mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
e826188e82aa3371ec428ebae467b7aa93493227
27
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cd7f84965c |
fix(recovery): preserve hand-back wake liveness (#10562)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat service delivers issue work to assigned agents. > - Recovery can hand an issue back to its agent while the recovery run is still active. > - The hand-back wake can merge into that active run and disappear when the run exits. > - The stranded-work scan also treats the successful recovery run as proof that the handed-back issue is live. > - This pull request keeps the hand-back wake for follow-up delivery and lets the scan repair a lost wake. > - The benefit is that an assigned issue continues after recovery without manual operator action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. This is related to the wake reconciliation work in #8943. **What happened?** A recovery action could hand an assigned issue back from `blocked` to `todo`. The `issue_recovery_action_restored` wake then merged into the recovery run that made the change. The wake disappeared when that run exited. The stranded-work scan did not repair the issue because it treated the successful recovery run as current liveness. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must dispatch the hand-back wake after the recovery run exits. If that delivery is lost, the stranded-work scan must enqueue the assigned `todo` issue again. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a recovery run for an assigned blocked issue. 2. Resolve a recovery action with the `handed_back` outcome. 3. Move the issue to `todo` while the recovery run is still active. 4. Observe that the wake merges into the active run and no new run starts after it exits. 5. Run the stranded-work scan and observe that the successful latest run prevents repair. **Paperclip version or commit** `131d476a7e` **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`). The defect is in the core server and is not deployment-specific. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core heartbeat and recovery defect. ## What Changed - Added `issue_recovery_action_restored` to the wake reasons that require follow-up delivery when an issue run is active. - Made the stranded-work scan detect a resolved hand-back that occurred during or after the latest successful run. - Added focused regression tests for the heartbeat coalescing seam and the stranded-work repair shape. - Documented the hand-back liveness guarantee in execution semantics section 9.1. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` passed: 104 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm test:run` passed the server shard (3,095 passed, 2 skipped) and UI shard (3,182 passed). One unrelated CLI test failed because the agent environment exports static AWS credentials. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY -u AWS_SESSION_TOKEN pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests. - `git diff --check` passed. - All GitHub checks passed on commit `8b380e67e6`. - Greptile gave 5/5 confidence with no comments or unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The follow-up rule affects only a recovery hand-back wake that arrives while the same issue already has an active run. - The backstop adds one indexed recovery-action lookup for an assigned `todo` issue whose latest run succeeded. - The timestamp check uses the latest run start time. This includes hand-backs made by that run and later hand-backs, but excludes older resolved actions. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 (`gpt-5`), agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The serving context-window size is not exposed to the agent. ## 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
|
71a6535792 |
docs(execution-semantics): define routable blocking and watchdog restoration (#10094)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Execution semantics define when work may stop, how child work reports upward, and how watchdog recovery proves liveness was restored. > - The existing docs did not require a routable waiting path before entering `blocked`, leaving permission-denial and review workflows vulnerable to dead ends. > - Child-to-parent reporting and low-trust review delegation also needed explicit channels and ownership boundaries. > - Watchdog recovery needed bounded restoration verification rather than treating a recovery write as proof of restored progress. > - The security-sensitive defaults were reviewed and approved before publication. > - This pull request documents those contracts and synchronizes the bundled Paperclip skills that operationalize them. > - The benefit is clearer stop conditions, safer reporting defaults, and bounded watchdog recovery without sacrificing liveness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue exists for this execution-semantics documentation phase, so the problem and solution are described here in full. - Problem: `blocked` could be entered without a routable owner/action path, review findings could be reported on the wrong issue or treated as blockers, and watchdog recovery lacked bounded verification of restored liveness. ## What Changed - Require a routable waiting path for `blocked` and clarify that permission denial alone is not a blocker. - Define canonical child-to-parent completion/report channels, review-delegation ownership, and the sanctioned courier pattern. - Specify atomic watchdog recovery batches, fingerprint validation, bounded restoration attempts, and human escalation. - Document the low-trust preset default for report comments and align both bundled Paperclip skills. ## Scope and Sequencing - This is the contract-first P1 documentation PR. Runtime enforcement is intentionally excluded and follows in the separately owned implementation phases; these docs define the acceptance contract those phases must satisfy. - The five-file patch is approved and frozen for this PR, so review findings about absent runtime support are tracked as implementation-phase requirements rather than edits to this docs-only change. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - Confirmed the PR diff is exactly 5 approved docs/skill files with 91 insertions and 1 deletion. - Confirmed the patch preserves the approved execution-semantics contract after replay on latest `origin/master`. ## Risks - Low implementation risk: documentation and skill guidance only; no runtime code, schema, migration, dependency, lockfile, or workflow changes. - Semantic risk is limited to readers or agents applying the clarified contracts; the security-sensitive R1a default was approved before publication. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (exact underlying model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime), with reasoning, terminal tool use, Git/GitHub operations, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced private URLs or internal issue identifiers - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run the applicable docs-only checks locally and they pass - [x] Tests are not applicable because this is a docs/skill-guidance-only change - [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
|
4f9894df44 |
fix(server): bound accepted-interaction continuation recovery (#9656)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Heartbeat recovery keeps assigned issues moving when a run or continuation path disappears > - Accepted issue-thread interactions can create a continuation wake after an agent previously parked for review > - The recovery sweep could requeue that accepted-interaction wake while the queued-run gate cancelled it using the older pre-acceptance park summary > - That cancellation path had no bound, so recovery could repeat the same wake and cancellation indefinitely > - This pull request makes accepted-interaction evidence supersede the older park and caps repeated recovery cancellations at three attempts > - The benefit is that accepted work resumes normally, while genuine repeated failures become a visible dependency wait or escalation instead of a cancel loop ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9331 The accepted-interaction continuation recovery added by #9331 can encounter a stale continuation summary written before approval. The sweep requeues a continuation carrying the accepted interaction timestamp, but queued-run invalidation cancels it because the older summary says to wait for review. Recovery then sees the accepted interaction without a successful run and requeues again. This PR prevents that stale-summary cancellation and adds a bounded fallback if three equivalent cancellations have already occurred. ## What Changed - Let queued continuation wakes with a parseable `interactionResolvedAt` bypass a pre-acceptance waiting-for-review park summary. - Count consecutive unsuccessful continuation runs for the same issue and agent since interaction acceptance; after three review-park cancellations, convert a real dependency wait or use the existing visible escalation path. - Add focused regression coverage for the park bypass, unchanged non-interaction park behavior, below-cap requeue, cap escalation, and successful-run skip. - Document the accepted-interaction precedence and bounded requeue contract in execution semantics §9.2. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "accepted interaction continuation recovery|accepted interaction recovery after its continuation succeeds|requeues accepted interaction continuations stranded"` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts -t "pre-acceptance review park|continuation summary parks executor work"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` ## Risks - Low risk: the park bypass only applies when the queued context contains a parseable interaction resolution timestamp. - The retry bound is scoped to unsuccessful `issue_continuation_needed` runs for the same company, issue, agent, error code, and post-acceptance time window. - No schema, migration, API, or UI changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.5`, high-reasoning coding mode with repository tool use and command execution; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9af96461d5 |
fix(server): restore stranded recovery continuations (#9630)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work. > - Its server recovery layer classifies blocked issue graphs and restores interrupted heartbeat execution. > - A dependent issue could remain dispatch-suppressed by a cancelled blocker without producing operator-visible attention when the dependent still displayed as todo or backlog. > - Separately, a monitor-triggered run that lost its process before disposition could consume the monitor's one-shot wake without scheduling the existing bounded continuation. > - Both gaps strand useful work even though Paperclip already has the relevant blocker-attention and process-loss recovery mechanisms. > - This pull request widens the existing classification path and reuses the single process-loss retry for monitor dispatches with no future wake. > - The benefit is visible, routable recovery without weakening dependency checkout rules or introducing an unbounded retry loop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue or pull request was found. ### What happened? Two server recovery cases could leave work stranded: 1. A non-terminal, agent-assigned issue with an unresolved cancelled blocker remained ineligible for checkout, but blocked-chain liveness classification only inspected issues already displaying `blocked` or `in_review`, so the existing `blocked_by_cancelled_issue` attention was not surfaced. 2. A one-shot issue monitor cleared its next check when dispatched. If that monitor-triggered run ended as `process_lost` without a tracked local child, the existing bounded retry gate rejected it and no future monitor wake remained. ### Expected behavior - Cancelled blockers continue to be unresolved dependencies, and their dependents receive blocker attention regardless of whether the dependent currently displays as backlog, todo, blocked, or in review. - A monitor-triggered run lost before disposition receives exactly one bounded continuation when no future monitor check exists; a second loss follows the normal recovery-action escalation path. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an agent-assigned todo issue blocked by a cancelled issue and run issue-graph liveness classification. 2. Observe that no cancelled-blocker finding appears before this change. 3. Dispatch a due issue monitor, clear its one-shot `monitorNextCheckAt`, and mark the resulting untracked run `process_lost`. 4. Observe that no retry is queued before this change. ### Environment - Paperclip commit: `3e348b96b` - Deployment: built from source / local test environment - Adapter: not adapter-specific; core server recovery - Database: embedded test database ## What Changed - Inspect non-terminal, agent-assigned issues with unresolved blocker edges during blocked-chain liveness classification. - Include cancelled dependents in the existing blocked-inbox attention query while preserving company-scoped relation checks. - Allow monitor-triggered `process_lost` runs with no future monitor wake to use the existing single bounded retry. - Mark monitor recovery retries as continuation-needed context and retain the existing second-loss escalation behavior. - Document cancelled-blocker and monitor-dispatch recovery semantics. - Add focused regressions for liveness findings, attention propagation, one retry, and second-loss escalation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts` — 3 files, 126 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk and server-only. The liveness scan inspects more unresolved dependency shapes, which can produce additional existing attention entries for previously invisible cancelled blockers. - Monitor recovery remains bounded by `processLossRetryCount < 1`, and the extra path only applies when the dispatch was monitor-triggered and no future monitor check exists. - No schema, migration, authorization, API-contract, or UI changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.4` through Codex CLI, with reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and test execution capabilities. ## 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> |
||
|
|
1fe89eb8f8 |
Enforce durable external-wait liveness (#9373)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat/recovery subsystem decides whether an agent run has a durable continuation path after the process stops. > - External waits need stricter semantics than local background watchers: a killed local process is not durable, while a first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake is. > - Without that distinction, recovery can repeatedly treat adapter-failed continuations as live work and obscure the real reason a task stopped. > - This pull request adds explicit durable external-wait liveness handling and documents the expected execution semantics. > - It also improves operator-visible recovery evidence so invalid external-wait paths explain why they were rejected. > - The benefit is clearer recovery behavior, fewer duplicate continuation recoveries, and a safer contract for monitor-backed external waits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #5978 - Related PRs: #4988, #7495, #8502 ## What Changed - Added durable external-wait liveness classification so local/background watchers are not accepted as durable live paths after the owning process exits. - Preserved first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake paths as valid external-wait continuations. - Added backend regression coverage for killed watcher failure, monitor-backed durable wait resumption, normal completion, blocker behavior, and no duplicate recovery. - Added adapter utility coverage for terminal cleanup behavior used by local process adapters. - Surfaced invalid external-wait recovery evidence in the recovery action card and run ledger. - Updated execution semantics documentation and the V1 implementation contract. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-server` equivalent lane passed in CI-clean env: 238 files, 2164 tests passed, 1 skipped. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-workspaces-a` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: UI 305 files / 2430 tests; CLI 43 files / 230 tests. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-workspaces-b` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: shared/db/adapters/plugin packages all green. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: 107 serialized server suites green, including 84/84 heartbeat-process-recovery tests. - `pnpm build` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env. Notes: running `pnpm test:run` directly inside the Paperclip heartbeat environment exposed local harness env contamination in existing tests (`PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_DB_BACKUP_DIR`, and `PAPERCLIP_WORKTREE_START_POINT`). Re-running the same lanes with inherited `PAPERCLIP_*` and port env removed produced the CI-equivalent green results above. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery classification for stopped local external-wait processes, so adapters relying on unmanaged background watchers must use blockers, monitors, scheduled wakes, or explicit durable handoff instead. - Low UI risk: recovery-card copy changes are covered by component tests and Storybook screenshot QA. - No database migration is included. > 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, tool-enabled terminal/code execution. Exact context-window metadata was not exposed in the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
936687ca55 |
