mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-20 15:09:57 +02:00
dfc00fb650e7a577795f55ec235dfd22f16ddbd4
31
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
b17019e14d |
fix(agents): reduce default instructions and qualify stock harnesses (#14948)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its adapters supply task context and access to Paperclip skills and tools. > - The default hire manual and shared prompts also repeat general work procedures. > - Those procedures overlap with stock provider instructions and the Paperclip skill. > - Existing E2E fixtures supply a QA manual, so they do not qualify the production default. > - This pull request reduces the generic instructions and adds real default-hire coverage. > - The benefit is less competing guidance, with inspectable evidence for preserved skills and task context. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #14920. That merged change preserves native Codex base instructions. This PR covers the default manual, shared legacy prompts, operational skill guidance, and the narrowly approved ACP skill-discovery/session-environment repair for measured delivery and credential-persistence failures. **What existing behavior does this improve?** New non-CEO hires without a custom bundle and legacy task/chat startup and continuation prompts. **Current behavior** The shipped default manual contains 602 words. Generic task/chat prompts and ordinary resume deltas repeat work procedures already available through the harness and Paperclip skill. **Proposed behavior** The default manual contains only the eight-word company identity. Shared startup prompts retain identity and connection guidance. Ordinary resume deltas retain current work context without the generic execution contract. **Reason and benefit** Let the stock harness guide general work. Keep Paperclip-specific capabilities and independently test default hires, skills, ordered comments, and chat restart. **Breaking changes** New default hires receive less guidance. Existing saved manuals, explicit custom bundles, CEO templates, and specialized wake contracts retain their behavior. The obsolete includeExecutionContract option remains accepted for source compatibility. ## What Changed - Reduce the default hire manual to one sentence. - Reduce shared task/chat defaults and remove the generic ordinary-resume contract. - Keep connection guidance, auth, skills, custom prompts, and specialized wake context. - Add credential-free instruction-boundary gates and 26 explicit Product E2E cells across eight legacy/native profiles, including two focused Paperclip-storage cases. - Capture public hire receipts before providers run, then grade delivered prompts and independent task/chat outcomes. - Add an early legacy skill API recipe for saving a task document, checking the saved revision receipt and linking the document. Improve stock task/heartbeat skill-selection metadata and show a clickable Markdown UI-link example. Keep native tool completion separate. - Advertise bounded routing descriptions and exact successfully staged SKILL.md paths in legacy ACP Claude; keep full bodies on demand and preserve remote path rebasing. - Remove only the provider environment from copied persisted ACP session records, while loading current run credentials and preserving all other options/conversation state. - Regenerate both capability metadata inventories and reject stale manifests/inventories before provider admission. - Publish the original reduction and focused skill-repair comparisons, preserving all failures, automatic recovery, cost coverage and limitations. ## Verification **Behavioral qualification remains pending.** Original legacy ACP Claude loses the issue document only in the reduced cohort beneath an unchanged credential failure. A source-backed diagnosis finds that neither ordinary assignment reads the staged operational skill, while the runtime persists provider environment in session state. The new common repairs expose skill metadata/path and omit persisted env; strict document and credential guards stay intact. [Inspectable diagnosis and retained hashes](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9f654db4541d3d002769c988f6e51fc0b08dadbd/doc/plans/2026-10-03-legacy-acp-claude-readiness.md). Current repair head `de0965984ff3edf611ae6d0e7ca5c7d5ae3947bb` incorporates master `569c7203aa24b95440682983ce7940ba1d4247bd` (merged #14961/#15007). All 222 affected adapter tests, adapter-utils/E2E typechecks, and final 96 variant/grader/retry calibrations pass. The frozen historical comparator is `c25697f4260b6f3adfea143c3ae9932e2f42986d`: 8,280 of 8,291 paths identical, exactly two production instruction paths plus nine declared unit expectations differ. The operational skill/discovery/environment repairs, selected model/profile/task/core grader/auth/permissions/retry policy are identical. Both actual launcher prepare→verify admissions pass with zero providers. [Immutable manifest and exact receipts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9f654db4541d3d002769c988f6e51fc0b08dadbd/doc/plans/2026-10-03-legacy-acp-claude-evidence/manifest.json). One original legacy ACP Claude cell per variant is authorized, with enforced single campaign attempts, 12-minute deadlines and company/agent 1,000-cent hard stops; every product recovery run/cost is counted. Actual live outcomes are pending. Current normal CI has one failed server shard and failed aggregate verify under diagnosis; other normal gates including typecheck/build/Rust/all eight browser shards pass. Fresh review completed successfully; the valid historical startup/resume masking finding was fixed with per-invocation task/chat checks and strict complete-snapshot capture, calibrated and resolved. Prior heads, failures and campaigns below remain historical evidence, not checks on this repair head. - Prior head `36aa4d81c49a1a8f6f04b1a068fae19aa901955f` is replayed on merged hiring master `862a5758ba0e88a33232c1f1fa645e85c38a3113`. All 52 current-head checks pass with two intentional Storybook skips, including repository typecheck/test/build and the browser shard. Fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. Exact-head stock prerequisites pass 599 assertions (598 TypeScript + 1 Rust), all six gates and retained receipt verification, zero providers/source errors. Fingerprint `a7f5a22d860a88fe20cce213c6d5e0004788f32c8363930729aea4fd740ad16d`. Combined catalog/hiring calibrations pass 67 assertions, E2E typecheck and 26-cell stock discovery pass. Canonical contract/inventory checks and the later issue-derived reference calibration are retained; that reference-only follow-up is not live-qualified by earlier frozen runs. - Prior full repository typecheck/build passed. The complete local Vitest run executed 14,956 tests: 14,870 passed, 83 skipped, three timing failures. All three affected files passed unchanged narrow reruns; original failures remain retained. Current-head CI now passes the full general checks; the original local failures remain retained. - The original 24-pair default-manual/shared-prompt comparison has two new overall classic Claude/OpenCode document-delivery failures plus an additional legacy ACP Claude document loss beneath an unchanged credential-guard failure (not closed by later runs), two newly passing OpenCode ordered cases, seven unchanged failures and 13 unchanged passes. Equal 15/24 totals do not establish behavioral equivalence. [Complete original report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/875f4c397d9e8c3f12f39dedd59abaf1eaf5236e/doc/plans/2026-10-02-stock-harness-live-comparison.md). - The skill-only repair holds the eight-word manual/shared prompts and merged #14920 fixed. All four matched profile configurations and 203 fixture/behavior files match. Candidate `abd0b628ca642c09a54a4edc56a5227402f6686e` varies only the two skill sources against baseline `bc83fe030234439ac51279502a28803958963e2e`. [Candidate workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37060885547) and [baseline workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37060888047) each pass 571 exact-source prerequisites before providers; all eight cells clean up successfully. Failed campaigns publish successfully and remain failed. - Repair pairs: Claude original Fail → Pass; Claude explicit Pass → Pass; both OpenCode cases Fail → Fail. Explicit OpenCode's handoff worsens beneath the unchanged failing UI-link grade: baseline gives a clickable API URL, candidate gives a code-formatted path without an anchor. The request's usable-link wording is narrower in the UI-only oracle. [Complete repair report and safe projection](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/875f4c397d9e8c3f12f39dedd59abaf1eaf5236e/doc/plans/2026-10-02-legacy-document-skill-repair.md). - The subsequent narrow stock metadata/link correction has two matched Pass → Pass cases, zero new machine failures/passes and no pending pairs. Both original-case handoff links remain deficient: candidate uses a wrong PAP prefix, baseline supplies a bare prefix-less slug path; the preserved original oracle only requires a durable document. Both explicit clickable UI-link cases pass revision/content/link grading. All four exact-source 587-check gates, single assignment runs and cleanup pass. This does not establish fix causality because baseline also succeeds. [Candidate workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37069547401) freezes `fe9dc1e3c518825242ed889ab9c8352986f8c2ed`; [matched baseline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37069552374) freezes `0d7ecfa96d72fba79b7f0a25052b42c0686c0488`. This is a skill-only comparison with reduced manuals/shared prompts held constant, not a repeat of the historical-manual comparison. Only original and clarified explicit classic OpenCode cases are selected, two per variant/four expected turns. 8,242 other tracked files and both profile hashes match; protected workflows admit each exact source before credentials. [Complete qualification report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/74d0d3d945f4c52d0814b5a845ab5bd09f33cd6b/doc/plans/2026-10-02-opencode-skill-routing-link-qualification.md). Candidate original loads Paperclip/reference before saving publicly; baseline original loads it after writing locally, then saves publicly within the same assignment. Reported cost totals are $0.0107824490 candidate / $0.0107909015 baseline, with unmetered runtime. The later reference-only issue-derived link correction is provider-free calibrated and **not live-qualified** by these frozen runs; no further paid runs. - Retained tool calls show the repaired original OpenCode assignment loads only its assigned output skill before writing locally. Operational Paperclip is first loaded during automatic disposition recovery; its early recipe is visible then, but it never saves the missing document. Explicit candidate loads Paperclip and reads the new reference before saving successfully. All nine actual runs are counted. Reported LLM totals are $0.3802537209 baseline and $0.4918990161 candidate; local runtime is unmetered. - Initial setup, packaging, cancelled/missing-cell recovery, callback test and relative-output attempts remain retained. No completed provider failure was rerun. Frozen measurement branches are unchanged by later canonical metadata maintenance. - Run `pnpm test:e2e:runner:stock-harness`, `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`, and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`. Select `stock-harness` explicitly for paid execution; it is excluded from `--all`. Prior-head integration: `36aa4d81c49a1a8f6f04b1a068fae19aa901955f` replays this PR on merged hiring #14985 (`862a5758ba0e88a33232c1f1fa645e85c38a3113`), preserving the four explicit custom-CEO-bundle checks, minimal generic manual boundary, and both suites. The combined fixture catalog and hiring calibrations pass 67 assertions; exact-head stock prerequisites pass 599 assertions (598 TypeScript + 1 Rust), all six gates and retained-receipt verification, zero providers/source errors, fingerprint `a7f5a22d860a88fe20cce213c6d5e0004788f32c8363930729aea4fd740ad16d`. E2E typecheck and 26-cell stock discovery pass. Fresh current-head CI passes all 52 checks with two intentional skips, and fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. The prior source-plan browser failure is retained: a deterministic process fixture replayed its last `fixture:plan` command on `chat_task_completed`, writing revision 2 with identical body after the approval handoff. This was not paid provider execution. Rebased current-head CI passes the same assertion without an old-head retry or a change to that browser fixture. The merged hiring change was measured separately on immutable matched unions, with this reduced/shared/operational context and native completion guidance held constant. [Complete original two-profile report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/f0512647656be78e48abd8c22a3078db8bf6bcd2/doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-live-comparison.md): [candidate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37075466208) / [historical baseline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37075469463), 705 provider-free prerequisites each. Both pairs are unchanged Fail → Fail on the exact-five count, with six core delivery checks passing all four cells; 28 actual successful runs include eight automatic completion wakes, zero retries, four successful cleanups. Source-read coverage is uncomparable, actual model charges unknown. Separately versioned provider-free accounting remains analytical work; original verdicts are preserved. This does not rerun or qualify the completed default-manual or native campaigns. ## Risks - Legacy ACP Claude's additional delivery loss is not closed by any later matched run and blocks the no-extra-failing-behavior merge criterion. Legacy document delivery may have relied on the prior manual/shared prompts. The early skill repair improves Claude in one trial; the later OpenCode pairs pass in both variants and cannot establish causality or robust recovery. Both original-case links remain deficient beneath the storage-only grade. The later issue-derived reference correction has only provider-free validation. Native finish/block descriptions must not be supplied to legacy agents. - The comparison holds merged native Codex fix #14920 constant; it cannot measure that fix's before/after task performance. - These bounded skill/context/chat workflows do not measure general coding quality. Unrepresented providers remain unqualified. - Saved manuals and old Codex sessions are not automatically migrated. Codex through ACP still has a separate base-instruction follow-up. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family as identified by this session. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The assistant used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and delegated PR/eval work. ## 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 (relevant suites and all three unchanged narrow reruns pass; complete-run timing failures retained in Verification) - [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 on the new repair head (prior-head checks retained above) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on the new repair head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
862a5758ba |
fix(agents): reduce hiring templates to role descriptions (#14985)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - New agents receive role instructions from onboarding, the hiring skill, or a team package. > - These sources repeat harness procedures and impose generic work policies. > - They can crowd out the task and the harness instructions. > - This pull request reduces those sources to short role descriptions. > - It preserves configuration, skills, authentication, reporting lines, and approval controls. > - The benefit is less repeated instruction text with explicit coverage for the default hiring path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3307. The CEO template can impose a fixed delegation route instead of letting the agent choose how to fulfill the request. This change removes that route. It does not implement autonomous goal selection. Related work: #14920 preserves stock Codex base instructions. #14948 reduces the generic manual and shared runtime prompts. #14961 improves native completion-tool descriptions. This PR is separate from those changes. ## What Changed - Select only the short CEO `AGENTS.md` for new default CEO bundles. Keep the three former companion files as compatibility assets. - Reduce the first-agent chief-of-staff prompt and coder, QA, UX, and security role examples. - Reduce seven bundled team role bodies. Preserve their role, reporting, and skill metadata. Regenerate the catalog. - Make hiring examples optional. Replace the long generic role manual with short role drafting guidance. Preserve explicit requester instructions. - Add configuration and import coverage for native and legacy managed bundles, custom instructions, first-agent rendering, and catalog contents. - Add an explicit-only hiring eval that starts from the production CEO default and checks one coder hire, independently computed JSON output, saved instructions, and worker reuse. - Include the full prompt comparison and a separate three-request drafting simulation. Neither is a live provider comparison. Prompt differences: [before and after](doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-prompt-diff.md). The CEO default falls from 1,897 to 20 words. The coder example falls from 652 to 18 words. Word counts describe instruction size, not outcome quality or billing. ## Verification - PASS: 99 focused server tests and eight shipped-catalog tests. - PASS: catalog generation and validation for four shipped teams. - PASS: hiring skill validation. - PASS: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - PASS: `pnpm build`. - INCOMPLETE: the full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before rebase. Its original log is retained. This is not a completed full-suite pass. The full current-head GitHub CI workflow passed: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37073372419. - PASS: `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` (63 files / 843 tests). - PASS: discovery for the two new hiring cells, 50 existing everyday cells, and the full 438-cell catalog. - PASS after rebase: 99 server tests, 11 catalog tests, 62 selected E2E support tests, and the E2E typecheck. - PASS: all current-head PR checks at `57dcee147ed0b2d2e3cc657cd9e50fb16bf9ec25`: 51 successful check runs, two intentional Storybook skips, and successful Snyk status. Fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - PENDING follow-up: matched live hiring runs on frozen integration refs. No live outcome-quality or non-regression result is claimed from the configuration checks or this merge. The new suite has two local native cells: Codex and ACPX Claude. It expects five provider turns per cell. It compares source-derived bundles, so the historical long templates remain admissible. Missing successful source-read receipts make a pair uncomparable. They do not establish a behavior regression or equivalence. ## Risks - New default roles have fewer prescribed procedures. Live checks must determine whether a removed instruction was needed for an outcome. - Existing custom and saved bundles keep their contents. The retained companion assets avoid a source-file compatibility break. - Specialized Summarizer, Reflection Coach, and Wiki Maintainer prompts remain unchanged. Their product contracts need separate review. - The generic non-CEO fallback reduction is in #14948. This PR alone does not provide its eight-word fallback. - Configuration tests and drafting simulations do not establish live outcome quality. QA, UX, security, and chief-of-staff hiring behavior remain outside the new two-cell comparison. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and delegated verification. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment 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
|
3c561642b4 |
fix(chat): resolve approvals and preserve unanswered questions (#14613)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents ask for decisions and optional details through cards in chat. > - A clear approval in a message can leave the matching card pending. > - An unanswered question can also block an unrelated later reply. > - Decisions need a saved source message, while optional questions need to remain answerable in history. > - This pull request records conversational decisions and lets users move on from questions and answer them later. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Native Claude and Codex could act on approval in chat while the original approval card stayed pending. Pending question forms stayed above the composer, were absent from history, and could suppress later chat replies. A late native question answer could wait for a finished run to reconnect. **Expected behavior** The active agent records a clear approval or refusal against the exact card and user message. Ambiguous replies do not grant consent. Users can send another message without answering a question. The question remains pending in history and can be reopened and answered later. The saved answer reaches the agent. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Ask an agent to propose work with a confirmation card, then approve it in chat. 2. Check that the original card records that approval before work starts. 3. Ask an interactive question, send an unrelated message, and reload. 4. Open the unanswered question from history and submit an answer. Related work: #14408 added completion delivery. #14607 tests completion reporting turns. Neither records conversational answers on approval cards. ## What Changed - Add a confirmation endpoint backed by a user comment, with schema validation, OpenAPI discovery, and native Plan-mode access. Ask mode remains read-only. - Check company, active run, actor, current session, message provenance, revision, and resolver policy. Save the decision and audit in one transaction. Retries do not repeat effects. Emit resolution telemetry after commit. - Give fresh and resumed chat turns the actual pending confirmation identities. Teach agents to save clear conversational decisions before acting and to clarify ambiguity. - Keep unanswered Agent Chat questions as compact history entries. A newer user message closes the old form. Question cards never contribute to composer pending counts or navigation, including after dismissing a fresh form. The history card is the sole reminder; clicking it restores that exact form and draft. - Preserve Agent Chat questions when later messages or questions arrive. Historical ordinary inputs no longer gate later chat replies. Current-run requests, task execution, and governed approvals keep their gates. Remove the special acknowledgement-publication proof helpers that this rule replaces. - Route answers to finished native runs through durable fresh-wake delivery, with existing idempotency and source-question context. Settle late replies against contiguous completed conversation turns and freeze their history replay; failed, unhandled, and newly arriving messages remain actionable. - Add real-component Storybook scenarios, database and UI regressions, and a three-turn native Claude/Codex E2E case. Capture distinct, UI-ready screenshots and report the individual assertions. ## Verification - Focused decision/publication/UI regressions after merging master: 288 passed; subsequent UI draft, failed-send, and conversation checks: 199 passed. - Native question and durable delivery regressions: 106 passed, including all four terminal run states and exactly-once late delivery. Seven targeted regressions fail against the original implementation and pass with the fix. - Latest conversation/decision/native-delivery regressions after the master merge: 121 passed. Covers completed progress, missing or failed intervening turns, new messages during a late reply, stale sessions, and frozen retry/replay boundaries. Four new assertions fail before the ordering fix. - E2E support suite after the master merge: 792 passed. Negative controls reject expired cards, wrong questions/answers, stale or missing replies, unrelated clarification forms, and unexpected tasks. - The embedded-browser walkthrough caught one additional defect: dismissing a fresh question still showed a composer badge. Both Cancel and close-button regressions failed before the fix. The fix at `65f2ade12` passes 170 chat-thread tests and 792 E2E support tests. After merging master, 232 chat-thread/confirmation tests, server/UI typechecks, and token gates pass. The preview and two-provider live E2E pass at `e5512a206`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads at that commit. All 55 checks are now successful at `e5512a206` (four conditional checks skipped), including the aggregate verification gate and clean-install canary test. The first attempt was interrupted by simultaneous CI worker shutdowns; one failed-job rerun passed without code changes. - [Published Storybook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/storybook/branches/codex~2Fchat-approval-resolution/?path=/story/chat-comments-agent-chat-unanswered-questions--moved-on): nine real-component scenarios. Manually exercised move on, reopen, preserve draft, answer later, answer one of multiple questions, and a custom mobile answer in the embedded browser. Retested fresh Cancel and close-button dismissal in the updated build, then reopened and submitted the preserved Green selection and inspected its answered receipt. Static preview has no live model/backend; its callbacks are fixture responses. - [First live campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36714504406-1/) reproduced the late-answer completion-state defect on both providers despite correct saved answers and acknowledgements. It also exposed a valid imperative clarification rejected by the old oracle. Both issues are fixed with regression controls; this failing run is retained as evidence. - [Four-cell qualification](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36717804064-1/) passed 4/4 at `2bf8a1009`: unanswered-question return and ambiguous confirmation, each on native Claude and Codex. Inspected saved state, source-message decisions, visible cards, and agent replies. Both late-answer chats settled to waiting; no unrequested tasks were created. [Final branch rerun](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36719666238-1/) passed 2/2 at `142630720`: the same unanswered-question journey after merging master, plus an additional screenshot and browser assertion for the actual late-answer acknowledgement. - [Composer-reminder E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36727006818-1/) passed 2/2 at `5b62c52d9`: native Claude and Codex, three turns each, with explicit no-badge assertions before and after reload. Inspected saved pending/answered state, both screenshots with a clear composer, and actual Blue acknowledgements; all five behavioral matchers passed per provider and neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial; this is bounded workflow qualification. - [Fresh-dismissal E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36742773318-1/) passed 2/2 at `e5512a206`: native Claude and Codex, including fresh Cancel, clear composer, reopen, unrelated message, reload, late Blue answer, and actual agent acknowledgement. All five behavioral matchers pass per provider. Inspected the fresh-dismissal screenshots and saved pending/answered identity; neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial (4/6 runs). - Prior evidence remains available in [the earlier campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36642252725-1/). Its early loading screenshot and overwritten final capture prompted the UI-ready, distinct screenshot fixes. ## Risks - The model interprets intent. The server verifies permission and provenance; it does not infer consent from text. Ambiguous and unrelated replies are not approvals. - Historical questions can accumulate. They remain visible, pending, and answerable; no automatic answer or expiry is invented. - The change to completion gates is scoped to Agent Chat and ordinary historical inputs. Current-turn and governed approvals retain their existing controls. - Live qualification is limited to the selected stories. Broader native onboarding finalization remains separate work. - No database migration. Telemetry adds no fields or values; the contract and README document the commit boundary. Privacy review was requested on the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser-test orchestration. The exact model ID and context-window size are 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
0be2afcca6 |
feat(ui): improve task composer controls and pending input (#14322)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets operators assign tasks to AI agents and review their work. > - The task composer controls the next message and its assigned agent. > - Operators needed a way to choose that agent's model and effort without leaving the composer. > - The old mode selector, upload button, and input cards made the mobile composer crowded and hid normal messaging during a pending decision. > - Harnesses publish different model and effort capabilities, so the picker must follow the selected agent. > - This pull request adds one responsive composer flow, keeps pending cards visible above it, and protects Codex ACP authentication in the local test path. > - Operators can choose run settings, send a message, and answer a pending card as separate actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task composer UI, issue thread interactions, Codex ACP credential handling, and Storybook. **Problem or motivation** The composer did not expose model or effort for the selected agent. Mobile actions wrapped poorly. Pending questions and confirmations replaced the composer. A local Codex ACP test could also reuse host authentication after the managed key was removed. **Proposed solution** Put assignee search, model search, exact model IDs, effort, and fast mode in one picker. Use a mobile dialog. Replace the direct-upload plus action and separate mode selector with an Add menu and removable Plan or Ask chips. Place pending interaction cards above the usable composer. Keep these cards pending after an ordinary message unless their creator asks for comment superseding. Replace managed ACP auth files atomically and isolate the test key from host credentials. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list an overlapping composer milestone. This change improves the existing task and review flows. ## What Changed - Added the combined assignee, model, and effort picker to both task composers. Search matches agent name, role, and harness. The server uses a curated Codex list by default and honors instance-declared models. Manual IDs remain available. - Added an effort slider for known model capabilities, a conditional Codex fast control, and reset. The picker opens in a modal on mobile. - Added the Add menu for files, supported goals, Plan mode, and Ask mode. Plan and Ask are exclusive removable chips. Keyboard mode cycling remains available. - Adjusted mobile spacing, avatars, wrapping, and Send placement. Removed the composer divider. - Moved pending question, confirmation, review, and related cards above the composer. Ordinary comments now leave question and confirmation cards pending by default. The onboarding prompt retains explicit comment superseding. - Updated the Storybook composer group with responsive states and the production picker. Added UI, service, route, and browser regression coverage. - Isolated Codex ACP API-key authentication, skipped subscription auth merge and shared-home copy-back for remote API-key runs, and replaced the managed auth file atomically. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the final local head. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed on the final local head. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts ui/src/components/task-chat/ComposerRunSettingsPicker.test.tsx` — 31 tests passed, including role and harness search, declared Codex models, and filtering general OpenAI models. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` — 74 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts` — 42 tests passed, including remote API-key copy-back isolation. - `pnpm test:run` — attempted locally; the embedded PostgreSQL test database could not initialize on macOS. The isolated `heartbeat-run-event-sequencing` suite reproduced that environment failure. GitHub CI runs the full test matrix for this head. - `pnpm build` — passed on the final head. `pnpm build-storybook` passed after the last UI change; only server code, tests, and docs changed afterward. - Live local test drive — Codex ACP ran a task with a managed API key. The test agent was restored to its default ACP configuration afterward. - Review the interactive stories under the top-level Composer group with `pnpm storybook`. Check a narrow desktop width and mobile Plan, Ask, picker, and pending-question states. ## Risks - A pending card stays open when an ordinary comment changes the discussion. Its creator can set `supersedeOnUserComment: true` when a new comment should replace it. - Model and effort overrides persist on the task until reset or changed. An unlisted manual model ID may fail when the provider runs it. - Some harness catalogs do not report effort support. The picker hides effort for those models. - No database migration is required. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. This runtime does not expose the exact model ID or context window to the task. The model used 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 - [ ] 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: OpenAI Codex <codex@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
43acbcc398 |
fix(runner): preserve sessions and complete question and approval continuations (#13655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner connects task state to provider sessions. > - Follow-up turns must retain provider memory and carry new user direction. > - Lost session IDs caused repeated context and extra input tokens. > - Native question answers and approval races could leave valid work blocked. > - This pull request repairs those paths and adds regression coverage. > - Agents can continue accepted work without repeating the conversation or losing the user's answer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13574. That merged PR shortened continuation prompts and moved question instructions into tool documentation. This change preserves sessions and fixes failures exposed by broader testing. Related runtime work: #13408 and #13410. **What happened?** Native follow-up turns could lose the provider session ID. Completion guidance could replace the original task with its latest comment. Claude native questions could remain pending after the user answered. Approval during a running tool call could suspend the run before the tool response arrived. Onboarding and chat handoff instructions also caused repeated planning or missing plan documents. **Expected behavior** Reuse a valid provider session. Send only new events when that session already has the history. Preserve the task requirements and apply later user direction. Store the question answer and deliver it to the waiting run. Finish governed tool responses before suspending. Execute the accepted plan without asking for the same approval again. **Steps to reproduce** Run the continuation, local-session-integrity, first-task, and agent-chat suites with native Codex and Claude. Include provider-question-bridge, accept-while-running, and plan-handoff. **Paperclip version or commit** This branch is based on master |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d0b67bfe71 |
feat: queue approvals and answers during active runs (#13539)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Users guide running agents through messages, questions, and approval cards. > - Messages already wait in a queue when an agent is running. > - Card responses did not appear in that queue. Some question answers also steered a later run without a user click. > - A fast approval could invalidate the agent's review handoff and cause it to stop its own run. > - This pull request gives card responses the same queue controls and preserves the exact response during delivery. > - Users can wait for completion or explicitly send the response with Interrupt or Steer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13517, which is merged. This PR targets master and adds queued interaction responses on top of the onboarding changes. Related continuation work: #10519 and #12866. **What happened?** Accepting a proposal while its source run was active left a saved response outside the message queue. The agent could then lose its review path, reassign the task, and cancel itself. Answers to older questions could also steer another active turn without a click. **Expected behavior** Save the response immediately. Queue its continuation behind the active run. Deliver it after completion, or when the user explicitly chooses Interrupt or Steer. Preserve approval revisions and answer choices. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let an agent publish a confirmation card while its run is still active. 2. Accept the card before the agent finishes its review handoff. 3. Inspect the message queue and the task's next run. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on da8a3876c with the onboarding changes from #13517. **Deployment mode** Local development from source. The fix covers legacy adapters and native Runner turns. ## What Changed - Project resolved cards into the existing queue as immutable responses. Keep answers and exact approval revisions. - Require an explicit click to steer a response into a compatible native turn. Use Interrupt when a fresh session is required. - Preserve typed response context through interruption, cleanup waits, and normal queue promotion. Keep the direct answer channel for a provider blocked on its original question request. - Accept the source run's review handoff after its card resolves. Reject stale agent reassignment that would orphan a queued response. - Add deterministic regression tests and an `accept-while-running` case to the first-task suite. Require recorded timestamp overlap before that case can pass. - Keep the first-task skill name out of user-facing messages. ## Verification - Red-green: the original route failed the queue regression; the changed route passes it. - Focused server/UI tests: 139 passed, including 64 queue-route tests. - Runner harness unit tests: 314 passed. - Server, UI, and Runner E2E typechecks passed. UI token gates passed. - Full repository typecheck and build passed. Server typecheck passed again after review fixes. - Review regressions: 165 queue/reopen route tests, 53 wake admission tests, and 18 run identity tests passed. Approval acknowledgement recovery and both message/approval arrival orders are covered. - Full local test run: 12,401 passed; three new admission regressions ran against a cached pre-fix module. A fresh run of that entire suite passed (53 tests). The complete CI suite passed on the final commit. - Previous-head CI at `c28e2ef12`: 32 checks passed and 2 optional Storybook checks skipped. Every server/workspace/browser shard, Runner verification, build, typecheck/release registry, canary, policy, and security check passed. Greptile: 5/5, no unresolved threads. Earlier interrupted CI workers were replaced by this fresh complete run. - After integrating the updated parent: 314 harness tests, 119 queue/admission tests, 44 onboarding/question-delivery tests, and 13 native recovery tests passed locally. Full repository typecheck and build passed. - Clarified the skill wording preference: routine replies describe the action without announcing the internal skill; direct questions and permission/security/execution disclosures remain truthful. - The paid `accept-while-running` scenario is registered for all four local first-task profiles. It has not been run against a model in this change. - Rebased onto the merged parent at `11921075a`; the resulting tree exactly matches the locally verified integration tree. Final-head CI on `b53054807` passed: 54 successful checks, 2 optional Storybook checks skipped, no failed checks. Every new server/browser shard, aggregate verify/e2e gate, Runner, typecheck, build, canary, and security check passed on the first attempt. Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. ## Risks - Responses now wait instead of implicitly steering another active turn. A provider blocked on the original question still receives its answer directly. - Approval receipts cannot be edited, discarded, or reordered as comments. This preserves the recorded decision. - Interruption must still prove that the prior execution stopped. The tests cover cleanup waits and duplicate delivery. - The new paid overlap case can be unexercised if the model finishes before the click lands. It cannot pass without evidence of overlap. - No database migration is required. This repairs the existing approvals and execution controls; it does not implement the roadmap's work-stream queues. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact deployed model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: agentic reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, terminal commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
11921075a4 |
Add first-task onboarding skill and Runner E2E coverage (#13517)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The first task helps a new user define and approve useful work. > - That workflow needs reusable instructions and tests against the production experience. > - Native Codex and Claude must load the assigned skill, including after resume. > - Maintainers need recorded conversations and precise failed checks to judge regressions. > - This pull request adds the first-task skill and a suite in the shared Runner E2E harness. > - It keeps behavior results separate from informational quality scores and incomplete recordings. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The first onboarding task and the Runner E2E report used to review it. **Current behavior** Onboarding embeds its policy in a hidden brief. Native Codex drops the skill-instructions setting at the Rust boundary. The shared E2E harness has no onboarding suite or full conversation view. **Proposed behavior** Assign and invoke `/first-task` for the onboarding task. Send selected Codex skills as structured protocol inputs. Run twelve scenarios across legacy Codex, legacy Claude, native Codex, and native ACPX Claude. Include all 48 cells in full campaigns. Show recorded chat, question and approval cards, exact checks, instructions, and billing in the shared dashboard. **Reason and benefit** Measure the real onboarding experience before changing prompts. Distinguish infrastructure failures, behavior failures, and unexercised journey steps. **Breaking changes** No database migration or production API change. First-task instructions now live in an assigned skill. The user-edited persona is preserved; the skill includes the maintainer-approved proposal-mode mapping and saved-plan requirement. Related: #11043 is earlier onboarding work. #13422 already fixes native Claude model pinning, context delivery, and read permissions on master; this branch includes those fixes through its base. The new Claude recovery test supplements them. ## What Changed - Extract and assign the first-task skill while retaining the production greeting and opening question. - Carry the Codex skill-instructions flag through thread start and resume. Resolve explicit task skill references only against assigned skills and send native skill inputs. - Invoke an unambiguously selected assigned skill through Claude ACPX’s native slash-command parser on initial and resumed turns, retaining the entire task/wake envelope as its argument. Do not carry that invocation into ordinary tasks. - Restore the saved single-task proposal modes: confirmation card, or saved plan with revision-targeted checkbox approval. Explicit plan requests also require a saved plan. - Add first-response and complete-journey cases with fixed user facts, acceptance checkpoints, durable outcome checks, and accounting for child runs. - Fail the eval when choice questions have fewer than two real options. Recognize planning documents without treating them as completed work. - Add optional, bounded quality judging as explicit post-processing. - Render full conversations and static interaction cards in the shared report. Conversations start folded. Show original and regraded results and incomplete journeys distinctly. - Keep credential-persistence scanning outside the first-task behavioral suite; retain public evidence redaction. - Refresh generated capability references after the API-reference edits. - Correct shared native question guidance and tool schemas: choices need at least two meaningful options; open-ended questions use canonical text fields with the required compatibility payload. Verify both formats through real tool-authority persistence. - Disable announcements automatically for every isolated Runner E2E process and label the gallery environment/provider/target explicitly. - Remove CI races in the GitHub connection browser test and native session recovery test by waiting for the actual async work before asserting its results. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/onboarding-first-task-assets.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-onboarding-first-task-routes.test.ts`: 19 passed. - `pnpm --dir packages/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/drivers/acpx/runtime-host.test.ts src/drivers/acpx/native-skill-prompt.test.ts src/cli/acpx-runtime-sidecar.test.ts`: 70 passed. Native command forwarding and the 1 MiB input boundary both failed before their fixes and passed afterward. Coverage includes changed skills on reopen, approval context, and an ordinary subsequent task. - Runner E2E unit suite: 306 passed. Harness typecheck passed. The 64 first-task fixture and grader tests also pass. - Full repository typecheck and build passed locally. Server typecheck and Runner build passed again after the native-command change. - Full GitHub Actions CI passed on `23e56447b`: all server/workspace/browser shards, Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, build, canary, policy, and Docker checks. Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. The earlier broad local run had database startup/timing failures that passed isolated retries; the complete remote suite is green. - Merge verification against current master: 312 harness tests and 13 native recovery tests passed. Regenerated semantic contracts and fixture hashes pass their consistency check. Full local typecheck and build also passed on the stacked queue branch. After merging the latest master and preserving the GitHub setup timing regression in the split browser suite, both focused GitHub browser tests passed. Three CI timing/startup flakes passed local verification and one remote retry; all latest-head checks are green. - Real pinned Claude SDK and Claude ACP JSON-RPC probes against a local mock API confirmed that `/skill-name` expands the assigned skill body before the model request and retains the task arguments. A prose mention does not. The probes made no paid model calls. The ACP probe used the current first-task skill body and retained the wake arguments. - [Full 48-case campaign and report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-first-task-35053063880/): 44 passed after three interrupted Codex cases completed in targeted reruns. Original results, regrades, and all 51 executions remain in the report provenance. - [Claude campaign after the shared-question fix](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-first-task-claude-35099525201/): 10/12 passed with zero single-option failures. All 12 recorded the current assigned skill and corrected guidance. The failures exposed skipped skill invocation and a missing saved plan. This PR adds native command invocation and explicit saved-plan instructions; the subsequent report below still shows behavior failures. - [Fresh 12-case Claude report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-first-task-claude-35102737804/) at `78452129e`: 10/12 pass after correcting two false proposal-matcher failures. The recordings said “Here is the task I will create and run/complete” in approval cards; the old matcher missed that word order. Regression tests failed before the fix and pass after it. Original results and offline regrade provenance remain linked. No agent rerun was needed. Zero single-option-question failures; two behavior failures remain: direct work before acceptance on a plain first message, and an explicit plan request without a saved plan. Neither check was relaxed. The follow-up `82087ac7e` fixes command-prefix size accounting; `94aefb1f3` fixes only that proposal matcher. - Report browser checks confirm folded conversations, rendered cards, explicit Local/Daytona labels, and no page errors. The published-object audit scanned 1,306 text files across 2,154 objects with no credential-format findings or prohibited files. Image pixels and unknown token formats are outside that scan. ## Risks - Model behavior is nondeterministic. One campaign is evidence, not a guarantee. The two remaining Claude behavior failures are visible in the report and require further product work; this PR does not claim all onboarding scenarios pass. - The suite checks persisted Paperclip effects. It cannot prove the absence of arbitrary external effects. - Historical recordings can miss later journey steps. These remain incomplete, never passes. - Native profiles switch runtime after the production onboarding wizard because it does not yet expose a native option. - Quality scores are informational and cannot override behavioral failures. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact deployed 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
|
7e6d512597 |
fix(onboarding): make chief-of-staff hiring reliable (#13317)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The first agent helps the board define work and hire other agents. > - That agent can have the general role while its instructions require hiring skills. > - Missing skills and blocked schema discovery make valid requests fail. > - Repeated confirmation and invalid waiting guidance can turn these failures into extra runs. > - This PR supplies the required skills, opens read-only schema discovery, and corrects the guidance. > - The agent can complete an authorized hire while company approval and duplicate checks still apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13068 — the first-task onboarding flow that this change repairs. Refs #12029 — related drift between the sandbox allowlist and bundled hiring guidance. This PR adds schema access; it does not replace the earlier hiring-route fix. **What happened?** A general-role onboarding chief received hiring instructions without the core hiring skills. Sandbox requests to the documented OpenAPI endpoint failed. The agent then guessed question and hire payloads. The persona required new confirmation after validation errors and described waiting states that agents cannot set. **Expected behavior** A direct request authorizes the requested hire. The chief asks only for material missing details, uses valid API payloads, and completes the task. Formal company approval gates still apply. A saved human-input card gives the task a valid waiting state. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an onboarding chief with role `general` through the board. 2. Ask it to hire a friendly robot with a supplied name and responsibilities. 3. Check its assigned skills, schema requests, question cards, hire requests, and final task state. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the first-task onboarding implementation after #13068. The live local verification used this branch at `112f44610`. **Deployment mode** The original failure used a hosted sandbox with legacy Codex ACP. Live verification used an isolated local instance and real `codex_local` execution. Queue and HTTP/2 transport access is covered by automated tests. ## What Changed - Give board-created onboarding chiefs the existing core skills regardless of role. Preserve explicit skill version pins, including aliases. Keep ordinary general-agent defaults and authorization checks. - Allow exactly `GET /api/openapi.json` through both sandbox bridge transports. - Publish validator-tested question, free-text, hire, and waiting examples. Regenerate the runner API reference and capability inventory. - Clarify direct authorization, material ambiguity, and correction of confirmed pre-creation validation failures. Preserve uncertain-outcome reconciliation, duplicate protection, and company approval gates. - Align disposition instructions with agent permissions and the saved human-input waiting path. ## Verification - After rebasing onto current `master`: 69 targeted server tests, 110 queue/HTTP2 bridge tests, and 4 capability inventory tests passed. These cover core skill defaults, version pins, actor restrictions, schema access, published examples, hire validation, idempotency, and approval gates. Waiting recovery tests and live question flows also passed before the rebase. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed again after the rebase. Frozen dependency installation and both generated capability checks passed. - Ran the full `pnpm test:run` suite. The initial run had 14 failed server files due to local database resource limits, a missing built test fixture, and socket failures. All 14 files passed after fixture repair and isolated retries. UI, CLI, workspace packages, database tests, and all 145 serialized server files passed. - Real one-request hiring replay: one hire, one successful run, task done in 2m16s. No repeated approval or recovery escalation. - Real two-turn browser conversation: start with an unspecified hire, then supply a name and friendly robot responsibilities. One clarification card, one hire, two successful runs, task done in 3m27s of execution. No failed writes, confirmation cards, or recovery actions. - Assigned the hired robot a welcome-message task through the browser. It produced a warm message under 100 words and finished in one successful 66-second run, with no questions or recovery actions. - The two-turn flow still asked an optional preferences question and gave a technical final reply. These are remaining presentation limits. - Greptile: 5/5 on `b71f83ba2`, with zero unresolved review threads. Fixed its generator finding and passed 1,655 published-example/runtime API tests plus server typecheck. All latest-head CI checks are green (32 passed; 2 unrelated Storybook checks skipped). The signoff-policy browser test initially timed out while waiting for an approver run. Its shard passed on one rerun without code changes. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34698211049). ## Risks - Onboarding chiefs receive more default skills. Ordinary general agents retain existing defaults, and explicit versions take precedence. - Prompt guidance can affect model behavior. The live replays are examples, not a guarantee that every model follows the guidance. - Retry guidance applies only when validation confirms that nothing was created. Uncertain outcomes still require checking existing agents. - No database migration or new public endpoint. Existing company boundaries, approval gates, and bounded recovery remain in force. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6-astra`, with reasoning, tool use, code editing, and live browser verification. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [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> |
||
|
|
5acf56658b |
feat(onboarding): first task opens as a chat with a chief of staff (#13068)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Onboarding ends by handing a new user to their first agent on a seeded first task > - Today the wizard asks for a mission up front, the UI composes what the agent is told, and the agent starts running before the user says anything > - New users get a cold, ticket-shaped start, and nobody can edit the agent's brief or persona without a code change > - This pull request makes the first task a short chat: a four-step wizard, a chief-of-staff persona, a greeting plus a two-option opening card, server-owned markdown texts, and no run until the user answers > - It also gives question cards one consistent action row (Cancel / Skip / Next), makes agent hires idempotent within a run, and turns the Paperclip Runner flag on by default for self-hosted instances > - The benefit is a first run the user steers, with texts a board operator can edit as markdown ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The feature request fields follow. Related PRs and issues: - Refs #11043 — an earlier draft of the first-task onboarding experience. This PR supersedes it. - Refs #11280 — a report about the onboarding first-task route test. This PR extends that test file. ### Subsystem affected Onboarding wizard, the seeded first task and its texts, task-chat question cards, agent hiring, and the instance experimental settings. ### Problem or motivation The onboarding wizard collects a mission through two extra steps and a questionnaire. The UI then composes the first agent's instructions and the first task description from those answers. The first task wakes the agent at once, so the agent runs and posts before the user types a word. Board operators cannot change the greeting, the brief, or the persona without editing TypeScript. Question cards in chat behave differently per adapter, and a single-select pick submits on click. A misread hire response could create a duplicate agent that the creating agent cannot remove. ### Proposed solution Reduce the wizard to four steps and stop the UI from authoring agent texts. Move the greeting, the brief, the chief-of-staff persona, and the opening question into markdown and JSON files that the server loads at runtime. Seed the persona onto the first agent through an explicit hire marker. Do not wake the first task until the user answers the opening card or types. Give every question card the same Cancel / Skip / Next actions. Add an experimental toggle that switches the single-task proposal between one confirmation card and a plan document with a checkbox card. Make agent hires idempotent within a run. ### Alternatives considered - Keep the mission questionnaire and feed it into the brief. Rejected: the agent asks better questions in chat, and the wizard gets shorter. - Keep the first task open-ended with a plain composer. Rejected: a two-option card gives the user a clear first move. - Derive the plan-document behaviour from the user's intent only. Rejected in favour of an explicit experimental toggle so operators can choose. - Key the "pick does not submit" behaviour off the presence of a submit label. Rejected: several adapters set a submit label on single-select cards, and their cards would change behaviour. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` lists no planned core work on onboarding or the first task. This change refines the existing flow and does not duplicate planned work. ## What Changed - Wizard: four steps (Name your organization, Create your first agent, Connect a model, Review). The front door and both mission steps are removed with their state and saved-progress keys. The UI no longer composes the first agent's instructions or the first task description. - Server-owned texts: the greeting, the brief with two proposal variants, the chief-of-staff persona, the opening question, and a README live in `server/src/onboarding-assets/first-task/` and load at runtime. The create route stores the assembled brief and ignores any client description. - Persona seed: an `onboardingFirstAgent` marker on the hire lets the server seed the chief-of-staff persona over the first agent's entry file. Board-authored hires only. The persona tells the agent the hire response shape and to list agents before it acts on an unclear result. - No auto-run: the first task does not queue an assignment wake. The stranded-assignment reconciler leaves it idle until a user comment or an answered card exists. - Opening card: the server seeds an `ask_user_questions` card right after the greeting with two options: "Interview me and propose a plan and an agent team to execute it." and "I have a task in mind" with free text. Answering wakes the agent. - Experimental toggle `enableFirstTaskPlanProposal` (default off): the single-task proposal is one confirmation card, or a plan document plus a checkbox card when on. - Question cards: every `ask_user_questions` card renders Cancel, Skip, and Next (the submit label on the last question). Skip hides on required questions. Picking an option no longer advances or submits by itself. - Wizard guards: the dashboard's agentless offer ignores a cached empty agent list while a refetch is in flight. The hire step adopts an agent that already carries the typed name instead of hiring "Name 2". - Agent hires are idempotent within a run: a retry of the identical request under the same run id returns the existing agent with `200` and `idempotent: true`. The fingerprint covers the whole validated request, so a corrected payload is a new hire. Lookup, create, and activity record run under one lock per company and run, so overlapping retries cannot both create. - The Paperclip Runner experimental flag defaults to on for self-hosted instances. Cloud keeps its declared default: a managed instance whose tenant row and managed overlay omit the flag resolves it to off. - Question cards: a send that finds an earlier required answer missing returns to that question with a message instead of failing silently. - The two onboarding e2e specs follow the new wizard: the front door and growth intake shots are gone, and the planning-mode spec dismisses the opening card before it reads the composer. - Docs: `docs/board-operator/editing-first-task-texts.md` explains how to edit the texts and the toggle. ## Verification Commands, run from the repo root: ``` pnpm -r --filter './packages/*' --filter '!@paperclipai/paperclip-runner' build pnpm --filter ./packages/shared typecheck pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck pnpm --filter ./server exec tsc --noEmit pnpm check:token-gates pnpm --filter ./ui exec vitest run OnboardingWizard onboarding QuestionForm InteractionCard ProtocolCard TaskChatComposer Dashboard feature PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false pnpm --filter ./server exec vitest run onboarding-first-task heartbeat-process-recovery agent-hire-idempotency instance-settings agent-skills-routes issue-onboarding onboarding-greeting --testTimeout=90000 ``` Results on this branch: - Typecheck is clean for shared, ui, and server. - Token gates: 4 of 4 clean. - UI: 344 tests pass across 23 files. - Server: all suites pass. The first test in `agent-skills-routes` has its own 10 s cap and needs about 15 s on my laptop for the app cold start. It passes with a longer cap. This PR does not change that cap. Manual steps on a dev instance: 1. Open `/onboarding`. Confirm four steps: Name your organization, Create your first agent, Connect a model, Review. 2. Finish the wizard. Confirm the first task shows the chief-of-staff greeting and the opening card with two options. Confirm no run starts. 3. Pick "Interview me…". Confirm no run starts. Press Continue. Confirm a run starts and an interview card of 3–4 questions arrives. 4. On a fresh organization, pick "I have a task in mind", type a task, and press Continue. Confirm a proposal arrives as one confirmation card. 5. Turn on Settings → Experimental → "First task: propose with a plan document" and repeat step 4. Confirm a plan document and a checkbox card arrive. 6. Visit the dashboard after the hire. Confirm the wizard does not reopen and one agent exists. 7. Open any question card. Confirm Cancel returns the plain composer with the card still pending, Skip advances an optional question, and Next moves to the next question. Design reference with flow diagrams, chat mock-ups, and live captures: https://pages.paperclip.ing/first-task-flow/proposed/ ## Risks - `pnpm dev` now builds the runner daemon because the Paperclip Runner flag is on by default. Developers without a Rust toolchain must set `PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_BINARY` or turn the flag off. Self-hosted instances that never set the flag now let qualified agents use the runner. - The wizard drops the mission steps and their saved-progress keys. A user who is mid-wizard on an older build restarts at step 1 after an upgrade. Existing organizations are not touched. - The first task no longer runs on its own. A user who neither answers the card nor types sees no agent activity. This is intended. - The persona seed applies only to hires that carry the marker from the wizard. API hires are unchanged. - Hire idempotency is scoped to one run id and to the exact request. Retries across runs, or with a changed payload, still create a second agent. The lock is per server process, which matches how an instance serves its API. - Single-select question cards no longer submit on pick. Users of adapters that relied on that behaviour now press Next. - No database migrations. > 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 - Claude (Anthropic) through Claude Code. `claude-fable-5-1` with extended thinking, tool use, and code execution wrote most commits. `claude-opus-4-8` wrote the toggle, texts, wizard, and idempotency commits, as the `Co-Authored-By` trailers show. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
f950952de7 |
fix: reliably show plans in the Plan pane and restore sticky plan confirmation CTAs (#10930)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane, and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that plan > - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question), the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared > - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA, is stuck — the feature silently fails > - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty state so the pane never goes silently blank > - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug template. --> **Bug report** - **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared. - **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls. - **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab — the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing. - **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server. Related PR (not a duplicate): #9609 "Pin pending confirmations by composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees behind it. ## What Changed - **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its *latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse). - **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document, re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment or via `ask_user_questions`. - **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the plan scrolls. - **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing. - **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages) - UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed - Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed - Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation CTAs stay pinned at the bottom. Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally not added. ## Risks Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task experimental flag. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
dfc256a543 |
[codex] Add heartbeat policy eval coverage (#9087)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The relevant subsystem is the agent heartbeat policy surface: the Paperclip skill, default onboarding AGENTS.md, new-agent runtime defaults, and promptfoo eval coverage for agent behavior. > - A broad recovery PR collected several unrelated local-mainline changes, which made review too large and mixed policy/eval updates with server execution and UI work. > - This PR extracts only the heartbeat policy and prompt-eval slice so reviewers can assess the behavior contract independently. > - The eval additions cover scoped wake handling, idle no-op behavior, dependency-blocked comment triage, final disposition, budget hard stops, and Phase 5 memory/control-surface policy expectations. > - The benefit is a narrower review surface plus deterministic follow-up guidance for server/shared tests that should back these prompt-level checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8866 No public issue was filed for this split. This is a focused extraction from the closed broad recovery PR so heartbeat policy and eval coverage can be reviewed separately from execution behavior, work-product feature work, plugin hardening, pipeline health, and unrelated UI polish. ## What Changed - Added promptfoo release-gate cases for scoped wake payload handling, idle exits, dependency-blocked comment triage, final disposition, and budget hard-stop behavior. - Added Phase 5 memory/control-surface prompt eval cases for provider binding precedence, provenance/audit fields, hook cost/trust handling, and auditable board command surfaces. - Documented how these prompt evals map to deterministic server/shared follow-up coverage. - Updated agent policy guidance so operator-facing engineering outputs such as PRs, branches, commits, previews, and runtime services get matching work products. - Defaulted new agent runtime config to skip timer heartbeats when there is no actionable work, with focused test coverage. ## Verification - `cd evals/promptfoo && npx promptfoo@latest validate -c promptfooconfig.yaml` passes. - `/srv/paperclip/home/paperclipai/paperclip/node_modules/.bin/vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` passes in an isolated worktree after `pnpm install --ignore-scripts --frozen-lockfile` created workspace links. - A live promptfoo eval was not run because `OPENROUTER_API_KEY`, `OPENAI_API_KEY`, and `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` were unset in the workspace. ## Risks Low-to-medium risk. The runtime default reduces timer-driven empty heartbeats for newly created agents, so the main behavioral risk is missing an edge case where timer wakes were expected despite no actionable work. The promptfoo additions are deterministic assertion coverage and documentation-only until a live eval is run with provider credentials. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5-based Codex coding agent in the Paperclip local Codex adapter environment; exact hosted model ID and context window were not exposed to the agent runtime. Tool use included shell, git, promptfoo validation, Vitest, and the GitHub connector/CLI. ## 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
|
ac9a883f8b |
Expire ask-user questions superseded by comments (#8799)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue-thread interactions are how agents ask board users for typed decisions and structured answers inside an issue thread > - Confirmation interactions already become stale when a later board/user comment supersedes the pending decision > - Question interactions had the same workflow risk, because a board/user could answer in a comment while the old question card stayed pending > - This pull request extends the supersede-by-comment lifecycle to ask-user-question interactions and makes that status visible in the UI > - The benefit is agents get a clear continuation signal and users do not see stale question forms after the discussion has moved on ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found. Bug report: **Pre-submission checklist** - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip, or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in an agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. **What happened?** Pending `ask_user_questions` interactions could remain open after a later board/user comment changed or answered the request in-thread. That left a stale form visible and kept the interaction in a pending state even though the discussion had moved on. **Expected behavior** Question interactions should follow the same default supersede-on-comment behavior as confirmation interactions, with an explicit expired result that points to the superseding comment. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction on an issue. 2. Add a board/user comment created at or after that interaction. 3. Observe that before this change, the question interaction stayed pending instead of expiring as superseded by the comment. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this PR. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server or local dev. The bug is in shared issue-thread interaction lifecycle handling. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core issue-thread interaction bug. **Database mode** Applies to the normal Paperclip database-backed interaction lifecycle. **Access context** Board user comments supersede agent-created questions. **Relevant logs or output** No crash output. The stale pending interaction was visible in the issue thread state. **Relevant config (if applicable)** None. **Additional context** Confirmation-style interactions already supported this stale-by-comment behavior. This PR brings question interactions into the same lifecycle model. **Privacy checklist** - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and included no private instance links, local ticket ids, secrets, logs, or screenshots. ## What Changed - Added `supersedeOnUserComment` support to `ask_user_questions` payloads, defaulting it to `true` during interaction creation. - Expire pending question interactions when a later board/user comment supersedes them, including a result with `expirationReason: "superseded_by_comment"` and the superseding `commentId`. - Updated interaction summaries and cards so expired question requests show a clear amber state with a jump link to the comment and correct singular/plural copy. - Updated agent onboarding guidance to describe the new default and how to opt out. - Added shared, server, and UI test coverage for the new lifecycle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 5 files, 73 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --reporter=dot && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final type-safety cleanup. - Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or database migrations. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: `ask_user_questions` now defaults to expiring after later board/user comments. Existing callers that need questions to stay open through discussion can set `supersedeOnUserComment: false`. - Expired question interactions store an empty `answers` array, so downstream consumers should treat the explicit `expirationReason` as the meaningful outcome. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder runtime, with terminal and repository tool use. Exact context window is not exposed in 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> |
||
|
|
468edd8b22 |
Add workspace file viewer and artifact links (#7681)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work. > - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI. > - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing arbitrary host paths. > - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review. > - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact file chips. > - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`. Problem / motivation: - Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal. - The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace browsing/searching from an issue page. - The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging. Related PR: - Prior closed attempt: #4442 - Single active PR for this branch: #7681 ## What Changed - Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products. - Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific limits, and audit logging. - Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser, command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact file chips. - Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and workspace file opening. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and updated the existing single PR branch. - Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset` consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test. ## Verification Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx` - 1 file passed, 25 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current `public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single active PR for the branch. - No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work. Current remote verification on head `a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`: - Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no unresolved Greptile review threads. - PR workflow `verify` - success. - Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards, serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk - success. - `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block. - `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test failure was exposed in the job logs. ## Risks - This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown autolink false positives. - Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth; very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms. - Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access support is implemented. - The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer review, but the check output says it is not a merge block. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c4bb68c14b |
Bundle artifact upload helper with Paperclip skill
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e7cdd0f8c5 |
Move artifact upload guidance into Paperclip skill
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0bd13c23a9 |
Add agent artifact upload workflow
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
68f69975a4 |
Harden control-plane safety and issue identifiers (#5292)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip relies on issue identifiers, execution policies, and agent heartbeat rules to keep autonomous work auditable. > - Safety checks need to reject ambiguous agent handoffs, and identifier parsing needs to support Cloud tenant prefixes. > - Agent instructions also need to make final-disposition rules explicit so work does not stall in vague states. > - This pull request isolates backend correctness and governance hardening from the UI and recovery-system-notice branches. > - The benefit is safer in-review transitions, better identifier compatibility, and clearer agent operating contracts. ## What Changed - Fixed run-aware confirmation ordering and interrupted-run state cleanup. - Added Cloud tenant identity bootstrap and alphanumeric issue identifier support across shared parsing and server routes. - Guarded agent-authored `in_review` updates unless a real review path exists. - Tightened heartbeat disposition instructions in adapter utilities/default AGENTS/Paperclip skill. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-identifier-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` initially had the first execution-policy test hit Vitest's 5s timeout under the parallel bundle while the rest passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts --testTimeout=20000` passed with 10/10 tests. - Follow-up: `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed. - Follow-up: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - Follow-up: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` passed. - Follow-up: `pnpm vitest run ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts` passed. ## Risks - Medium control-plane risk: in-review update validation changes agent behavior. The error message is explicit and tests cover allowed review paths. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1fe1067361 |
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting loops. > - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups, backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives. > - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings, issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke tooling. > - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still preserving the full original work. > - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this integration PR last. > - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure changes. ## What Changed - Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings, project workspace detail, and issue detail controls. - Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage. - Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf work pause/resume controls. - Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy. - Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a smoke test script. - Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` - Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill` - Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`. - UI screenshots not included because verification is focused component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces. ## Risks - This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`. - Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last. If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward conflict refresh in shared UI files. - The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
d47ffa87f0 |
Fix CEO AGENT_HOME paths and centralize workspace env propagation (#4551)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The local adapter layer is responsible for turning Paperclip runtime context into the environment seen by the child agent process. > - The CEO onboarding bundle tells the agent where to read and write its persistent memory and fact files. > - That bundle was using `./memory/...` and `./life/...`, which only works when the process cwd happens to equal the agent home directory. > - At the same time, six local adapters each duplicated the same workspace-env propagation logic, including `AGENT_HOME`, which makes this contract easy to drift. > - This pull request fixes the CEO instructions to use `$AGENT_HOME/...` and centralizes workspace-env propagation in one shared helper with shared tests. > - The benefit is a real bug fix for agent memory paths plus a single tested contract that makes future built-in adapter work less likely to forget `AGENT_HOME`. ## What Changed - Updated `server/src/onboarding-assets/ceo/HEARTBEAT.md` to use `$AGENT_HOME/memory/...` and `$AGENT_HOME/life/...` instead of cwd-relative `./memory/...` and `./life/...`. - Added `applyPaperclipWorkspaceEnv(...)` in `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts` to centralize `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_*` and `AGENT_HOME` propagation. - Added shared helper coverage in `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` for both populated and skip-empty cases. - Switched the built-in local adapters (`claude_local`, `codex_local`, `cursor_local`, `gemini_local`, `opencode_local`, `pi_local`) over to the shared helper instead of inline env assignment blocks. ## Verification - `pnpm install` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts` - Result: 7 test files passed, 31 tests passed, 0 failures. ## Risks - Low risk. - The only behavioral surface is the shared env propagation refactor across six adapters; if the helper diverged from prior semantics, an adapter could miss a workspace env var. - The shared helper test plus the affected adapter execute tests reduce that risk, and the helper preserves the prior "set only non-empty strings" behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` agent runtime; tool-assisted coding workflow with shell execution, file patching, git operations, and API interaction. The exact backend model identifier and context window are not surfaced by this local 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a957394420 |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
236d11d36f |
[codex] Add run liveness continuations (#4083)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution window. > - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still holding useful next-step state. > - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path to be durable and visible. > - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers. > - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff. ## What Changed - Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking, and an idempotent `0058` migration. - Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill. - Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context through shared adapter utilities. - Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness continuation state. - Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run ledger, with component tests. - Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance, onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation behavior. - Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run, excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence, importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts, documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness backfill off the request path. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a plan document update"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity service|treats a plan document update"` - Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and Snyk all passed. - Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after fetching `public-gh master`. - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff. - Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after `0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application. - Greptile inline review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery, activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI. - Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent guards. - Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the background backfill completes. - UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass; validation is currently through focused component tests. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git, GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7f893ac4ec |
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep regressions visible > - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area > - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch overlapping issue APIs > - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat, telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting ## What Changed - Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and blocked-to-todo wake resumption - Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads, compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces - Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material - Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation from local state, and repo verification follow-ups - Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were dropped during branch reconstruction ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they are noted as environment-limited ## Risks - Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow rather than isolated UI polish - Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure modes and not just reshaping harness behavior ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
c1bb938519 | Auto-checkout scoped issue wakes in the harness | ||
|
Dotta
|
08fea10ce1 |
Merge pull request #2772 from paperclipai/PAPA-46-why-did-this-issue-succeed-without-following-my-instructions
fix: enable agent re-checkout of in_review tasks on comment feedback |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
cd2be692e9 |
Fix in-review task recheckout guidance
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
plind-dmandClaude Opus 4.6
|
77faf8c668 |
fix(onboarding): remove residual $AGENT_HOME reference in CEO AGENTS.md
Update line 3 to describe personal files relative to the instructions directory, consistent with the ./path changes in the rest of the file. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
plind-dmandClaude Opus 4.6
|
2fca400dd9 |
fix(onboarding): use relative paths instead of $AGENT_HOME in CEO instructions
$AGENT_HOME resolves to the workspace directory, not the instructions directory where sibling files (HEARTBEAT.md, SOUL.md, TOOLS.md) live. This caused ~25% of agent runs to fail. Relative paths align with the adapter's injected directive to resolve from the instructions directory. Closes #2530 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
ec1210caaa |
Preserve workspaces for follow-up issues
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
c6364149b1 |
Add delegation instructions to default CEO agent prompt (#1796)
New CEO agents created during onboarding now include explicit delegation rules: triage tasks, route to CTO/CMO/UXDesigner, never do IC work, and follow up on delegated work. |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
d6bb71f324 |
Add default agent instructions bundle
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
0f45999df9 |
Bundle default CEO onboarding instructions
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |