4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5	9b21dcbdda	refactor: remove SPEC docs and repoint spec citations (#20565) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Contributors and agents read the docs under `doc/` before they change code > - `doc/SPEC.md` and `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` were out of date. `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` became an append-only log: in 60 days it got about 1,645 new lines and lost 181, across 140 commits > - #20557 changed `AGENTS.md` so the code and its tests are the source of truth, and the specs are only background > - This pull request removes the two spec docs. It moves only the sections that live code comments cite into focused docs, and it repoints all other references > - The benefit is one less stale document that agents read and append to ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20557 (merged). This PR is the follow-up that removes the docs. It is based on `master`, which already contains #20557. **Issue type** Outdated content. The docs are out of date and conflict with the code. **Where is the issue?** `doc/SPEC.md`, `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and the code comments and docs that cite them. **What's wrong?** `doc/SPEC.md` and `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` are out of date, but agents still read them and append a paragraph with each fix. **Suggested fix** Delete both files. Move the sections that code cites into focused docs. Repoint the references. ## What Changed - Deleted `doc/SPEC.md` and `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`. - Moved these spec sections, because live code comments cite them: - §9.3.1 "Shared default-open issue writes" → new section in `doc/agent-permission-defaults.md`. - §9.8.1 "Issue-thread interaction resolver contract" → `doc/execution-semantics.md`, "Issue-thread interaction resolution". That section already had most of the contract. I added only the missing parts: the `supersedeOnUserComment` default, the canonical policy list, the addressee and cap rules, the rule that surfaces show the server's effective audience, and the cross-issue budget charge. The short policy summary at the top of the section now points to the list, so the definitions occur one time only. - §9.9 "Task Watchdog Authority Contract" → new "Authority contract" section in `doc/TASK-WATCHDOG.md`. It holds the allowed and disallowed mutation lists and the deferred capabilities. The atomic recovery batch, restoration verification, and interaction rules were already in `doc/execution-semantics.md` §11, so the new section links there and does not repeat them. I did not move the "Downstream acceptance criteria" checklist or the sentence about the CTO and Security sign-off. These were implementation-time notes; the tests now hold that coverage. - §9.10 "Company Skill Policy Contract" → new `doc/company-skill-policy.md`. No focused doc had this contract. I did not move the "Required regression tests" phase checklist. - Did not move any other part of the specs. - Repointed code comments that cited spec sections: - `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts` (§9.3) → `doc/agent-permission-defaults.md` - `server/src/routes/issues.ts` (§9.9) → `doc/TASK-WATCHDOG.md`, "Authority contract" - `server/src/routes/issues.ts` (§9.3, §9.8.1 cross-issue budget) → `doc/agent-permission-defaults.md` - `ui/src/lib/interaction-audience.ts` and `ui/src/components/InteractionGovernancePanel.tsx` (§9.8.1) → `doc/execution-semantics.md` - `ui/src/lib/skill-policy-denial.ts`, `ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.tsx`, `ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.production.tsx`, `ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.tsx` (§9.10) → `doc/company-skill-policy.md` - `server/src/services/recovery/ownership-invariant-report.ts` (monitor deadline wait path) → `doc/execution-semantics.md` §8. That section already lists the one-shot monitor as a valid wait path. - Resynced the git blob pin for `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts` in `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json`. The comment edit changed the file's hash, and the Runner support suite checks that pin. I used `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --write`; only that one pin changed. - Updated `AGENTS.md` §1 so it does not name the deleted files. - Removed the links to the deleted files from `doc/plugins/PLUGIN_SPEC.md`. - Updated the `doc-maintenance` agent skill (`.agents/skills/doc-maintenance/`) so it no longer audits or stages `doc/SPEC.md`. - Removed or replaced references in `maps/README.md`, `maps/feature-map/README.md`, `maps/storybook-map/README.md`, `doc/PRODUCT.md`, `doc/CLIPHUB.md`, `doc/DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md`, `doc/DEVELOPING.md`, `doc/evals.md`, `doc/spec/agent-runs.md`, `doc/AGENTCOMPANIES_SPEC_INVENTORY.md`, `doc/connections/CONNECTOR-PLAYBOOK.md`, `doc/plugins/ideas-from-opencode.md`, `doc/execution-semantics.md`, `doc/TASK-WATCHDOG.md`, and `.devin/wiki.json`. - In `doc/execution-semantics.md`, the "admission is independent of cleanup and accounting" reference now states the rule inline: only a hard stop, an explicit pause, or an inactive company refuses admission. - Kept these references as they are: dated plans in `doc/plans/` and `docs/plans/`, the dated log `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md`, `releases/`, the transcript fixture `ui/src/fixtures/runTranscriptFixtures.ts` (it uses the filename only as sample text), and `docs/specs/external-task-protocol.md` (it refers to the Symphony project's own `SPEC.md`). ## Verification - `git grep -n "SPEC-implementation\|SPEC\.md"` (without `releases/`, and ignoring `PLUGIN_SPEC.md` citations) finds only the kept references listed above. - `grep -rn "§9\.\(3\|8\|9\|10\)" ui/src server/src packages/shared/src` finds no results. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: "Maps aligned: 35 areas, 192 capability IDs". - `pnpm check:token-gates`: "All gates clean". - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-type.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-evidence.test.ts`: 45 passed. These failed in CI before the pin resync. - `pnpm verify`: exit 2 ("Broader verification required") because `AGENTS.md` is a global CI input. Required CI supplies the broad coverage for this revision. - All code changes are comments only. No runtime behavior changes. The title uses `refactor:` because comments in source files changed. ## Risks - Low risk. The change removes docs and edits comments only. - A reader can lose context from spec sections that I did not move. The text stays in git history. The code and its tests are the source of truth. - External links to the two deleted files will return 404. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). Standard context window. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused checks above; CI supplies broad coverage) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable: docs and comments only) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-10 13:07:59 -06:00
fengqing	05218571c3	fix(watchdogs): reject incomplete subtree scans (#15063) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task watchdogs verify stopped issue subtrees and restore valid work paths. > - A watchdog must read the full subtree before it can prove that all paths stopped. > - The current query stops after 100 levels and does not report omitted children. > - A running child beyond this limit can be absent from both review dispatch and mutation checks. > - This pull request reports an incomplete scan and blocks both decisions. > - Complete subtrees keep their current behavior and stop fingerprints. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #15061 Related PRs: #11327 changes subtree loading but keeps the same depth limit without a completeness result. #10331 changes mutation freshness after watchdog writes. Neither patch covers this boundary. This patch does not take code from those proposals. ## What Changed - Keep the existing 100-level traversal limit. - Check for an eligible child beyond the boundary in the same SQL statement as the subtree read. - Apply the same company, visibility, harness, and watchdog-origin filters to this check. - Return `incomplete` without a stop fingerprint when the scan omits eligible children. - Skip review dispatch and reject watchdog mutation revalidation for an incomplete scan. - Report incomplete scans through their own count and watched issue IDs. Log each newly incomplete issue at startup or during periodic reconciliation. Suppress unchanged results. Allow a new warning after the issue recovers and becomes incomplete again. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions for dispatch, a previously valid mutation scope, the complete boundary leaf, and excluded children. - Document the incomplete-scan behavior. ## Verification - Base: `569c7203aa24b95440682983ce7940ba1d4247bd`. Head: `06f68199656f979ef5eb4897851f0fbcbca592d3`. - Before the fix, two real PostgreSQL regressions fail. The service dispatches a review for a partial subtree. It also accepts a prior scope after a running depth-100 child appears. The other 19 scheduler checks pass. - On the exact final head, `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on isolated Ubuntu with Node 24.19.0, pnpm 9.15.4, and runner Rust 1.97.1. - All 75 related tests pass. Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-watchdogs-routes.test.ts --maxWorkers=1`. - Full `test:run` coverage passes across 29 logical groups: all official stable-runner lanes plus supplemental service and script tests. The selection covers all 900 server source test files without duplicate or omitted selections. It also includes UI, CLI, and other workspace projects. - A separate validation tree applies both this PR and #15067 to upstream `994d6edcdd4e15d5f9cc5cf8c135ac599104b86a` without conflicts. Type checks, the build, and all 98 related tests across five files pass. Both public PR heads remain unchanged. - Four full server lanes required test-process environment corrections. The host DNS search suffix resolved a `.invalid` fixture to an address. Ancestor project authentication settings affected hire fixtures. The old path-isolation tool also failed test imports with `EFAULT`. The exact base has the same failures: 8 failed and 128 passed assertions without isolation, then three failed imports with the old tool. All 136 checks pass on both the base and this head with the corrected isolation. All four original full lanes pass with the corrected tool, a resolver without a search suffix, empty ancestor project settings, and the standard Node path. No assertion or wait limit changed. The host configuration remains unchanged. - Earlier interrupted Ubuntu and Docker runs are retained and are not counted as passes. This exact-head Ubuntu run passes the original chat, port-conflict, and serialized lanes. The causes of the earlier host-loss and timing failures are not fully established. - The startup import regression in an earlier revision is fixed by a diagnostics module with no database dependencies. All 21 startup checks pass. - Exact-head CI, including the added scans after marking the PR ready: 54 successful checks and 2 skipped checks. Greptile: 5/5, no outstanding findings or follow-ups. Both review threads are resolved. - The final audit rechecked issue authors, assignees, comments, 206 open watchdog search results, root functions and fields, source history, and related diffs. The latest upstream is `994d6edcdd4e15d5f9cc5cf8c135ac599104b86a`. Its new patches do not cover this root. No competing root repair was found within the audited scope. The issue has no assignee or new comment. - No model provider, production database, or user instance was used. This verifies service behavior, not a full HTTP authorization bypass. ## Risks - A subtree with eligible children beyond 100 levels now waits instead of running a review. This is a deliberate safety boundary. It remains blocked until the scan can include the full subtree. - The boundary check adds a child-existence lookup to the existing recursive query. - No schema migration is required. Complete subtrees retain their fingerprint format. - This does not add unlimited traversal or close the separate race between a subtree snapshot and later source mutations. - The configuration lifecycle defect in #15060 is handled by separate PR #15067. This branch does not include its schema or configuration changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with source analysis, implementation, and test execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning, shell tools, GitHub CLI, and real PostgreSQL tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-10-26 20:53:47 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	10d0555189	fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00
3 people	a71c4b6782	[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is still productive, stalled, or ready for review. > - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review permissions. > - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable work. > - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration surfaces, and docs. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`. > - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making stalled work easier to route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task: [PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275). ## Problem or motivation Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link approvals, or submit approval comments. ## Proposed solution Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under explicit boundaries. ## Alternatives considered Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable scoped-review issue for stalled task trees. ## Roadmap alignment This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core item. ## What Changed - Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators, CRUD API, and service support. - Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate guidance. - Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks, viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting. - Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and implementation semantics. - Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to `0104_issue_watchdogs`. - Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind constant. - Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes, scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility, settings, and new issue dialog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task configuration. - Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and production agents. - The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local migration number should not get duplicate-object failures. - CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest review-fix push. > 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 in the Paperclip workspace. Exact runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool use and local command 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 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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-19 15:38:52 -05:00