fix(workspace): restore clean branch drift on finalize (#8914)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs can execute inside reusable, runtime-created git worktree execution workspaces. > - Those managed worktrees record the expected branch so later dispatches do not accidentally run an agent in the wrong checkout. > - Successful run finalization already checked branch coherence, but it treated every unrecorded branch switch as fatal. > - A common publishing flow can briefly switch a clean worktree to a PR/publish branch that points at the same commit as the recorded issue branch, leaving no divergent work to protect. > - This pull request keeps the strict finalization guard for unsafe drift, but lets finalization restore the recorded branch when same-commit repair is provably safe. > - The benefit is fewer false failed runs after harmless branch switches while preserving hard failures for divergent or dirty worktrees. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this exact finalization failure. Related public worktree-recovery context: #3087 and #3056, but those address different worktree realization/reuse recovery paths rather than successful-run finalization branch repair. Bug report details: **What happened?** When an adapter run succeeded after switching a managed git worktree from its recorded issue branch to a publish/PR branch, finalization failed with a managed worktree branch mismatch even when the publish branch and recorded branch pointed at the same commit and the worktree was clean. **Expected behavior** Finalization should restore the recorded branch only when it can prove the worktree is clean, registered, and the recorded branch points at the current `HEAD`. If the actual branch has different commits or unsafe state, finalization should continue to fail with bounded validation evidence. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a runtime-managed `git_worktree` execution workspace for an issue run. 2. During the adapter run, create and check out a new publish branch without committing new changes. 3. Return adapter success and let heartbeat finalization run. 4. Before this change, finalization records a failed branch check and fails the run even though the branches point at the same commit. 5. With this change, finalization records the repair operation, restores the recorded branch, and records a successful finalize row. 6. Repeat with a commit on the publish branch; finalization still fails because the branch heads differ. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `master` at `bac7307ec`; fixed by this PR at `64ec605cf`. **Deployment mode** Local dev / built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is core heartbeat/workspace finalization behavior. **Database mode** Embedded test Postgres in the focused server test. **Access context** Agent run finalization. **Node.js version** `v25.6.1` **Operating system** `Darwin 24.6.0 arm64` **Relevant logs or output** The new focused test intentionally exercises both outcomes: ```text Test Files 1 passed (1) Tests 3 passed (3) ``` **Relevant config** Runtime-created `git_worktree` execution workspace. **Additional context** The unsafe divergent branch case still fails with `workspace_validation_failed` and `git_worktree_branch_incoherence` evidence. **Privacy checklist** Reviewed; this description avoids internal task links, local workspace paths, credentials, and instance-specific URLs. ## What Changed - Reused the existing guarded branch-coherence repair helper during heartbeat finalization when the final branch inspection finds clean same-commit branch drift. - Recorded repair metadata in the `workspace_finalize` operation so reviewers/operators can audit whether finalization repaired branch drift. - Preserved failure behavior for divergent branch heads and surfaced the bounded workspace validation evidence from the repair helper. - Added focused server coverage for safe finalization repair and unsafe divergent branch failure. - Updated execution semantics docs to describe the narrower finalization rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` ## Risks Low to medium risk. The change affects successful-run finalization for runtime-created git worktree execution workspaces. The repair path is constrained to clean, registered, same-commit branch drift, and the focused test confirms divergent branch heads still fail instead of being restored silently. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent. Exact hosted model ID was not exposed in the runtime; tool use and local shell 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
2eba718bef |
Fix sandbox bridge credentials and stalled review recovery (#8844)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The local adapter and heartbeat recovery systems decide whether an agent has a real control-plane mutation path. > - Sandboxed local adapters split execution between the trusted host process and the sandbox shell/tool surface. > - A host-side adapter can still reach Paperclip while the sandbox shell surface cannot, which leaves agents thinking no endpoint or credentials are configured even though the host can still post comments. > - Execution-policy review stages can also remain pending after a reviewer run finishes without recording a decision. > - This pull request makes the sandbox bridge available to the actual shell mutation surface and adds bounded recovery for terminal-but-still-pending review participants. > - The benefit is that agents get a real reachable Paperclip API path where they need it, and stalled review stages become visible recovery work instead of silently drifting. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue matched this combined failure. I searched for exact and related terms including `cannot reach the Paperclip control plane`, `execution_review_participant_recovery`, `sandbox callback bridge`, `review participant in_review`, and `control plane sandbox`. Related public issues: - Refs #8482 for `in_review` liveness invariant recovery. - Refs #863 for prior agent API-key reachability confusion. - Refs #248 for the broader sandboxed agent execution model. Bug summary: - What happened: a sandboxed local-adapter run could have host-side Paperclip access while the sandbox Bash/tool surface lacked a reachable API endpoint or usable run credentials. Separately, a reviewer run could finish while its execution-review stage remained pending, leaving the source issue in `in_review` with no decision and no live participant run. - Expected behavior: the mutation surface that agents actually use should receive a run-scoped Paperclip bridge, and pending review participants should get one bounded normal-model recovery wake before moving to explicit blocked/source-scoped recovery. - Steps to reproduce: run a sandbox-backed local adapter that needs Bash/curl/tooling to call Paperclip from inside the sandbox, or finish an execution-policy reviewer run without submitting the pending review decision. - Deployment mode: local/authenticated private development instance with sandbox-backed local adapters. ## What Changed - Changed sandbox callback bridge startup so bridge credentials are passed through the sandbox runner environment instead of embedded in the visible `nohup env ...` command string. - Added adapter-utils coverage proving the sandbox shell can call Paperclip through the bridge, forwards the host run JWT with `X-Paperclip-Run-Id`, and does not leak host or bridge tokens into stdout/stderr, runner command text, or runtime files. - Added one bounded execution-review participant recovery path for terminal reviewer runs whose `executionState` remains pending. - Escalated exhausted or non-invokable review participant recovery to blocked/source-scoped recovery with dedicated evidence, activity, and next-action text. - Documented the mutation-surface reachability contract in `doc/execution-semantics.md` and updated the Paperclip skill authentication guidance for sandbox bridge env vars. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - `curl -fsS $PAPERCLIP_API_URL/api/health` returned `status: ok` on the local instance. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: more `in_review` issues with terminal-but-pending reviewer runs will now be retried once and then blocked explicitly instead of remaining quiet. - Low sandbox bridge risk: credential delivery moved from command text to the runner environment, which is less leaky but depends on sandbox providers honoring the env payload for startup commands. - No database migration is included. - Full repo build and CI were not run locally before opening the PR; targeted server/adapter tests and typechecks passed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via the Codex local agent, with repository tool use and shell-based code execution. The runtime did not expose a precise context-window value to the agent. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
d68c34f2cc |
Fix managed workspace branch coherence recovery (#8826)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed issue workspaces are part of the control-plane runtime boundary: the server records which git worktree and branch an agent run is allowed to use. > - Existing reuse checks validated the worktree path and cleanliness, but did not fully validate that the actual checked-out branch still matched the recorded execution workspace branch. > - That gap let an agent run switch a managed worktree onto a publishing branch without updating the execution workspace record, then later reuse or finalize the workspace as though it were coherent. > - The runtime needs a bounded repair path for provably safe mismatches and a hard validation failure for dirty, divergent, or unrecorded branch transitions. > - This pull request adds branch coherence to managed git worktree validation, records explicit recovery evidence, and prevents finalize success when a run silently changes branches. > - The benefit is that branch drift becomes either safely repaired or visibly recoverable instead of silently corrupting managed workspace state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Bug report: - What happened: a managed agent workspace could be recorded for one branch while the underlying git worktree was actually checked out on another branch. Reuse and finalization could still treat the workspace as healthy. - Expected behavior: managed git worktrees should verify the actual branch against the recorded execution workspace branch. Safe same-HEAD clean mismatches may be repaired, while dirty, divergent, or unrecorded branch transitions should fail into explicit workspace validation recovery. - Reproduction outline: create a runtime-managed issue worktree, switch its checkout to another branch without updating the execution workspace record, then attempt reuse or run finalization. - Deployment mode: local/self-hosted Paperclip server using managed git workspaces. - Related public work: Refs #7644 and #7579. Related but not duplicate: #8275 and #5851. ## What Changed - Added managed git worktree branch inspection, formatted validation evidence, and safe same-HEAD repair logic to the workspace runtime service. - Validated recorded managed workspace branch state before reuse and during heartbeat setup. - Added finalization-time branch guards so runs that silently switch branches fail with `workspace_validation_failed` instead of recording a successful finalize. - Added recovery fingerprints and evidence for `git_worktree_branch_incoherence`, including manual-repair next actions for unsafe branch drift. - Documented branch coherence as part of runtime-created git worktree workspace coherence. - Added focused tests for safe branch repair, dirty/divergent recovery evidence, heartbeat setup validation, and finalize failure/success paths. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` Notes: - An initial full `pnpm test:run` attempt hit a transient `socket hang up` in one `plugin-routes-authz` case. The exact case passed when rerun directly, the full `plugin-routes-authz` file passed, and the subsequent full `pnpm test:run` passed. - `pnpm build` still emits existing Vite CSS pseudo-element and chunk-size warnings unrelated to this change. ## Risks - This intentionally changes behavior for managed runs that switch branches without recording the transition: they now fail during workspace validation/finalization instead of silently proceeding. - The automatic repair path is intentionally narrow. It only repairs clean branch mismatches when both branches point at the same commit; dirty or divergent worktrees require manual recovery. - Recovery fingerprints now include workspace-validation evidence, so duplicate recovery-action grouping is more precise for branch-incoherence failures. > 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 Codex CLI/API coding agent, with shell/git/test execution and reasoning mode enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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: Cody <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Cody <cody@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
277a9a43d6 |
fix(recovery): convert review-parked continuations into dependency waits (#8371)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The productivity-recovery subsystem watches for "stranded" assigned issues — claims whose live run disappeared — and repairs, resumes, or visibly blocks them > - When an executor decomposes an umbrella issue into sub-tasks, it parks its own continuation as "waiting on review/approval" (error code `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`) — a deliberate pause, not a lost run > - Recovery's staleness gate mistook that deliberate park for a disappeared run: it retried once, then escalated the issue to `blocked` with a recovery action and an operator-facing failure notice — even though nothing had failed and there was nothing for a human to do > - The user is left staring at an inscrutable, over-technical "stranded" error on a task they did nothing wrong with, with no idea what action to take > - This pull request teaches recovery to recognize a review-parked continuation and, when the issue has a real waiting target (open sub-tasks or unresolved blockers), convert it into a first-class dependency wait: `blocked`-by-children, original assignee kept, plus a plain-language comment saying it will resume automatically > - The benefit is that post-decomposition umbrellas sit on a real waiting path and self-resume through the normal blockers-resolved flow, while genuine strands (no waiting target) still escalate exactly as before ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6503 ## What Changed - `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: add `resolveContinuationWaitingOnReview`. When a continuation was cancelled with `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review` and the issue has a real waiting target — open (non-terminal) sub-tasks or existing unresolved blockers — recovery sets the issue `blocked` by those issues, keeps the original assignee, posts a plain-language `system` comment, and logs the activity. Wired into `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues` ahead of the escalation path, with a new `waitingOnReviewResolved` counter on the result. - With no waiting target, the code falls through to the existing escalation, preserving genuine stranded-run detection. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`: two new tests — (1) a review-parked continuation converts into a dependency wait on its open sub-tasks (done children excluded, no recovery issue opened, plain-language comment, raw error code never leaks), and (2) it still escalates when no open dependency remains. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document the "Deliberate wait is not a lost run" recovery rule and the requirement that a post-decomposition umbrella hold a first-class waiting path rather than relying on `parentId` rollup. ## Verification - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — passes against current `master`. - New tests in `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` (describe: "heartbeat orphaned process recovery"): - "converts a continuation parked for review into a dependency wait on its open sub-tasks" - "still escalates a continuation parked for review when no open dependency remains" - Run with the repo's vitest setup, e.g. `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` (requires the embedded-postgres test harness). ## Risks Low. The change adds a single guarded pre-check ahead of the existing escalation path; behavior is unchanged when the cancellation error code is not `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review` or when the issue has no open sub-task / unresolved blocker to wait on. No schema or migration changes. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic), Opus-class model, via the Claude Code agent harness — extended thinking and tool use enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change 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 - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — server-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 (pending CI) - [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 |
||
|
|
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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
fc95699fde |
fix(server): enforce agent secret binding sync across lifecycle flows (#8307)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to create, configure, and run AI agents for work. > - This change sits in the server-side agent lifecycle and secret-binding subsystem, where adapter config `env` entries can reference company secrets. > - An incident (while trying to configure a Novita sandbox) showed that an agent can reach a broken runtime state if `adapterConfig.env` contains `secret_ref` entries but the matching `company_secret_bindings` rows are missing. > - The immediate run-path guard and error-surfacing work made the failure diagnosable, but they did not fully prevent new broken agents from being created. > - The risk came from create and approval flows being responsible for remembering to sync bindings at each call site, which is easy to miss as new flows are added. > - This pull request moves the invariant into `agentService` create/update/activate paths, keeps the existing hire-flow fix, and adds regression coverage for create, update, and legacy pending-approval recovery. > - The benefit is that agent secret binding integrity is enforced closer to the data mutation point, so future callers inherit the protection automatically. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8309 ### What happened? A Paperclip agent could persist `adapterConfig.env` `secret_ref` entries without matching agent-scoped `company_secret_bindings` rows. When that happened, the config UI could still look configured, but the real run path failed pre-dispatch because the secret was not actually bound to that agent. ### Expected behavior Every normal agent create, config-update, and pending-approval activation flow should leave the agent with secret bindings that match its persisted secret-ref env config. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create or activate an agent through a flow that persists `adapterConfig.env` secret refs without synchronizing `company_secret_bindings`. 2. Observe that the config state can still appear populated. 3. Start a run for that agent. 4. Observe that pre-dispatch binding validation fails because the secret reference exists but the agent binding does not. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`) ### Agent adapter(s) involved - Claude Code - Not adapter-specific (core bug) ### Database mode Embedded PGlite / embedded local dev database flow ### Access context Board (human operator) created or approved the agent; agent runtime later consumed the config. ### Additional context This PR focuses on preventing new broken states from normal service flows and on backfilling the covered legacy pending-approval activation path. ## What Changed - Kept the existing branch-local hire-flow fix that synchronized bindings for route and approval paths. - Moved the binding integrity invariant into `agentService.create()`, `agentService.update()` when `adapterConfig` changes, and `agentService.activatePendingApproval()`. - Added `server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` covering create-time sync, update-time resync, and backfill for legacy pending-approval agents. - Removed now-redundant route-layer and approval-layer binding sync calls once the service layer became authoritative. - Simplified the affected unit tests so route/approval tests no longer assert service-owned binding writes directly. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts server/src/__tests__/approvals-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` ## Risks - Low to medium risk. - This changes where secret-binding synchronization is enforced, so any unexpected caller that relied on upper-layer manual sync behavior could behave differently. - Agent create/update/activation flows now perform binding synchronization consistently, which adds binding-table writes at those mutation points. - This PR does not retroactively scan and heal every already-broken historical agent row; it prevents and backfills through the covered service flows. > 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 Codex class model via `codex_local` - Session model family: GPT-5 Codex - Tool-assisted coding with shell, git, HTTP, and local test execution - Reasoning mode: medium interactive tool-use workflow ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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] 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> |
||
|
|
f3db7b88ea |
Clear stale checkoutRunId on run finalization and add backstop sweeper (#6008)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue subsystem holds per-row lock columns (`checkoutRunId`, `executionRunId`, `executionAgentNameKey`, `executionLockedAt`) that gate checkout, ownership, and release > - When a heartbeat run terminates, `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote` clears the execution-lock columns but stale checkout locks could remain attached to dead runs in edge paths > - The original fix closed the finalization, checkout, release, and sweeper paths, but PR CI exposed one more process-loss retry path where a queued retry advanced `executionRunId` while leaving `checkoutRunId` pinned to the failed run > - This pull request closes the asymmetry: terminal-run cleanup and process-loss retry recovery release dead checkout locks while preserving live execution ownership > - The benefit is permanent, automatic self-heal of stale lock columns and fewer false checkout 409s requiring board intervention > - Related upstream issue: #6007 ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6007. Duplicate/related PR search performed on 2026-06-10 with query `checkoutRunId process loss retry stale checkout lock repo:paperclipai/paperclip`. Related PRs found and reviewed for overlap: - #7727 `fix(heartbeat): atomically advance checkoutRunId on process-loss retry` - #7707 `test: cover same-agent stale checkout adoption` - #3068 `fix: clear checkoutRunId when releasing issue execution lock` ## What Changed - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote`: extend the per-issue update to also null `checkoutRunId` when it matches the terminating run id. WHERE clause scoped to `executionRunId = run.id OR checkoutRunId = run.id` for idempotence. - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` process-loss retry: when queuing the retry run, move `executionRunId` to the retry and clear the failed run's `checkoutRunId` so the dead run no longer owns checkout. - `server/src/services/issues.ts`: add `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal` helper, symmetric to `clearExecutionRunIfTerminal`. No assignee/status precondition. Wired into `checkout`, `assertCheckoutOwner`, and `release`. Exported on the issue service. - `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: add `sweepStaleIssueLocks`. Scans `issues` where `checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT NULL`, joins each referenced run, and clears all lock columns on issues whose referenced runs are all terminal or missing. Emits one `issue.stale_lock_cleared` activity log row per cleared issue. - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: re-export the sweeper on the heartbeat facade. - `server/src/index.ts`: invoke `sweepStaleIssueLocks` in both the startup recovery sequence and the periodic heartbeat timer chain. - Tests: route-level coverage of the new self-heal path on the next checkout attempt, service-level sweeper coverage, and heartbeat recovery assertions that terminal process-loss cleanup releases `checkoutRunId`. ## Verification ```bash pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run \ src/__tests__/recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts \ src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues exactly one retry when the recorded local pid is dead|does not block paused-tree work when immediate continuation recovery is suppressed by the hold" NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ``` All listed local checks pass. The new and updated tests cover: - Run termination clears `checkoutRunId` when it points at the terminating run. - Process-loss retry clears the failed run's `checkoutRunId` while assigning `executionRunId` to the queued retry. - A different agent calling `POST /api/issues/:id/checkout` on an issue whose prior owner died self-heals via `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal` and succeeds. - Sweeper clears stale lock columns for issues whose run row is terminal. - Sweeper leaves issues alone while the referenced run is still running. - Sweeper leaves issues alone when `executionRunId` is still running even if `checkoutRunId` is terminal. - Sweeper is idempotent; second pass clears nothing. Manual reproduction of the original bug shape: 1. Create an issue assigned to agent A, set `status='in_progress'`, `checkoutRunId=R1`, `executionRunId=null`, where `heartbeat_runs.status = 'failed'` for `R1`. 2. Reassign to agent B and move to `status='todo'`. 3. Before this PR: agent B `POST /checkout` returns `409 Issue checkout conflict` indefinitely. After this PR: succeeds, lock columns rewritten to agent B's current run id. ## Risks - Low. All clears are scoped by run id, so they only fire when the lock column unambiguously points at the terminating or terminal run. No schema change. No migration. No API surface change. - Behavioral shift: an issue that previously stayed `in_progress` with a dead `checkoutRunId` after run termination now self-heals. Downstream code that reads stale `checkoutRunId` as a proxy for recent run history should already be reading `executionRunId` or the `heartbeat_runs` table. - Sweeper cost: one indexed scan per recovery tick over rows where `checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT NULL` plus a single batched `heartbeatRuns` lookup per candidate. Negligible at expected cardinality; further bounded by the existing recovery cadence. > 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`. This is a bug fix, not a feature. No roadmap overlap. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-4-7`, extended-thinking off, tool use enabled. - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool use enabled, used for the follow-up process-loss retry fix and PR body update. ## 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 - [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 - [ ] 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> |
||
|
|
67b22d872f |
[codex] Clarify interrupt handoffs and scoped wake semantics (#7855)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread is the operator surface where comments, assignee changes, pauses, resumes, and wakeups turn human intent into agent execution. > - Interrupting a live run and handing work to another assignee needs clear semantics so the product does not accidentally keep work alive, wake the wrong participant, or hide why an agent stopped. > - Comment-driven wakes also need strict boundaries so closed, blocked, and dependency-driven work only resumes when there is real actionable input. > - This pull request codifies the interrupt handoff contract, implements backend scheduling behavior, and gives the UI clearer handoff/pause language. > - The benefit is a more inspectable and predictable task lifecycle for both operators and agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Paperclip issue: `PAP-10664` / `PAP-10751`. Problem: interrupting or reassigning live agent work could be ambiguous in the UI and backend. Operators needed clearer feedback about whether a handoff wakes an agent, what pause/cancel affects, and when comments should revive execution. The backend also needed stronger tests around comment wake boundaries, retry supersession, and structured agent mention dispatch. Related GitHub PR search found broad workflow-adjacent PRs #5082, #6359, and #4083, but no exact duplicate for this head branch or interrupt-handoff scope. ## What Changed - Added an interrupt handoff semantics document covering destination behavior, wake expectations, and live-run interruption states. - Implemented backend interrupt handoff behavior and comment wake/reopen handling in issue routes/services and heartbeat scheduling. - Hardened structured agent mention dispatch so mentions resolve through the intended dispatch path. - Added UI helpers and components for handoff chips, wake rows, interrupt banners, pause-affects summaries, and composer guidance. - Updated the issue properties assignee picker and issue chat/composer surfaces to make interrupt/reassign behavior clearer. - Added backend, UI utility, component, and Storybook coverage for the new behavior. - Stabilized the new UI component tests with a local `flushSync`-backed act helper matching existing repo practice in this dependency set. - Addressed Greptile feedback by threading historical run `errorCode` through issue-run data and operator-interrupted chat labels. - Addressed Greptile's cancel ordering concern by terminating/deleting in-memory heartbeat processes before cancellation status persistence, with regression coverage for DB update failure. ## Verification - `git diff --check $(git merge-base HEAD origin/master)..HEAD` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/interrupt-handoff.test.ts src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/interrupt-handoff/InterruptHandoffViews.test.tsx --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 4 files / 91 tests passed before the Greptile follow-ups. - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 6 files / 191 tests passed before the Greptile follow-ups. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 24 tests passed after the historical `errorCode` follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 2 files / 11 tests passed after the historical `errorCode` follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 52 tests passed after the cancel ordering follow-up. - Greptile is green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`; the old inline P2 is resolved/outdated. - GitHub Actions, Socket, security-review, and Greptile checks are green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`. The external `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` status was still pending at `https://app.snyk.io/org/cryppadotta/pr-checks/85b3e8f4-04e1-4f8e-9362-899c8148c23c` after a bounded wait. ## Risks - Medium: changes touch issue comments, wake scheduling, and live-run interruption semantics, so regressions could affect when agents resume or stay stopped. - Medium: UI copy and state grouping for assignee changes may need reviewer tuning after product review. - Low migration risk: no database schema migration is included. - The branch was created before the latest `origin/master` commits; reviewers should confirm CI merge-base behavior and resolve any merge conflicts if GitHub reports them. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool use and local command execution enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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] 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 Screenshot note: this PR includes Storybook coverage for the new interrupt handoff UI states rather than captured before/after browser screenshots in this PR-creation heartbeat. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0a2230b2ec |
[codex] Guard document comment wake boundaries (#7766)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The execution control plane uses issue comments, assignments, monitors, blockers, and interactions to decide when agent-owned work should wake and run. > - Top-level issue comments are actionable issue-thread feedback for the assignee, but document-scoped comments are review context unless they are converted into an explicit routing primitive. > - Document annotation comments were still wired into the same `issue_commented` wake path as top-level issue comments. > - That made document activity capable of waking an assignee and looking like an execution path even when no issue-level handoff happened. > - This pull request narrows the wake boundary so document annotation activity stays document-scoped while normal issue comments continue waking the assignee. > - The benefit is fewer spurious wakeups and clearer non-terminal issue liveness semantics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Internal Paperclip work: [PAP-10613](/PAP/issues/PAP-10613), [PAP-10640](/PAP/issues/PAP-10640) Problem description: - Document annotation thread creation and annotation comments were treated as assignee wake sources. - Document-scoped activity should remain visible as document/review context, but should not by itself act as a queued issue wake, monitor, approval, interaction response, blocker, or terminal disposition. - Top-level issue comments should still wake the assignee on agent-assigned, non-terminal issues. Related PR search performed: - Found related prior document annotation work: #6733. - Found related prior issue-comment wake work and revert context: #7678, #7765. - No existing PR for `PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`. ## What Changed - Removed the document annotation comment assignee wake helper from issue routes. - Kept document annotation reference sync and activity logging intact. - Documented the distinction between top-level issue comments and document-scoped comments in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Added route tests proving document/document annotation activity does not wake the assignee. - Added route coverage proving top-level board issue comments still wake the assignee. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 9 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git status -sb` — clean branch tracking `origin/PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`. ## Risks - Low to moderate behavior change: document annotation comments no longer wake the issue assignee automatically. - Operators who want document feedback to route work must use an explicit primitive such as assignment, issue-thread comment, agent mention, issue-thread interaction, approval, blocker, or delegated follow-up. - No database migration or public API shape change. > 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 with shell/tool use enabled. Exact hosted runtime model identifier beyond GPT-5 was 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 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] 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
|
7428fb956f |
[codex] Guard git-sensitive adapter workspaces (#7644)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The affected subsystem is the heartbeat execution path that turns issue assignment into adapter-backed work in a selected workspace. > - PAP-10409 and sibling follow-ups failed before useful adapter output because project/workspace identity became incoherent. > - A project-workspace-linked child issue could keep `projectWorkspaceId` / execution workspace state while losing `projectId`, then a git-sensitive local adapter could fall through toward an invalid fallback cwd. > - Paperclip needs to treat coherent workspace identity as part of the live-path contract, not only as post-failure cleanup. > - This pull request documents that rule, repairs issue inheritance, and blocks git-sensitive adapter launch before it can run from the wrong cwd. > - The benefit is a bounded recovery path: affected issues are repaired explicitly, future malformed workspaces fail fast with a clear recovery action, and the UI surfaces that reason. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7646 Bug report fields: - Summary: adapter-backed follow-up issues can fail before doing work when issue creation/inheritance preserves workspace ids but drops project identity. - Affected issues: internal Paperclip issues PAP-10408 through PAP-10412, especially PAP-10409. - Steps to reproduce: create a project-scoped parent/follow-up tree where a child issue keeps `projectWorkspaceId` or an inherited execution workspace but has `projectId: null`, then launch a git-sensitive local adapter such as `codex_local`. - Expected behavior: Paperclip derives or preserves coherent project identity during issue creation, and heartbeat refuses malformed git-sensitive workspace launches with one clear recovery action. - Actual behavior before this PR: the run could reach adapter bootstrap with an incoherent workspace context and fail with git errors such as `fatal: not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /srv)`. - Root cause: child/follow-up issue inheritance preserved workspace execution context without coherent project context. That let heartbeat workspace resolution/adapter launch reach a fallback cwd instead of refusing the malformed workspace state up front. ## What Changed - Documented the adapter workspace-coherence live-path precondition in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Updated issue creation/inheritance so workspace-inheriting issues preserve or derive project identity, while existing mismatch validation still rejects incoherent project/workspace combinations. - Added a heartbeat preflight guard for git-sensitive local adapters that validates effective cwd, persisted workspace identity, project workspace identity, and required git metadata before launch. - Added `workspace_validation` recovery actions for this failure class and ensured the source issue gets a visible, idempotent recovery comment. - Surfaced workspace-validation recovery state in issue rows, blocked notices, and recovery action cards, including the manual-repair wake policy label. - Added focused regression coverage for issue inheritance, all heartbeat workspace-validation guard branches, recovery display helpers, and UI recovery components. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - Result: 1 test file passed, 68 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx` - Result: 1 test file passed, 12 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx` - Result: 2 test files passed, 18 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Result: passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/recovery-display.test.ts` - Result: 7 test files passed, 200 tests passed before the final guard-branch additions; the changed server file was re-run above. - UI coverage: `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx` contains rendered scenarios for the generic recovery chip, workspace-validation recovery chip, blocked notice indicator, recovery action card, and issue-row chip. - Screenshot capture attempt: Storybook started successfully on `http://127.0.0.1:6016/`, but screenshots could not be captured in this runner because `agent-browser` launched an unusable Chrome binary and Playwright Chromium failed on missing system library `libatk-1.0.so.0`; the runner is non-root and lacks passwordless sudo for installing browser dependencies. - Hosted CI on final commit `969594e7` is green, including `verify`, `Build`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, `General tests (server)`, workspace suites, serialized server suites, `Canary Dry Run`, and `e2e`. - Roadmap checked: no duplicate roadmap item; this is a tightly scoped reliability fix for existing heartbeat/workspace behavior. - Duplicate PR search checked: no open PR matched `workspace coherence adapter cwd`. ## Risks - Medium risk: heartbeat launch is stricter for git-sensitive local adapters and can now block malformed workspace states before adapter execution. - Mitigation: the guard is limited to local git-sensitive adapters and records a source-scoped recovery action with structured evidence instead of retrying indefinitely. - Compatibility: valid project/workspace execution paths continue normally; explicit project/workspace mismatches remain rejected. > 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 `codex_local` coding agent with terminal/tool use. Work was produced through Paperclip issue execution with focused local test runs. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d9f91576a0 |
Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core control-plane loop. > - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse isolated workspaces. > - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition. > - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first: accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable claim state, and retry-safe child creation. > - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to reconstruct child creation from raw activity. > - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive, hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and easier to inspect. ## What Changed - Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to `doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint, durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior. - Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend, including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue routes for creating and listing decomposition state. - Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee. - Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial child recreation under the same fingerprint. - Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the UI. - Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "accepted plan decomposition" server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links. - Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope. ## Risks - This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update; reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match the intended decomposition table. - The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle retries if the claim state machine is wrong. - The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section automatically. - `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize` accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature itself. > Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent; exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context), with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities. <img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05 48 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28" /> ## 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
bfe6369ef5 |
Guard cheap recovery model usage (#6371)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates AI-agent work through issues, heartbeats, comments, approvals, and auditable recovery paths. > - The affected subsystem is heartbeat/recovery orchestration, especially the optional cheap model profile used for operational recovery overhead. > - Cheap recovery should repair status and liveness, but it must not become the worker lane that writes deliverables, continues source work, or propagates cheap execution hints into downstream retries. > - The gap was that cheap-profile hints could follow recovery wake contexts and assignment overrides farther than intended, making real work eligible to run on the cheap model. > - This pull request separates status-only cheap recovery from normal source-work continuations, adds route guards for deliverable mutations during cheap status-only runs, and documents the invariant. > - The benefit is safer retry/recovery behavior: cheap runs can clean up control-plane state, while any remaining source work resumes through a normal/original model path. ## What Changed - Added recovery model-profile work classes so status-only recovery carries explicit guard context and normal-model continuations scrub cheap hints. - Updated heartbeat, productivity review, liveness continuation, and recovery service wakeups to request cheap only for bounded status-only recovery work. - Blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from writing issue documents, plans, attachments, work products, or assigning downstream work back to `modelProfile: "cheap"`. - Added/updated server tests for cheap profile propagation, artifact/document guards, route authorization, retry scheduling, and successful-run handoff behavior. - Documented the recovery model-profile lane in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` and `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - After rebasing onto current `public-gh/master`, stabilized the new `InstanceSidebar` plugin-filter tests so the PR check lane stays green. ## Verification - Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/services/recovery/model-profile-hint.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-document-restore-routes.test.ts` from `server/` - 3 files, 37 tests passed after final edits. - Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` from `server/` - 44 tests passed after rerunning the cleanup-sensitive file alone. - Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/InstanceSidebar.test.tsx` - 4 tests passed. - Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - PR checks on latest head `6f8c3b1380f5bd872c6f49f6f7188ecf3bb6d263` - all green, including `verify`, build, typecheck, server/general/serialized tests, e2e, Snyk, and policy. - Greptile: pass 3 returned Confidence Score 5/5 with zero unresolved Greptile review threads. ## Risks - Medium risk: recovery behavior is intentionally stricter, so any path that incorrectly relies on cheap recovery to keep doing source work will now need to hand back to a normal-model run. - Low migration risk: no schema changes. - No product UI changes; the UI file touched is a test-only stabilization after rebasing onto current `master`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool use and local code execution enabled; context window not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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: no product UI changes) - [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
|
d734bd43d1 |
[codex] Roll up May 17 branch changes (#6210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls. > - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions, watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing, plugin launchers, and small UI polish. > - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current `origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow churn. > - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and splitting would create avoidable conflicts. > - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest `origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification. > - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile limit. ## What Changed - Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a dedicated worktree. - Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores. - Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo` when retrying source-scoped recovery. - Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits from the branch. - Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility. - Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `npm run install` in `node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files failed before sqlite3 native binding was built. - After rebuilding sqlite3: `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host guard. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks - Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics, server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces. - Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI should provide the stronger database-backed signal. - UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot was captured in this PR creation pass. - This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than merging duplicate implementations together. > 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, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow, 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 - [ ] 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
|
0808b388ee |
[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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
|
e400315cbf |
Guard assigned backlog liveness (#5428)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned work is executable or parked > - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake path > - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to agree on that execution semantic > - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`, flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board > - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls ## What Changed - Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults. - Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted while preserving explicit `backlog` parking. - Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators. - Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned backlog blockers. - Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for assigned backlog blockers. - Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the assigned-backlog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped. - Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.` - Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary worktree. - Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states: [light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png), [dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png). - Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component tests. - Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all passed. ## Risks - Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and server/shared tests cover both paths. - Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog state. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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
|
57229d0f24 |
[codex] Add issue monitor liveness controls (#4988)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work must stay observable, governable, and recoverable. > - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue state transitions, and visible recovery behavior. > - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when the assignee still owns a future check. > - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad hoc comments. > - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior. > - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when to use monitors versus `blocked`. > - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits without weakening single-assignee task ownership. ## What Changed - Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state. - Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds, activity logging, and external-ref redaction. - Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child monitor scheduling. - Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces. - Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy: "board"`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` - First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency. - After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites successfully. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot captured from `http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces` with Playwright. ## Screenshots  ## Risks - Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or recovery issue creation. - Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue monitor columns and index. - External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads. > 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 with repository tool use and terminal 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 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 or Storybook review surfaces - [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
|
fda296ee4f |
[codex] Add configurable liveness auto-recovery controls (#4587)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Heartbeat liveness recovery decides when stalled issue trees need manager-visible follow-up. > - Automatic recovery issue creation is useful, but operators need instance-level controls for how aggressive it is. > - Without controls, recovery behavior is harder to tune for local development, production operations, and noisy edge cases. > - This pull request adds configurable liveness auto-recovery settings across shared contracts, API routes, services, and the instance experimental settings UI. > - The benefit is that operators can keep liveness findings advisory or enable bounded recovery automation with explicit intervals and lookback windows. ## What Changed - Added shared types and validators for liveness auto-recovery settings. - Extended instance settings routes and services to persist and validate the new controls. - Wired heartbeat/recovery services to honor enablement, minimum interval, and lookback settings. - Added UI controls for liveness recovery under instance experimental settings. - Covered the new server behavior with instance settings and liveness escalation tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks - Moderate behavioral risk because recovery automation timing changes when enabled; defaults keep existing advisory behavior unless the setting is turned on. - No database migration in this PR; settings are stored through the existing instance settings path. > 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 model with tool use and local command execution; context window not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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
|
82e257c7ba |
Cancel stale queued heartbeats when issue graph changes (PAP-2314) (#4534)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5a0c1979cf | [codex] Add runtime lifecycle recovery and live issue visibility (#4419) | ||
|
Dotta
|
09d0678840 |
[codex] Harden heartbeat scheduling and runtime controls (#4223)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state > - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without stranding work > - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and operator-facing run state > - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts, migrations, and runtime status semantics > - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work > - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls, and more predictable recurring execution behavior ## What Changed - Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and Codex transient failure recovery handling. - Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and activity/dashboard bounds. - Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue workspace runtime management. - Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and `0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`. - Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared types synchronized. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server` ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch, which are central execution paths. - Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields. - Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed. > 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 runtime, shell/git tool use enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip heartbeat environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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 |
||
|
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> |
