heading > - The benefit is that a person can keep a routine description in a code block and copy it to another Paperclip instance ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A paste into a code block in a routine description does not appear when the pasted text starts with a markdown mark, such as a dash. A plain single line still appears. **Expected behavior** The nested code editor receives the paste as literal text. The text stays in the code block. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a routine and edit the description. 2. Add a text code block. 3. Click inside that code block. 4. Paste a line that starts with a dash. 5. The line does not appear in the code block. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `3389bea`. **Deployment mode** Local dev (pnpm dev) ## What Changed - The markdown editor does not take a paste that starts inside a nested code block. - The same editor is used for descriptions in the routine page and in the rest of the app. - The Overview heading has a copy button. - The button copies the draft description while you edit. - The button copies the saved description when you do not edit. - Unit tests cover the paste path and the copy button. - Screenshots show the heading while you view a description and while you edit it. ## Screenshots The copy icon sits next to the Overview title. The heading component is the production component. The page frame around it is a preview.     ## Verification - Run `corepack pnpm exec vitest run --config ui/vitest.config.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/RoutineSectionHeading.test.tsx ui/src/lib/routine-description-copy.test.ts` from the repository root. 57 tests passed on the code commit. - Open a routine description. Paste a line that starts with a dash into a text code block. Confirm that the line stays in the code block. - Click the copy button next to Overview. Paste the result into a new routine. Confirm that the description matches the draft while you edit, and the saved description when you do not edit. - Open the screenshots above. Confirm the copy icon is next to Overview in the view state and in the edit state, in light theme and in dark theme. - This workspace did not open a signed-in routine page. The screenshots render the production heading with the app color tokens. ## Risks Low risk. A paste inside a code block now stays in that block. A paste in the rest of the editor still follows the previous markdown path. The copy button only reads the description text. ## Model Used xAI Grok 4.7 with tool use. The model wrote this change in a Paperclip agent run. Context window is large. The model used tools to edit code, run tests, and capture screenshots. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no user docs describe this paste path) - [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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
32745f4e84 |
feat(issues): keep follow-up parents and show the creation source (#15762)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents delegate work by creating follow-up tasks through the issue API, the CLI, and the chat `create_task` tool > - An agent can omit `parentId` when it creates a follow-up from an ordinary execution task. The API accepts the task as a top-level task. The task hierarchy does not show where the task came from, even though the run provenance is recorded > - The operator must read run history to learn why the task exists. This is slow and it hides delegated work from the parent task > - This pull request keeps the parent link for delegated follow-ups by default, keeps intentional standalone tasks possible, and shows an access-checked "Created from <task> by <agent>" note on the task page from the recorded run provenance > - The benefit is that each agent-created task shows its source without log inspection, while structural parentage, provenance, and blockers stay separate concepts ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13241 (shows tasks created from a task on the source task page; this PR shows the reverse direction on the created task) Refs #9727 (open proposal for creation provenance tracking) **What existing behavior does this improve?** Issue creation by agent runs, and the task detail page. **Subsystem affected** Server (`POST /api/companies/:companyId/issues`, `GET /api/issues/:id`), shared types, UI task detail page, CLI `issue create`, Paperclip skill docs. **Current behavior** When an agent run bound to an execution task creates a task and omits `parentId`, the task is created with no parent. The task page shows no source. The operator must inspect the run log to find the task that the agent was working on. The source run and the privacy parent are recorded, but the UI does not use them. **Proposed behavior** - When an agent run bound to an ordinary execution task omits `parentId`, the server sets `parentId` to that task. The `issue.created` activity records `parentDefaultedFromRunIssue: true`. - An explicit `parentId: null` keeps the task standalone. Conversation runs (chat handoffs), board or user creates, watchdog follow-ups, a run task the agent may not mutate, a default parent that would cause a delegation cycle, and a default parent the agent may not create a child under (for example a protected assignment policy without a grant) also stay standalone. The server runs the same `tasks:assign` decision with the defaulted parent in scope before it accepts the default. No request that succeeded before now fails. An explicit `parentId` is still checked as before. - `GET /api/issues/:id` returns `createdFrom` with the source task, the run, and the agent. The server resolves it from `origin_run_id`, or from the recorded creation activity for historical rows. It returns `null` when the viewer may not read the source task or the run, when the run is from another company, or when provenance is missing. - The task page shows "Created from <task> by <agent>" in the classic breadcrumb area and in the streamlined Tasks tab. The note is not a blocker and it is shown with or without a parent. - The CLI `issue create` command gets `--standalone`, which sends `parentId: null`. **Reason and benefit** Operators see why a task exists on the task itself. Delegated follow-ups stay inside the parent task tree, so parent completion and child wake-ups keep working. Private and cross-company sources stay hidden. **Breaking changes** None for the API schema. Agents that create tasks from a run and relied on the omitted `parentId` to mean "top-level" must now send `parentId: null` (CLI: `--standalone`). The skill and the spec document this. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issue-creation-source.ts` (new): resolves a task's creation source from the origin run or the creation activity, scoped to the company, and loads the run-bound task by UUID or identifier. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `POST /companies/:companyId/issues` defaults `parentId` to the run's task when the body omits it (with the exclusions above) and records the default in the activity log. `GET /issues/:id` adds the access-checked `createdFrom` field. - `packages/shared/src/types/issue.ts` and index exports: new `IssueCreationSource` type and the optional `createdFrom` field on `Issue`. - `ui/src/components/task-detail/IssueCreatedFromNote.tsx` (new), `TaskDetailTasksPanel.tsx`, and `IssueDetail.tsx`: show the creation source in both task page layouts and count it in the Tasks tab badge. - `cli/src/commands/client/issue.ts`: `issue create --standalone`. - Docs: `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, `doc/CLI.md`, `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`. - Tests: `server/src/__tests__/issue-creation-source-routes.test.ts` (new), `TaskDetailTasksPanel.test.tsx`, `IssueDetail.test.tsx`. ## Verification Run the new server route test (embedded Postgres): ```sh cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-creation-source-routes.test.ts ``` It covers: ordinary delegation gets the parent and `createdFrom`; explicit `parentId: null` stays standalone but still shows the source; conversation handoff and board create stay standalone; a would-be delegation cycle falls back to standalone; a protected source task without a grant falls back to standalone while an explicit parent still returns 403; an explicit cycle still returns 409; historical provenance from the creation activity; missing provenance, a private source for an outsider, and a cross-company run all return `null`. Related existing suites that passed locally (11 files, 313 tests): `issue-created-from-routes`, `issue-create-deduplication-routes`, `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes`, `chat-project-tools`, `issue-assignee-invokability-routes`, `issue-watchdogs-routes`, `issue-dependency-wakeups-routes`, `public-mcp`, `native-runtime/task-creation-backlog`, `issue-access-grants-routes`, `issue-list-assignee-filter-routes`. UI: ```sh cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/task-detail/TaskDetailTasksPanel.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx pnpm check:token-gates ``` Manual check: as an agent run bound to a task, `POST /api/companies/:companyId/issues` with only a title. The response has `parentId` set to the run's task. Open the new task; the page shows "Created from <task> by <agent>". The related server suites pass locally (`issue-created-from`, `issue-create-deduplication`, `issue-agent-mutation-ownership`, `chat-project-tools`, `issue-watchdogs`, `public-mcp`, `task-creation-backlog`, `issue-access-grants`, `permissions-upgrade-boundary`). The full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build` were not run locally because the sandbox has a 4 GB memory limit and the TypeScript compiler is killed on the server project; the CI gates on this PR cover them. ## Risks - Behavior shift for agent clients: a run-created task without `parentId` now becomes a child of the run's task. Clients that want a top-level task must send `parentId: null`. The watchdog, conversation, and board paths are excluded, and the default never adds a blocker. - The default parent inherits the parent's execution workspace, which run-created tasks already inherited from the run's task. - `createdFrom` adds one run lookup, one issue lookup, one access decision, and one agent lookup to the task detail request. It is skipped when the task has no origin run and no creation activity with a run. - Privacy: the field returns `null` unless the viewer can read the source task and the run, so a private source is indistinguishable from missing provenance. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5.1 (`claude-fable-5-1`), Anthropic, run through Claude Code in a Paperclip-managed execution workspace with tool use, shell execution, and a local embedded Postgres for 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3ec7309d91 |
feat(voice): add experimental Speko task connection runtime (#15727)
First PR: runtime. UI: #15728. Qualification: #15729.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed connections.
> - Chat connections already bind external conversations to those tasks.
> - Speko handles voice and telephony, while the selected Paperclip
agent does the work.
> - A call needs durable session authority, ordered follow-ups, and safe
result delivery.
> - This PR adds an explicit voice transport to the existing connection
runtime.
> - The UI and qualification suites follow in linked PRs. Speko stays
experimental.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Phone and browser voice conversations cannot use the chat connection
task lifecycle. A separate voice runtime is needed to preserve task
authority, retries, and reply history.
**Proposed solution**
Add company-scoped voice sessions, signed callbacks, durable replies,
inbound intake, and an agent-facing outbound-call tool. Reuse existing
tasks, queues, secrets, and publications.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the experimental chat connector entry points under Agent
Chat and Connected Apps. The project owner requested this feature.
Refs #11418 for the original provider catalog proposal. This
implementation uses the newer chat connection infrastructure rather than
an MCP catalog-only integration. Refs #15721 for remote OpenCode
startup.
## What Changed
- Add additive voice schema, shared contracts, session APIs, and
provider callbacks.
- Bind browser, inbound, and outbound sessions to an endpoint, task, and
selected agent.
- Add low-trust guest intake in an explicitly selected sandbox and keep
ordinary approval rules.
- Submit task work through session-scoped tools and push approved
replies through Speko POST /v1/calls/{id}/messages.
- Distinguish provider acceptance from confirmed spoken playback.
Reconcile reports without downloading recordings.
- Add protocol, migration, persistence, provider, and
delivery-diagnostic tests.
## Verification
- Master
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
417db14e7d |
fix: show credential access errors in task chat (#15741)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use AI connections to run tasks for a responsible user. > - A connection can deny access when its owner has not shared it with that user. > - The task conversation hides this cause behind a collapsed failure marker. > - People need to see which connection blocked the agent and how to fix it. > - This pull request shows an expanded access error in the task conversation. > - The error names the agent and connection, and links to the agent's AI settings. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task could fail because its responsible user could not use the agent's AI connection. The user saw a temporary error toast and a collapsed task failure. The task did not clearly explain the access problem. **Expected behavior** The task should show a visible error that names the agent, the connection, and the person who lacks access. For example: "Codie is configured to use Dotta's API Key, but you don't have access to that credential." It should offer a link to change the AI connection. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure an agent with a personal AI connection. 2. Start a task for a user who cannot use that connection. 3. Open the task after the run fails. 4. Check that the access error stays visible and links to AI settings. Refs #15714. That change classifies expected connection-sharing denials. This change makes the same failure clear in task chat. ## What Changed - Keep the connection display name in private error metadata when a sharing check denies access. - Store a private grant reference for the name visibility check. Use one rule for task summaries and full run responses. Show the name to the affected user and the connection sharing audience. Other task readers see a generic label. Strip grant IDs from public run responses. - Show an expanded error card for native and legacy task runs. Use "you" only when the viewer is the responsible user. - Link to AI settings and the failed run. Preserve names on resumed native runs. Hide the old error after a newer successful attempt. - Add full task-page Storybook examples, focused tests, and design guidance. ## Verification - Passed 249 focused tests for task chat, error text, private error metadata, and the real database run summary. These include resumed native runs and viewer access rules. - Passed all UI token gates on the rebased branch. - Checked the production task page in Storybook. Verified the viewer's error, another user's error, mobile layout, and a newer successful attempt. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` in a clean checkout with Node 24 and the pinned pnpm version. Passed the final server typecheck after the response filter changes. - Passed the real database route regression for the connection owner, affected user, and another task reader. Passed the registered secret redaction tests. - The local route checks needed `--testTimeout 60000` for cold imports. A broader local route run hit cold-import timeouts and an old fixture assertion that is now fixed. The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` aggregate was stopped to free resources. The full suite passed in CI with the normal timeouts. - Passed the full [final-commit CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37996148342), including all server, UI, runner, browser, typecheck, build, and canary packaging gates. All 54 executed checks passed; two Storybook jobs were skipped. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no remaining findings, and every review thread is resolved. - Review the Storybook group `Task / Credential access` for the notice and full task-page examples. ## Risks - Only the allowed connection display name enters the compact run summary. Credential secrets, grant IDs, and arbitrary error details do not enter it. - Existing runs can lack the connection name. They show a clear fallback message. - The notice uses the existing task-run relevance rules. A newer attempt or a completed task hides the old failure. - No schema migration or API permission change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution and browser verification. The exact serving variant 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
|
26d71d8def |
Fix human author identity and viewer-relative alignment in task chat (#15494)
Preserve human author identity in task chat and align only the current viewer on the right. Show other humans and agents on the left with their own identity. Include mixed-author Storybook journeys and regression coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ed2c22ea8c |
feat(connections): simplify dedicated GitHub App setup (#15416)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and the tools each agent can use. > - GitHub bots need their own App identity and restricted repository access. > - Manual App configuration and repeated setup gates make that connection hard to finish. > - GitHub can create an App from a manifest, but people must approve creation and repository access. > - Each Paperclip stack should own configuration, credentials, signature verification, and task admission. > - This change uses Cloud as an encrypted callback and event gateway, then completes setup in the stack. > - GitHub review bots have their own experimental setting. Chat connector opt-in does not control them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Dedicated GitHub App setup, bot settings, and task-scoped GitHub replies. **Current behavior** Users must configure an App, copy credentials, repeat repository selection, and complete manual verification gates. Review settings are hard to scan. Mentions in descriptions can be missed, and automatic completion text can produce an extra GitHub comment. **Proposed behavior** Choose an agent and connect GitHub under a personal account or organization. GitHub asks for creation and installation consent. Paperclip resumes the same draft, stores secrets locally, imports access, verifies delivery, and opens Settings. Each accepted request has one editable App-owned comment for progress and results. Review assessments produce deterministic checks for the reviewed commit. **Breaking changes** GitHub bots require their own default-off experimental opt-in. The setup-method and delegated-agent screens are removed. Per-person automatic-run flags remain readable but are replaced by author filters. Existing connections, direct webhooks, saved restrictions, and manual existing-App recovery remain supported. Companion gateway: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/pull/688 (merged). The roadmap and related PRs were checked; no duplicate dedicated-App wizard was found. ## What Changed - Add an independent **GitHub review bots** setting across the catalog, routes, identity admission, and task controls. Existing bots continue running when the UI setting is off. - Replace setup with Choose agent and Connect GitHub. Support personal and organization owners, inline low-trust conversion, saved drafts, known organization suggestions, automatic completion, and same-App recovery. - Keep manifests, OAuth PKCE, credential exchange, vault storage, installation verification, and original webhook-signature validation in the stack. Use the Cloud sealed gateway for public callbacks and outbound local delivery. - Add resumable owner metadata in migration 0323. Retry a failed registration renewal through the same durable replacement rather than creating another App route. - Support authorized mentions in issue and PR bodies, comments, inline comments, and review summaries. Preserve attachments, edited-source identity, duplicate protection, and lifecycle invalidation. Filter requests explicitly addressed to another connected bot. - Give agents task-scoped review, comment, and update tools. Update one working comment through progress and final output. Close coalesced requests and recover delayed acknowledgements, including deleted earlier working comments. Preserve automatic replies for legacy connections without saved review configuration. Preserve partial publication evidence and quarantine uncertain automatic fallbacks without blocking Board messages or questions. - Reorganize Settings and Access with rich slash-skill instructions, numeric passing scores, clear automation controls, formal-review tooltips, member and contributor sections, and verified App branding links. Preserve invalid score drafts and automation choices across tabs. - Paginate repositories in 20-row batches with search and a true connection-wide toggle. Batch verification at GitHub's 500-ID token limit. Keep saved repository overrides while hiding their editor. - Give each review a detail URL that remains usable beyond the newest 100 records. Synchronize the manager OpenAPI contracts and add recovery, authorization, UI, and browser regressions. - Reconcile the current master branch and retain its agent avatar, feature catalog, and extracted heartbeat preparation code. Preserve a saved test-drive port and recover from an occupied high port. ## Verification - Focused UI, independent experimental-setting, and CLI tests: 199 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. The broad local Vitest attempt was interrupted after resource timeouts and stale expectations; the affected regressions passed focused reruns. The latest-head full CI matrix passed, including all browser shards, server/chat suites, builds, typechecking, canary packaging, and Docker context integrity. A Docker Hub 429 required a CI retry; it passed without changing the code. - Final review repairs: 127 attachment/event tests and server typecheck passed. All 13 final integration regressions passed under the normal CI timeout, covering legacy reply compatibility, deleted coalesced comments, inline-only review completion, progress edits, and native final recovery. Restart-safe description/review attachments passed the attachment suite. - Final regressions: four reply/lifecycle tests, both native GitHub wait tests, 171 feature-gate/reply-contract tests, the routed review preview, and five scheduler/reply regressions passed. The final fixture repair also passed all six setup-continuation cases and all three complete chat-test shards in CI, covering terminal receipts and retries under the normal CI timeout. One loaded-host receipt run exceeded its local timeout; the exact case passed in an isolated rerun and the complete CI shard. - GitHub integration tests cover personal and organization setup, retry recovery, edited mentions, attachment provenance, coalesced requests, delayed acknowledgements, partial review writes, old review URLs, and company boundaries. - Browser qualification: both GitHub journeys, all five provider setup/management journeys, and the GitHub uncertain-send recovery journey passed. GitHub setup, reconnect, and task replies run with chat disabled; chat enabled alone cannot expose GitHub bots. The disposable qualification database was removed after testing. - Earlier live qualification verified App-owned issue replies, native slash-skill invocation, progress comment edits, and a 5/5 PR review with a passing current-head check in the dedicated permissions-smoke repository. These live checks did not use personal credentials as bot execution authority. ## Risks - Deploy the merged Cloud gateway protocol before the stack update. Each callback and encrypted event must retain the original instance and tenant binding. - Migration 0323 uses idempotent column additions for test installations that already applied the earlier draft migration number. - A verified connection does not prove runtime isolation or a completed review. Runtime checks remain separate. - Required merge checks must be configured in GitHub. A passing numeric score does not formally approve a PR; approval and request-changes tools remain opt-in. - Existing-App credentials cannot silently renew an uncertain manifest exchange. Recovery preserves the existing App, draft, connection, and agent. - Repository changes save immediately. Global toggles affect all currently available repositories, including unloaded rows, without granting new installation access. - A failed or uncertain tool write suppresses automatic fallback text; the governed outbox retains its evidence. Deleted or replaced response comments are not recreated through a personal credential fallback. - GitHub logo upload remains an optional human action in GitHub App settings. Runtime provisioning, delegated setup, screenshot publication, and production push delivery remain deferred. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact runtime model identifier and context 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 references) - [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 (focused suites; complete test matrix is checked 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
|
5cf90417d6 |
fix(ui): confirm cancellation from monitor cards (#15735)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their tasks. > - A task monitor schedules a later agent check. > - The monitor card shows when that check will run. > - The card has no direct control to cancel the monitor. > - This change adds an X button and a confirmation dialog. > - The operator can stop the scheduled check from the card. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The monitor card on the task page. **Current behavior** The operator must open task properties to clear a monitor. **Proposed behavior** Select the X in the top right of the card. Select Keep monitor to leave the schedule in place. Select Cancel monitor to remove the scheduled check. **Reason and benefit** The operator can cancel the monitor where its schedule is shown. Confirmation helps prevent an accidental cancellation. **Breaking changes** None. The change uses the existing task update API. ## What Changed - Add an accessible X button at the top right of the monitor card. - Confirm cancellation before the task update. - Keep the dialog open with an error if the update fails. - Preserve the other execution policy settings and refresh the task after success. - Reject stale policy writes under the task row lock with an optional expectedExecutionPolicy snapshot. - Document the snapshot field and add a database test for stale cancellation. - Restrict snapshot requests to policy-only edits before execution-control actions. - Add seven route tests for rejected mixed requests and absent policy updates. - Keep automatic retry waits separate from monitor cancellation. - Add component and task page tests. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Monitor banner and task page tests passed: 199 tests. A targeted database test and seven route tests also passed. - UI typecheck and production build passed. - Open a task with a scheduled monitor. Select X, then Keep monitor. The schedule must remain. - Select X, then Cancel monitor. The card must disappear after the update. - Local full build reached the Rust runner build but could not complete because Cargo is absent. CI must verify the full build. - Full repository typecheck, build, test suites, and E2E checks passed in CI for the final commit. Local full checks were limited by missing Cargo and workspace memory. ## Risks - Low risk. Cancellation uses the existing company access checks and activity log. - A cancelled monitor no longer wakes the agent. The dialog explains this effect. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. Used code editing, shell commands, and 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c5f7713dd4 |
fix: clarify native tool use for external agents (#15734)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External agents keep their own tools and app connections. > - The Paperclip assignment catalog controls the Paperclip bridge. > - Dot treated a qualification test restriction as a rule for later work. > - Existing prompts did not clearly separate these two tool sources. > - This pull request tells agents to use their own capabilities and return results to Paperclip. > - The benefit is that a missing Paperclip app does not block an available native capability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #15722 and #15691. I searched open PRs for Dot tool guidance and found no duplicate. **What happened?** After a qualification test, Dot refused a Slack request because the test Paperclip agent had no assigned Slack app. Dot already had a working Slack connection in ChatGPT. It carried the test's plugin restriction into a later task message. **Expected behavior** An external agent uses its own available tools, apps, plugins, skills, and capabilities to complete the current request. It then returns the result through Paperclip's task reporting and completion tools. The assignment catalog limits Paperclip calls. It does not disable the agent's native tools. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect a Dot that has a native Slack connection. 2. Complete a Paperclip qualification task with a restriction scoped to that test. 3. Send a later task message that requires Slack. 4. Observe that Dot can mistake the Paperclip catalog for its full tool inventory. **Deployment mode** Observed on Cloud staging with the Dot Runner. ## What Changed - Add shared tool-use guidance for external-agent onboarding and Dot setup. - Include it in the server onboarding document, pairing response, event instructions, and capability response. - Clarify the tool descriptions on both Dot bridge paths. - Include the same guidance in each Dot Runner assignment without adding a shared-package dependency to the standalone Runner. - Document native tool use and the scope of test restrictions. ## Verification - The 49 relevant onboarding, Dot invitation, and Runner context tests passed. The final UI run passed 29 tests. The updated plain-text renderer run passed all 4 tests. - Full workspace typecheck, full workspace build, and design token gates passed. All current-head CI gates passed, including full tests, Runner verification, and browser E2E. Greptile is 5/5 on the exact final commit, and the one review finding is resolved. - The real Dot received the standing correction and confirmed that it will use its relevant tools and connections, return results through Paperclip, and stop carrying the test restriction forward. - Extended the existing plain-text renderer test to check native Slack access, qualification-test scope, and the Paperclip denial boundary. This covers agents that receive only the onboarding.txt URL. - The full Vitest suite passed in CI. The earlier local Cloud qualification run encountered failures in unchanged suites; this follow-up uses focused local tests for the instruction changes. ## Risks This changes instructions, not access checks. Native tools retain their own permissions and approval requirements. Paperclip operations remain scoped to the authorized company, agent, and task. Agents must not use another connection or identity to bypass a denial. There is no database migration or new permission grant. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, repository tools, and browser control. 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 #` / `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
|
b6b3cb3761 |
Fix unavailable workspace branches with an inline repair and retry (#15726)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Isolated workspaces must resolve a starting Git ref before an agent starts. > - A task can explicitly select a branch that the repository does not have. > - The current recovery notice calls this a missing secret and offers no branch repair. > - This pull request explains the branch failure and adds a task-scoped repair action. > - Operators can correct the branch and request a guarded retry from the task thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #11892 added unresolved-ref recovery. Refs #15719 added bounded failure diagnostics. This change uses that recovery path and adds its operator repair UI. **What happened?** A task that selects `main` in a repository with only `master` stops before the adapter starts. The task shows a missing-secret message and a generic retry. Repeating the run cannot fix the stored branch setting. **Expected behavior** Explain that the starting ref could not be resolved. Offer a verified repository default, or let the operator enter a branch. Save only the task's starting branch and retry its recorded owner through the existing admission gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an isolated-workspace task in a repository with `master` and no `main`. 2. Set the task's base ref to `main` and assign an agent. 3. Wait for the configuration failure. 4. Use the inline branch repair and confirm the agent completes in a worktree based on `master`. ## What Changed - Replace the missing-secret diagnosis for unresolved workspace refs. Keep uncertain fetch/access failures described as uncertain. - Read the remote's advertised default branch with the existing Git credentials and a bounded timeout. Do not guess or silently change the branch. - Add an atomic branch repair to the existing recovery resolution endpoint. Check company access, board runtime permission, incident identity, current owner, task/project state, dependencies, interactions, approvals, budget, and active execution before requesting a retry. - Preserve the effective inherited workspace setup when saving the task branch override, and attach one repair notice per failed run even when the incident is reused. - Bind the shared repair card to the exact recovery notice and failed run in both task-thread renderers. Validate branch syntax and prevent duplicate submissions. - Add Storybook examples, regression tests, and a documented local acceptance fixture with a real Git repository and process adapter. ## Verification - Red/green regressions cover the repair endpoint and preservation of inherited agent setup. The regression failed before each fix and passed afterward. - Focused integration suite: 162 tests passed; task-thread/card suite: 230 passed. After review refinements, all 13 repair-route tests, 10 card tests, 77 recovery-action tests, and the repeated-failure heartbeat regression passed locally. - Real browser acceptance passed for suggested-branch and custom-entry repairs. Invalid syntax left the task blocked. Both valid repairs ran the authenticated worker in a real isolated worktree and reached Done; reload preserved the result. - Repeated failures reused the recovery incident and retained an actionable notice on the latest run. The inherited-setup journey verified the provisioned file, agent branch template, worktree parent directory, and actual Git commit before completing. [Before/after screenshots](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15726#issuecomment-6088734666). - Full local typecheck and build passed; server typecheck passed again after review fixes. Token gates passed. - The monolithic local Vitest run was stopped after resource-contention timeouts and stale assertions. Targeted regressions were rerun; the full CI matrix passed on final revision `26c543ff490bec29ddc77a49ee532c7f84fb96dc`. One signoff E2E worker-cancellation failure passed on a rerun without code changes. The two opt-in Storybook workflow jobs were skipped; the Storybook journey was checked manually. - Repeat the live journey with `tests/e2e/workspace-base-ref/README.md`. Storybook examples use simulated callbacks and are not the live acceptance proof. ## Risks - Default-branch discovery can add up to 10 seconds to an unresolved-ref failure. Lookup failure leaves manual entry available. - A valid branch name can still be absent or inaccessible. The retried workspace preparation remains authoritative and can block again with new evidence. - Retry remains subject to normal admission gates. The repair changes only the task override; it does not alter project or agent defaults. - No database migration or new dependency. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution, repository analysis, and browser testing. The exact serving variant 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> |
