mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-29 21:07:40 +01:00
ee67d2ece9bda157dfad9bdf25175b1d004ed341
17
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Andrii Furmanets
|
61ecc93033 |
fix: count a recovered shutdown interrupt as recovered (#15031)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The dashboard success rate counts recovered runs as successes
> - A run is recovered when a later retry in its chain succeeds
> - The summary puts `failed` and `timed_out` into recovered
> - An `interrupted` run, including `server_shutdown_interrupted`, falls
through to other
> - The success rate stays down after the retry succeeds
> - This pull request counts a recovered interrupt in recovered, not in
other
> - The benefit is that a shutdown that was retried successfully no
longer looks like a failed day
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No open issue covers this. I searched open and closed issues and pull
requests.
**What happened?**
`dashboardService.summary` puts only `failed` and `timed_out` into the
recovered bucket. An `interrupted` run, including
`server_shutdown_interrupted`, goes to other even when `recovered` is
set. The success rate uses `succeeded + recovered`, so the day stays low
after a successful retry.
**Expected behavior**
When the recovered flag is set, count `interrupted` in recovered. An
interrupt with no successful retry stays in other.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Record an interrupted run with error code
`server_shutdown_interrupted`.
2. Record a succeeded retry of that run.
3. Open the dashboard summary for that day.
4. Observe that the interrupt is in other and the success rate does not
include it.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
799e4d556f |
fix: make accounting durable and synchronize cost reporting (#14997)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
17fa718675 |
Retry transient disconnects in scoped read queries (#15248)
Apply existing bounded transient-disconnect retries to audited dashboard, heartbeat-list, and base issue reads. Rebuild each query per attempt and preserve authorization, company scope, enrichment, and final error propagation. Validation: exact-head Greptile 5/5, passing CI, no unresolved review threads, and a clean merge. Detailed verification and limitations are recorded in the pull request. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4a999089ef |
Retry transient failures in dashboard reads (#14873)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip shows company activity in the dashboard. > - The dashboard reads company, task, approval, and cost data. > - A pooled database connection can close during one of these reads. > - The driver must reject ambiguous statements because writes may have committed. > - These four dashboard queries are known to be read-only. > - This change retries only the failed read and preserves completed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14773, which correctly removed automatic replay of ambiguous database statements. Searched existing database and dashboard PRs. Related #8780 changes pool recycling and logging; #13925 adds dashboard consistency coverage. Neither provides these per-query retries. **What happened?** A dashboard request returns a server error when its company lookup, task count, approval count, or monthly spend query loses its database connection. Drizzle wraps the driver's connection error in `cause`. **Expected behavior** A transient connection failure gets a bounded retry of the specific read. Completed reads and budget processing are not replayed. Persistent outages and non-connection errors still fail the request. **Steps to reproduce** Inject a typed `CONNECTION_CLOSED` error into one of these reads. Then allow the next query to succeed. Before this change, the dashboard request fails immediately. ## What Changed - Apply independent retries to the company lookup, task counts, pending approval count, and monthly spend query. Each callback rebuilds its own query with the same company scope. - Extract the existing authentication retry helper as `retryIdempotentDatabaseOperation`. Preserve authentication behavior and its existing exports. - Retain the existing limit of three total attempts with 50 ms and 100 ms pauses. Match typed connection codes through the error cause chain. - Test later-read failures, unchanged query parameters, retry exhaustion, missing companies, and errors that must not retry. Document the boundary. ## Verification - Final focused dashboard, authentication, and real database wire suites: 38 tests passed. Six initial recovery regressions failed before the implementation. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed on the final source. - Independent review: no actionable findings. The reviewer separately passed all 38 focused tests and checked the code allowlist, attempt bounds, pauses, and final error identity. - `pnpm test:run`: the general-server group completed with 14,738 tests passed, 13 failed, and 87 skipped. All 13 failures match the previously reproduced clean-base macOS skill-cache failures. The two test files and their implementations are unchanged from that baseline. The runner exited after this group, so the remaining local workspace and serialized groups did not run. All corresponding Linux CI groups passed on this commit. - `pnpm build`: passed on the final source. - Full CI: 53 successful checks and 2 skips on `6a113529c0`. Greptile: 5/5 on that commit, with no review threads or remaining findings. - Merge compatibility with master `f2e0f19630`, including #14866: no conflicts. The five reviewed files are unchanged in the resulting merge tree. ## Risks A persistent outage adds at most two retries per covered query. Each connection attempt retains the configured driver timeout. The change does not repair the underlying network or database failure. Agent counts, run-activity queries, and the budget workflow stay outside these retry boundaries. General database statements and disconnected transactions are not replayed. There is no schema or authorization change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific serving model identifier or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (38 focused tests; the full local run has the baseline limitation documented above) - [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
|
ab15aff390 |
feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. **Problem or motivation** Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. **Proposed solution** Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. **Roadmap alignment** This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
52b8741b8e |
perf(server): cut steady-state DB hot paths in dashboard, attention, and productivity sweeps (#10992)
<!-- ASD-STE100 --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server keeps fleet health with periodic sweeps and shows a dashboard with run activity > - The Paperclip instance became slow again after the first round of recovery-sweep indexes landed > - Live profiling found four steady-state hot paths that read much more data than they use > - This pull request bounds the dashboard recursion, adds the missing taskKey index, and narrows two wide reads > - The benefit is a large drop in constant database load and a responsive server ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Describe the bug** The server becomes slow while agents work. Live query sampling shows four hot paths: 1. The dashboard run-activity recursive CTE reads every run a company ever had on each call. One call takes 2.85 seconds. The UI calls it after almost every fleet event through the dashboard and sidebar-badges routes. 2. The productivity-review sweep runs each 30 seconds. Its run-scope filter is `issueId OR taskId OR taskKey` on the run context JSONB. No index exists for `taskKey`. The planner must detoast every run snapshot for the agent. One query takes 444 ms and the sweep makes one for each of ~152 candidate issues. 3. The attention failed-run section selects the full `context_snapshot` for every run newer than the oldest exhausted run. That fetch moves 29 MB for each feed build. 4. The retention sweep pages the attention feed with a cursor. Each page makes a full feed rebuild. **Expected behavior** Periodic sweeps and dashboard queries read only the data they use, and use indexes. **Actual behavior** The database stays saturated. Users see a slow server. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/dashboard.ts`: bound both arms of the `recovered_runs` recursive CTE to the chart window. A retry is always newer than the run it retries, so the bound cannot change visible chart data. Live time went from 2,852 ms to 54 ms. - `packages/db/src/migrations/0210_heartbeat_context_taskkey_index.sql`: add the `taskKey` expression index that completes the issueId/taskId/taskKey trio. With all three, the planner uses a BitmapOr. Live time for the productivity run-scope query went from 444 ms to 1.9 ms. - `packages/db/src/schema/heartbeat_runs.ts`: mirror the new index in the Drizzle schema. - `server/src/services/productivity-review.ts`: select only the seven run fields the evidence code reads. Before, the query pulled full rows with `result_json` (up to 43 kB per row, 100 rows per issue). - `server/src/services/attention.ts`: project `issueId`/`taskId` text fields instead of the full `context_snapshot` in the failed-run newer-runs query (29 MB per feed build before). - `server/src/index.ts`: the retention sweep now builds the attention feed once per company with `all: true` instead of one full rebuild per cursor page. - `packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`: cover the new index and re-run migration 0210 statements to prove idempotency. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` (includes migration numbering and safety checks) — pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — pass. - `npx vitest run packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` — pass (embedded Postgres, full migration chain, planner assertions, idempotent re-run of 0209 and 0210). - `npx vitest run` on attention, dashboard, productivity-review, decision-retention, issue-blocker-attention, and issue-review-attention test files — 72/72 pass. - Live EXPLAIN ANALYZE before/after numbers are in the What Changed list. ## Risks - Migration 0210 builds one btree index without CONCURRENTLY inside the transactional migration runner. The table is not in the large-table bucket. The 0209 twin built in seconds on a 100k-row live table. - The CTE bound excludes retry ancestors that are older than the chart window. Those rows are not visible to the chart query, so chart output does not change. - The attention projection changes JSONB scalar handling in one edge case: a non-string `issueId`/`taskId` value now casts to text instead of reading as absent. These keys are always strings in practice. - The retention sweep now holds one full feed in memory per company. The cursor loop already accumulated all pages into one array, so peak memory is unchanged. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, Mythos-class tier, extended thinking + tool use) via Paperclip agent runtime. - [x] I searched existing PRs and issues and this change is not a duplicate. Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
b13eb5b2b5 |
Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > 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 shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
555391fed7 |
fix: run restart recovery, workspace self-heal, quota-aware retries, failed-run metrics (#9183)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents run in heartbeat runs orchestrated by the server; run
lifecycle, retry scheduling, and the dashboard's run-activity metrics
are the subsystems involved
> - A spike in "failed" tasks traced to three causes: server restarts
killing in-flight runs and mislabeling them as failures, deterministic
workspace-validation loops when a worktree's branch diverged, and
provider quota/usage-limit errors being classified as generic transient
failures (putting agents into error state and polluting metrics)
> - Killed-then-recovered runs and quota waits are not product failures,
so both the runtime behavior and the reporting needed to distinguish
them
> - This pull request drains runs gracefully on shutdown with idempotent
restart retries, self-heals workspace branch mismatches, adds a
quota-aware failure class with reset-time retry, separates recovered
restart kills from true failures on the dashboard, and documents restart
hygiene for operators
> - The benefit is fewer spurious failures, automatic recovery instead
of manual repair, and dashboard metrics that reflect real failure rates
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists; describing the bug inline per the
bug-report template:
**What happened?**
In-flight heartbeat runs are marked `failed` when the server restarts,
even though a retry later succeeds. Worktrees whose checked-out branch
diverges from the issue branch fail workspace validation on every
subsequent run with no recovery path. Provider quota/usage-limit
responses are treated as generic transient upstream errors, putting
agents into an error state and retrying before the quota window resets.
The dashboard counts all of these as true failures, inflating failure
metrics.
**Expected behavior**
Graceful shutdown should interrupt (not fail) running runs and chain
exactly one recovery retry. Workspace validation should repair
recoverable branch mismatches automatically. Quota errors should get
their own error class with the retry scheduled at the provider reset
time and the agent left idle. The dashboard should report recovered
restart kills separately from true failures.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a heartbeat run, then restart the server (SIGTERM) while it is
in flight — the run lands as `failed` with a process-loss error code
even when its retry succeeds
2. Check out an issue whose worktree branch has diverged (e.g. after a
force-moved branch) — every subsequent run fails
`workspace_validation_failed` deterministically
3. Drive an agent into a provider usage-limit window — the run fails as
a generic transient upstream error and the agent enters an error state
instead of idling until the reset time
**Paperclip version or commit**
master (base
|
||
|
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
|
4357a3f352 |
[codex] Harden dashboard run activity charts (#4126)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip gives operators a live view of agent work across dashboards, transcripts, and run activity charts > - Those views consume live run updates and aggregate run activity from backend dashboard data > - Missing or partial run data could make charts brittle, and live transcript updates were heavier than needed > - Operators need dashboard data to stay stable even when recent run payloads are incomplete > - This pull request hardens dashboard run aggregation, guards chart rendering, and lightens live run update handling > - The benefit is a more reliable dashboard during active agent execution ## What Changed - Added dashboard run activity types and backend aggregation coverage. - Guarded activity chart rendering when run data is missing or partial. - Reduced live transcript update churn in active agent and run chat surfaces. - Fixed issue chat avatar alignment in the thread renderer. - Added focused dashboard, activity chart, and live transcript tests. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/dashboard-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ActivityCharts.test.tsx ui/src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.test.tsx` - Result: 8 tests passed, 1 skipped. The embedded Postgres dashboard service test skipped on this host with the existing PGlite/Postgres init warning; UI chart and transcript tests passed. ## Risks - Medium-low risk: aggregation semantics changed, but the UI remains guarded around incomplete data. - The dashboard service test is host-skipped here, so CI should confirm the embedded database 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, tool-enabled local shell and GitHub workflow, exact runtime context window 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 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 documented why targeted component tests are sufficient here - [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
|
5f45712846 |
Sync/master post pap1497 followups 2026 04 15 (#3779)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The board depends on issue, inbox, cost, and company-skill surfaces to stay accurate and fast while agents are actively working > - The PAP-1497 follow-up branch exposed a few rough edges in those surfaces: stale active-run state on completed issues, missing creator filters, oversized issue payload scans, and placeholder issue-route parsing > - Those gaps make the control plane harder to trust because operators can see misleading run state, miss the right subset of work, or pay extra query/render cost on large issue records > - This pull request tightens those follow-ups across server and UI code, and adds regression coverage for the affected paths > - The benefit is a more reliable issue workflow, safer high-volume cost aggregation, and clearer board/operator navigation ## What Changed - Added the `v2026.415.0` release changelog entry. - Fixed stale issue-run presentation after completion and reused the shared issue-path parser so literal route placeholders no longer become issue links. - Added creator filters to the Issues page and Inbox, including persisted filter-state normalization and regression coverage. - Bounded issue detail/list project-mention scans and trimmed large issue-list payload fields to keep issue reads lighter. - Hardened company-skill list projection and cost/finance aggregation so large markdown blobs and large summed values do not leak into list responses or overflow 32-bit casts. - Added targeted server/UI regression tests for company skills, costs/finance, issue mention scanning, creator filters, inbox normalization, and issue reference parsing. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-filters.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts` - `gh pr checks 3779` Current pass set on the PR head: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, `security/snyk (cryppadotta)`, `Greptile Review` ## Risks - Creator filter options are derived from the currently loaded issue/agent data, so very sparse result sets may not surface every historical creator until they appear in the active dataset. - Cost/finance aggregate casts now use `double precision`; that removes the current overflow risk, but future schema changes should keep large-value aggregation behavior under review. - Issue detail mention scanning now skips comment-body scans on the detail route, so any consumer that relied on comment-only project mentions there would need to fetch them separately. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and local code execution in the Paperclip workspace. Exact internal model ID/context-window exposure is not surfaced 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
76e6cc08a6 | feat(costs): add billing, quota, and budget control plane | ||
|
Dotta
|
21d2b075e7 | Fix inbox badge logic and landing view | ||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
f60c1001ec |
refactor: rename packages to @paperclipai and CLI binary to paperclipai
Rename all workspace packages from @paperclip/* to @paperclipai/* and the CLI binary from `paperclip` to `paperclipai` in preparation for npm publishing. Bump CLI version to 0.1.0 and add package metadata (description, keywords, license, repository, files). Update all imports, documentation, user-facing messages, and tests accordingly. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
3b81557f7c |
UI: URL-based tab routing, ActivityRow extraction, and agent detail redesign
Switch agents, issues, and approvals pages from query-param tabs to URL-based routes (/agents/active, /issues/backlog, /approvals/pending). Extract shared ActivityRow component used by both Dashboard and Activity pages. Redesign agent detail overview with LatestRunCard showing live/ recent run status, move permissions toggle to Configuration tab, add budget progress bar, and reorder tabs (Runs before Configuration). Dashboard now counts idle agents as active and shows "Recent Tasks" instead of "Stale Tasks". Remove unused MyIssues page and sidebar link. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
c09037ffad |
Implement agent hiring, approval workflows, config revisions, LLM reflection, and sidebar badges
Agent management: hire endpoint with permission gates and pending_approval status, config revision tracking with rollback, agent duplicate route, permission CRUD. Block pending_approval agents from auth, heartbeat, and assignments. Approvals: revision request/resubmit flow, approval comments CRUD, issue-approval linking, auto-wake agents on approval decisions with context snapshot. Costs: per-agent breakdown, period filtering (month/week/day/all), cost by agent list endpoint. Adapters: agentConfigurationDoc on all adapters, /llms/agent-configuration.txt reflection routes. Inject PAPERCLIP_APPROVAL_ID, PAPERCLIP_APPROVAL_STATUS, PAPERCLIP_LINKED_ISSUE_IDS into adapter environments. Sidebar badges endpoint for pending approval/inbox counts. Dashboard and company settings extensions. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
abadd469bc |
Add server routes for companies, approvals, costs, and dashboard
New routes: companies, approvals, costs, dashboard, authz. New services: companies, approvals, costs, dashboard, heartbeat, activity-log. Add auth middleware and structured error handling. Expand existing agent and issue routes with richer CRUD operations. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |