25 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	144083fd48	fix(interactions): wait for workspace readiness before enabling approval (#14893) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and review their work. > - Task confirmations must use the work produced by their source run. > - The server blocks approval while that run still needs to sync its workspace. > - The card currently enables approval before that check can pass, so an ordinary click produces an error. > - This PR exposes the existing readiness check and shows “Preparing approval…” with acceptance disabled. > - The card refreshes itself and enables approval when the source workspace settles. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A confirmation appears while its source run is still preparing or syncing its workspace. Its enabled approval button returns a conflict asking the user to retry after syncing. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run an agent in an isolated workspace. 2. Have it create a confirmation before workspace finalization completes. 3. Click the approval button while the source workspace is still active. **Expected behavior** The card explains that approval is preparing. Acceptance becomes available automatically when the same server check permits it. Reject and revise remain available. Related work: #10770 handles this conflict after a click with retries. #9520 proposes changing the workspace acceptance barrier. This PR preserves that barrier and exposes readiness before the click, including in compact task chat. It preserves the terminal-finalize behavior from #10099. ## What Changed - Add an optional, read-only `acceptanceBlocker` to interaction responses. Readiness uses the existing source-run workspace predicate, with one check per pending source run. - Disable acceptance and show a shared preparation notice in classic and compact confirmation cards, including checkbox and secret-binding confirmations. - Refresh preparing cards every two seconds in task detail, attention, pipelines, and Skill Studio. Restore each surface's previous polling cadence when preparation clears. - Preserve live tool reviews, questions, rejection, revision, and the server acceptance barrier. No automatic acceptance occurs. - Document the preparation state and cover readiness, terminal sync outcomes, unrelated runs, historical cards, and automatic refresh. ## Verification - Focused service, card, query-refresh, and helper tests: 217 passed across five files. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `pnpm test:run`: incomplete locally. Stopped after about 17 minutes once it reproduced seven existing environment failures: two Slack tests and two email tests lack ancestor-directory skill fixtures; three company-skills tests fail on macOS runtime-cache staging permissions. These are outside this change. The full CI test matrix passed. - CI: all 53 checks passed; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. The branch has no conflicts with `master`. - Greptile: 5/5 on commit `8a6f216d8d`, with no review threads. - Reviewed added lines and new files for credentials, private URLs, internal task references, user paths, and run artifacts. None found. ## Risks - No database migration or change to acceptance authorization. Readiness is advisory; the server still enforces its existing gate at acceptance. - An open preparing card adds a read every two seconds. This cadence stops after readiness clears; historical cards add no workspace checks. - Failed or stale finalization retains the existing server behavior. This PR does not change recovery policy. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, tool execution, and automated tests. No sub-agents. ## 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 (217 focused tests; full local-suite limitations are recorded 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>	2026-10-02 13:08:25 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	e200104727	feat: review connection actions from tasks (#13063) ... Bring governed connection reviews into task history and composer approvals. Share resolution with Connections, add scoped remembered permissions, and resume agents through durable outcome receipts. Keep cards compact, collapse raw results, isolate untrusted provider output, bound continuation payloads, and reconcile missed live events. Add Storybook coverage, browser journeys, and service regression tests. Verification: all PR CI gates passed, Greptile 5/5, security scans passed, five connection-review browser journeys passed, and real native Codex approval/continuation was verified against the local MCP fixture. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-08 19:37:13 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e095b84dab	feat(connections): connect services from native task feeds (#13058) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents use connections to reach external services. > - A fresh native task can have no service tools installed. > - The agent needs a way to discover services and ask the responsible person for access. > - This pull request brings the existing connection-intent flow into native task execution. > - The person can connect from the task, and the agent can continue with updated tools. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Native runner tool authority, connection intents, task interactions, and shared connection setup. **Problem or motivation** A task that needs an unconnected service cannot finish its work. Leaving the task to configure access also loses context. A resolved request must survive a restart and resume the correct agent once. **Proposed solution** Expose connection discovery and access requests as server-owned native tools. Render a durable task card and use the shared setup dialog. Persist outcome delivery and start a fresh provider session after access is ready. **Alternatives considered** Sending the person to the Connections page adds navigation and does not solve continuation. Polling for authorization consumes runs and can create duplicate requests. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing connection-intent runtime and setup experience. It reuses the shared access model and the native runner. Related: #12345, #12347. The service-slug fix in #12906 is related but separate. Companion evaluation PR: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/21. ## What Changed - Expose `connections_search` and `connection_request` with server-bound company, task, agent, and responsible user. Preserve the legacy entry points. - Discover catalog services and authorized custom connections. Check installation, identity, health, and executable permissions before reporting ready. - Keep pending cards through ordinary messages. Reuse requests and retire stale ownership. Put Connect at the right of Not now. - Reuse the shared setup flow in a task dialog. Keep access additive and default to the requesting agent. Recover from cancelled or blocked OAuth windows with a new-tab fallback. - Persist outcome delivery with an idempotent wake key. Resume in a fresh session and recheck ownership before dispatch. - Add native browser fixtures, offline Storybook states, server contracts, and evaluation fixtures. Update guidance and documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm build`: passed after replaying the change on current master. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook`: passed. - New continuation-policy regression cases: 16 passed. - Docker-backed PostgreSQL regressions passed for requester-only OAuth access, assignment-only expiry, terminal expiry, and credential-free setup metadata. - Shared setup and task-card UI tests: 121 passed, including configured MCP reconnect URL recovery and preserving user edits across refetch. - Storybook browser checks: all 119 passed on the latest reconnect fix. - `pnpm test:run`: 4,734 tests passed in the first server group, but embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and resulting cleanup errors prevented a complete local pass. All Linux CI lanes passed on the latest reviewed commit. One external-object route test returned an unexplained 500 on the first run; it passed twice locally and the failed shard passed on retry without code changes. - Earlier feature-checkout evidence: three deterministic native browser journeys passed, including restart delivery and an actual fixture tool result. Legacy scripted coverage also passed. All 59 added stories were inspected in light and dark themes. - Live Notion testing recorded successful provider reads. The manual test used a local-trusted instance. It does not prove authenticated/cloud deployment or every provider journey. - Native browser rerun reached the embedded PostgreSQL startup limit before bootstrap, so the latest checkout’s full native browser journey remains unverified. Both OAuth page/task regression cases passed against isolated Docker-backed PostgreSQL 17. They verify no premature task access, requester-only completion, additive retries, and reconnect preservation. - Applied both new migrations twice to isolated PostgreSQL 17. Foreign keys remained intact, duplicate active delivery keys were rejected, and failed delivery records did not block retries. Reviewer path: start a fresh test drive, enable the native runner, use an agent that can perform work directly, and ask it to summarize a Notion page. Connect from the card, then verify the resumed provider call and source-linked answer. The default test-drive CEO is instructed to delegate, so it can introduce an unrelated hiring step. ## Risks - Two additive migrations create durable deliveries and a partial unique wake index. They are idempotent. The wake index can require a maintenance window on large tables because migrations run in a transaction. - OAuth and continuation cross asynchronous boundaries. Tests cover ownership changes, retries, additive access, and restart delivery; live provider behavior still varies. - The latest requester-scope fix has not yet been exercised through live OAuth. GitHub, API-key, authenticated-user, and all recovery journeys are not claimed as verified. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6-based Codex assisted with implementation, tests, and review using tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact model version, context window, or reasoning setting. Live evaluation used `gpt-5.6-luna`; manual native testing used `gpt-5.6-sol`. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used and disclosed unavailable runtime details - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this extends existing connection work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [ ] I have run all required 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 risks - [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>	2026-09-08 15:55:26 -05:00
Dotta	bc9ba7cd26	feat(runner): project native runs into task threads (#12321) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The experimental Paperclip Runner can execute a guarded Codex run and persist provider-neutral events. > - The task page still reads direct-adapter transcripts and cannot present those native events. > - Structured runner questions must also use the existing task interaction experience. > - Runtime selection must use the persisted run mode, not an adapter name or a current feature flag. > - This pull request projects native events and questions into the existing task thread. > - Direct adapters keep their existing transcript, composer, interaction, and finalization paths. > - The benefit is a complete native Codex task thread without a behavior change for existing adapters. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12202. This pull request replaces that stale implementation on current `master`. **What happened?** The server persists native runner events and structured input requests. The task page only consumes direct-adapter transcripts. A native run therefore cannot present a complete transcript, usage, or question flow through the normal task experience. **Expected behavior** Native runs project persisted provider-neutral events into the existing task thread. Native structured questions use the existing interaction card. Direct adapters retain their current behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the experimental runner. 2. Start a native Codex run that emits progress, usage, a structured question, and a final reply. 3. Open the task page. 4. Observe that the direct-adapter transcript path cannot project the native event records. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `67f9867bc`. ## What Changed - Add the canonical structured-question validator and shared contract exports. - Materialize native input requests as existing task interactions. - Validate native answers and deliver them through the durable question-response receipt. - Resume the original PRP request with an idempotent `request.resolve` command. - Project native messages, tool activity, cumulative usage, and final replies into the existing transcript model. - Propagate persisted `runtimeMode` to the task page and select native handling only for `runtimeMode: "native"`. - Expire pending interactions through the shared issue service on every terminal transition, including decisions, stalled reviews, tree control, and pipeline retry cleanup. - Queue native run cancellation while a transaction is open and execute it only after the owning transaction commits. - Keep nonterminal and non-runner issue paths on their existing service call shapes and behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed, including the Rust runner release build and protocol/catalog drift gates. - Focused native-thread and lifecycle suites — 18 files and 481 tests passed during review. - `issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 19/19 passed after the final transactional-queue expectation update. - `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — 87/87 passed in the final isolated compatibility rerun. - GitHub Actions — policy, build, canary, typecheck/release registry, 5 serialized server shards, 8 general-test shards, 3 browser shards, and both aggregate gates passed on `7793f3193`. - Security — Snyk, Socket Project Report, Socket PR Alerts, and Superagent passed. - Greptile — 5/5 on `7793f3193`; all actionable review threads resolved. - `git diff --check` — passed. - Diff against `master`: 44 files. ## Compatibility Boundary - Native transcript polling only runs when the persisted run reports `runtimeMode: "native"`. - Missing or legacy runtime modes continue through `useLiveRunTranscripts`. - Legacy questions keep the existing optional free-text choice. - Native closed select sets can suppress that legacy fallback. - Terminal cleanup uses the same issue service for native and legacy interactions; only a bound native question schedules a native run cancellation. - Native cancellation happens after transaction commit, so failed or rolled-back writes do not cancel a still-valid run. - The durable delivery service checks the original native request before it considers a continuation run. - This pull request adds no migration, dependency, workflow, manifest, or lockfile change. ## Risks The main risk is routing a direct-adapter task through native handling or changing terminal issue behavior. The implementation selects the native path only from persisted runtime facts, retains the existing nonterminal call shape, and schedules native cancellation only for a validated bound native question after commit. Focused and repository-wide tests cover both paths. Native requests remain bound to the company, issue, run, and agent; answers are validated, durable, and idempotent across reconnects. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-08-29 19:26:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c90d904779	feat(apps): add connection intent setup experience (#12347) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The backend now turns agent requests into durable connection intents. > - Operators need a clear path to inspect, configure, and finish those requests. > - The experience must preserve identity, agent access, and interrupted setup state. > - This pull request adds the connection intent setup experience across the app UI. > - The benefit is one guided flow from agent request to governed connection. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 9 of 11. It depends on stack 8 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add connection intent cards and setup flow integration. - Add browse, connection, app detail, and sidebar experience updates. - Preserve exact draft identity and access choices across resume and OAuth recovery. - Add focused UI, architecture, policy, and end-to-end coverage. - Keep transient retained-connection lookup failures retryable instead of misclassifying them as missing targets. - Align the dark-mode E2E contract with the intentionally hidden Gateways and Profiles sidebar tabs. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - Focused UI result: 372 tests passed across 20 files. - AppsConnect regression suite: 80/80 passed, including failed connection and application lookups during retained reconnect. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/AppsSidebar.test.tsx` (1 passed) - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - An interrupted OAuth flow can leave a durable draft that needs resume. - The UI resumes the exact draft and keeps its identity and agent access settings. - Retained reconnect retries refetch connections and applications together to avoid mixing partial snapshots. - Gateways and Profiles remain route-accessible but intentionally absent from the sidebar until their existing ship gate is lifted. - The change does not add a database migration. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [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 - [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>	2026-08-29 12:08:35 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b3343dbd64	feat(connections): add self-serve intent runtime (#12345) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need a governed way to request app connections during issue work. > - The catalog now describes the available providers and setup methods. > - A request must become a durable, company-scoped intent before an operator acts on it. > - This pull request adds that intent runtime across server, agent, CLI, and shared contracts. > - The benefit is a safe bridge from agent need to operator-approved setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 7 of 11. It depends on stack 6 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add connection intent types, validation, service logic, and routes. - Add agent runtime tools and CLI support for connection requests. - Add issue-thread interaction support for connection intents. - Add runtime, route, adapter, and contract tests. - Hold the final resolved-continuation row lock through asynchronous adapter preparation until an actual process spawn, so parking or reassignment cannot cross that boundary. - Report Hermes Gateway's first remote run request through the shared dispatch hook so the resolved-intent lock is released at the true dispatch boundary. - Revalidate the addressed user's live non-viewer membership and connection-management authority for every intent mutation, including OAuth completion. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 176 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` (32 passed; includes non-process dispatch lock-release coverage) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts -t "addressed-user mutation"` (1 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t "binds OAuth callback completion to the initiating board session"` (1 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter test -- src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` (23 passed; includes dispatch-hook ordering and exactly-once coverage) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter typecheck` ## Risks - A malformed intent could create an unusable operator request. - Validators and company checks reject invalid or cross-company requests. - The final continuation gate holds the issue row lock through adapter preparation until process or remote dispatch; later operator changes use the normal active-run interruption path. - The change does not add a database migration. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [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 - [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>	2026-08-29 12:08:34 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	20ccf3f476	feat(apps): add connection grants and delegated identities (#12341) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External tools need explicit identity and access boundaries. > - Shared connection credentials cannot represent every user-scoped use case. > - Grants must stay company-scoped and support safe delegation. > - This pull request adds connection grants, identity rules, and their database contract. > - The benefit is durable control over which identity an agent may use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 3 of 11. It depends on stack 2 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add company and user connection grants. - Add delegated identity and membership rules. - Synchronize database, shared, server, and UI contracts. - Register the grant-member replacement route in the OpenAPI surface in the same layer that mounts it. - Add migration 0231 with replay-safe guards and coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (5 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Incorrect grant selection could expose the wrong credential scope. - The service enforces company and subject boundaries before credential use. - Migration 0231 is generated, ordered after 0230, and safe to replay. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked a public issue or pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [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 - [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>	2026-08-29 12:08:33 -05:00
scotttong	4d82f5eaea	copy: unify user-facing "company" wording to "organization" (#12243)	2026-08-27 01:04:55 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	6b8e42168e	Add governed secret alias confirmation cards (#11486) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely. > - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name without an internal secret identifier. > - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not create an issue-thread approval path. > - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the binding was created. > - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards. > - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a clear failure without exposing secret material. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prerequisite: #11482. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database proposal schema, and issue-thread UI. **Problem or motivation** An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name. The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance without executing the binding. **Proposed solution** Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card. Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention resolver. **Alternatives considered** A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry, authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload instead. **Roadmap alignment** This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved user-secret ownership checks. - Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database migration. - Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned `secretProposal` metadata. - Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees. - Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock before execution. - Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment when no binding was created. - Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection, withdrawal, and expiry in both directions. - Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes. - Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed, rejected, withdrawn, and expired states. - Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical justification, expiry, and safe failure code. - Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the stitched server result. - Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests. - Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API and agent behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142 passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential variables unset. - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses idempotent guards. - The accept route performs a governed write after it records card acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as rejected. - Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct approval against card rejection. - The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints. - The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers. - The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover immediate cache replacement and every terminal state. > This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub duplicate search returned no other open related work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools 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>	2026-08-18 09:44:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	10d0555189	fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00
scotttong	815e49bb7c	feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101)	2026-08-11 09:06:21 -07:00
3 people	ded813ad6f	feat(interactions): add governed agent addressees (#10252) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of AI agents. > - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions. > - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another agent for a response. > - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI behavior. > - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering. > - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or audit invariants. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API docs, and UI governance surfaces. ### Problem or motivation Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely. ### Proposed solution Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity, enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback. ### Alternatives considered Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work objects. ### Additional context Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only returned this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and persistence. - Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity, withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior. - Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization, persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill guidance. - Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or is deleted. - Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed resolution paths. - Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention, adapter, CLI, and UI coverage. - Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials and warned instead of passing. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161` completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully. ## Risks - Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent, and migration safety checks pass. - Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries, resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal, expiry, and attention fallback. - Attention routing depends on current agent invokability; reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from retaining visibility or resolution authority. > 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 using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane tools. Context-window metadata was not reported 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 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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 12:51:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f6ab82d490	feat(interactions): add interaction withdrawal and terminal-issue expiry (#10251) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and boards coordinate through issue-thread interactions (request_confirmation, ask_user_questions, suggest_tasks, …) that wait as `pending` cards until someone resolves them > - Two lifecycle gaps existed: an interaction's creator could not take back a card it no longer stands behind, and interactions left `pending` on issues that reached a terminal status lingered forever as live-looking approval requests > - Stale pending cards mislead humans (they look actionable), distort attention/liveness signals, and in the worst case invite acting on a proposal whose issue is already closed or cancelled > - This pull request adds an explicit withdraw route for pending interactions and automatically expires pending interactions when their issue reaches a terminal status (including a catch-up sweep for issues closed before this change) > - The benefit is that interaction cards now faithfully reflect reality: only genuinely actionable requests stay pending, and creators can retract requests that events have overtaken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #5787 Refs #7403 Related prior PRs found while searching for duplicates (all overlap partially; none combine both lifecycle paths or the route-level authorization used here): #6709 and #7312 (creator-withdraw attempts), #8169 (terminal expiry), #8081 and #5137 (generalized cancel/expire endpoints), #6094 (stale confirmation auto-resolve). Related merged context: #9568 (agent cancel for ask_user_questions), #10119 (tolerating legacy `withdrawn_by_creator` result outcomes — the reader side of the outcome this PR writes). ## What Changed - New route `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` that resolves a `pending` interaction to status `withdrawn` with a structured result (`outcome: "withdrawn"`, optional trimmed `reason`), stamps `resolvedBy*`/`resolvedAt`, touches the issue, logs activity, and emits resolved-interaction telemetry - Withdrawal authorization: board users, the interaction's creator agent, or the issue's current assignee agent (assignees additionally pass the standard issue-mutation gate); task-watchdog runs are explicitly rejected, and authorization-boundary plus low-trust control-plane checks apply - Withdrawing an already-resolved interaction returns `409`; unknown/cross-issue/cross-company interaction ids return `404` - New service method `expirePendingInteractionsForTerminalIssue`: when an issue transitions to a terminal status, all of its `pending` interactions are resolved to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"`, guarded by a `status = 'pending'` predicate so concurrent resolutions are not overwritten - The same expiry runs as a catch-up when interactions are listed on an already-terminal issue, so cards stranded by issues closed before this change also get cleaned up; expired request_confirmations are logged with a distinguishing source - Shared package: new `withdrawIssueThreadInteractionSchema` validator, `WithdrawIssueThreadInteraction` type, and `withdrawn` / `issue_closed` result-outcome support for all interaction kinds (kind-aware result shapes for `ask_user_questions` and `request_item_verdicts`) - UI helper `ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.ts` recognizes the new outcomes for card rendering - Docs: bundled skill API reference updated with the withdraw endpoint - Review follow-up: terminal expiry moved from the HTTP route hooks into `issueService.update`'s status-transition block, so direct service callers (tree control, recovery, pipelines, status cards) expire pending cards too; the list-endpoint catch-up remains for issues closed before this change - Review follow-up: withdrawing or issue-close-expiring a `request_confirmation` also settles its linked `tool_action_requests` row (withdraw -> `cancelled`, issue closed -> `expired`), so a parked tool call cannot stay approvable after its card is gone - Review follow-up: interaction cards render dedicated copy for the new outcomes ("Withdrawn" with the reason, "Expired when issue closed") instead of falling through to superseded-by-comment / stale-target variants; withdrawn plan reviews badge as "Withdrawn" rather than "Changes requested" ## Screenshots Card states rendered from a local ux-lab harness with mocked data ([full gallery](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-10251-interaction-withdrawal-cards/)): | Light | Dark | | --- | --- | |  |  | ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — clean tsc - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 22 tests pass, including new coverage for: creator-agent withdraw success, non-creator/non-assignee agent 403, watchdog-run 403, double-withdraw 409, and board-user withdraw - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` — 4 tests pass, including terminal-issue expiry writing `issue_closed` results and leaving already-resolved interactions untouched - `cd ui && pnpm typecheck` — clean - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — includes a new embedded-Postgres test proving a direct `issueService.update` terminal transition expires pending interactions and writes the activity-log entry - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx` — 32 tests, including new coverage for withdrawn / issue-closed confirmation and question cards - `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — matches the pre-existing repo error baseline exactly (no new errors) - Manual: `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/withdraw` with `{"reason":"superseded"}` as the creator agent resolves the card to `withdrawn`; closing an issue with a pending confirmation flips it to `expired` with `outcome: "issue_closed"` ## Risks - Interactions on terminal issues now auto-expire (including retroactively via the list-time catch-up), so consumers that expected to resolve a pending interaction on a closed issue will get `409`; this is the intended semantics and matches how the attention feed already wants to treat dead cards - New result outcomes (`withdrawn`, `issue_closed`) are written to stored results; readers were already made tolerant of these outcome strings in #10119, so mixed-version reads are safe - No schema/migration changes; per-row conditional updates (`status = 'pending'`) avoid clobbering concurrent resolutions - Withdrawal is a new mutation surface, but it is strictly narrower than existing resolve paths (board, creator, or assignee only; watchdog runs blocked) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness); commit authored in a Paperclip-managed engineering session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-27 19:04:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a116713b9a	feat(mcp) [split 6/8]: add Tools and Profiles UI foundation (#9561) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 6/8 and focuses on UI API, shared components, and Tools/Profile surfaces > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: Operators need typed clients and administration surfaces that compile independently before navigation exposes them. - Proposed solution: Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/05-runtime-integration`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: UXDesigner sanity pass on Tools/Profile surfaces; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean - Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 28 files, 183 tests passed ## Risks - Large dead-code UI additions can drift from activation routes; PR 7 supplies the registration layer and top-level parity catches omissions. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. ## UI Evidence QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and verified clean rendering:    --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-14 15:31:12 -05:00
3 people	36ec79c196	feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable 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 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 public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-10 17:09:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cc81eefb60	Make plan-approval continuations durable after failed wakes (#9331) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through issue-thread interactions. > - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume the assignee so approved work continues. > - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in review with no durable retry or visible recovery path. > - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable, recoverable, and visible when resume fails. > - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of silent limbo. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved, because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable retry or recovery path for accepted continuations. ### Expected behavior Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes the assignee on accept. 2. Accept the confirmation. 3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss before agent start or workspace validation failure. 4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a provider-specific API. ### Database mode Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well. ### Access context Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the assignee wake path. ### Relevant logs or output No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed wake and recovery states directly. ### Relevant config No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand enabled. ### Additional context This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction continuation wakes. - Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation wakes are requeued. - Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted confirmation cards. - Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine. - Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an accepted continuation that never resumed. - Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery, visible failure state, and interaction card rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction card tests for the visible resume-failure UI. - GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports 5/5 with no blocking issues. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries. - Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context, and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being retried. - Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new resume-failure field is optional. > 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-enabled terminal workflow. The runtime does not expose an exact 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 - [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>	2026-07-10 08:12:16 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	bded6ac5c7	[codex] Polish operator issue workflow UI (#9091) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI is where operators create issues, inspect issue-thread decisions, write markdown, and move between issue workflow surfaces. > - A broad recovered branch mixed these operator workflow polish fixes with unrelated backend, pipeline, plugin, eval, and work-product changes. > - Reviewers need the operator UI workflow fixes in a small PR that can be understood without pulling in the rest of that recovery branch. > - This pull request extracts only the issue workflow UI slice: interaction cards, markdown editing fallback behavior, create-issue work mode shortcuts, file-viewer URL handling, and issue navigation scroll behavior. > - The benefit is a lower-risk review path for operator workflow fixes while keeping unrelated execution-workspace and server work out of this PR. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8866, the closed broad source PR that this focused slice was extracted from. - Related: #8228 is an open UI polish PR, but its file list does not overlap this branch. - Related: #4090 is older merged operator workflow polish context. No public GitHub issue exists for this exact extracted slice. The problem is that several small operator issue-workflow fixes were bundled inside a broad recovery branch, making them hard to review and ship independently. ## What Changed - Removed interaction continuation wake-policy labels from issue-thread interaction card headers and updated the card test/story copy accordingly. - Added a markdown editor error boundary so rich editor render crashes fall back to a raw textarea instead of breaking the compose surface. - Made the create-issue work-mode shortcut accept ctrl-period and iOS hardware-keyboard command-period-as-Escape behavior without dismissing the dialog. - Fixed file-viewer URL navigation to compare against the live browser search string when router state is stale. - Restored scroll reset when navigating from an issue detail route back to the issue index, while preserving browser-history restoration behavior. ## Screenshots Before removing the continuation wake-policy badge from interaction card headers:  After removing the wake-policy badge:  ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts ui/src/lib/navigation-scroll.test.ts` — 5 files, 102 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks Low risk. The PR is limited to UI workflow components/helpers and their tests. Main behavioral risks are keyboard shortcut edge cases across browsers and fallback editor rendering, both covered by focused tests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5` family; exact served variant and context window are not exposed in this runtime), with terminal, Git, GitHub, and test execution tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-06 16:34:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ac9a883f8b	Expire ask-user questions superseded by comments (#8799) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue-thread interactions are how agents ask board users for typed decisions and structured answers inside an issue thread > - Confirmation interactions already become stale when a later board/user comment supersedes the pending decision > - Question interactions had the same workflow risk, because a board/user could answer in a comment while the old question card stayed pending > - This pull request extends the supersede-by-comment lifecycle to ask-user-question interactions and makes that status visible in the UI > - The benefit is agents get a clear continuation signal and users do not see stale question forms after the discussion has moved on ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found. Bug report: **Pre-submission checklist** - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip, or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in an agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. **What happened?** Pending `ask_user_questions` interactions could remain open after a later board/user comment changed or answered the request in-thread. That left a stale form visible and kept the interaction in a pending state even though the discussion had moved on. **Expected behavior** Question interactions should follow the same default supersede-on-comment behavior as confirmation interactions, with an explicit expired result that points to the superseding comment. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction on an issue. 2. Add a board/user comment created at or after that interaction. 3. Observe that before this change, the question interaction stayed pending instead of expiring as superseded by the comment. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this PR. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server or local dev. The bug is in shared issue-thread interaction lifecycle handling. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core issue-thread interaction bug. **Database mode** Applies to the normal Paperclip database-backed interaction lifecycle. **Access context** Board user comments supersede agent-created questions. **Relevant logs or output** No crash output. The stale pending interaction was visible in the issue thread state. **Relevant config (if applicable)** None. **Additional context** Confirmation-style interactions already supported this stale-by-comment behavior. This PR brings question interactions into the same lifecycle model. **Privacy checklist** - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and included no private instance links, local ticket ids, secrets, logs, or screenshots. ## What Changed - Added `supersedeOnUserComment` support to `ask_user_questions` payloads, defaulting it to `true` during interaction creation. - Expire pending question interactions when a later board/user comment supersedes them, including a result with `expirationReason: "superseded_by_comment"` and the superseding `commentId`. - Updated interaction summaries and cards so expired question requests show a clear amber state with a jump link to the comment and correct singular/plural copy. - Updated agent onboarding guidance to describe the new default and how to opt out. - Added shared, server, and UI test coverage for the new lifecycle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 5 files, 73 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --reporter=dot && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final type-safety cleanup. - Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or database migrations. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: `ask_user_questions` now defaults to expiring after later board/user comments. Existing callers that need questions to stay open through discussion can set `supersedeOnUserComment: false`. - Expired question interactions store an empty `answers` array, so downstream consumers should treat the explicit `expirationReason` as the meaningful outcome. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder runtime, with terminal and repository tool use. Exact context window is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-01 09:28:43 -07:00
3 people	6f9801a46b	feat(ui): NUX rework behind enableConferenceRoomChat experimental flag — capsule onboarding, conference-room chat, unified composer (#8000) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The first-run experience (onboarding wizard) and the chat surfaces (conference-room/board chat, task threads, composers) are the product's front door — they decide whether a new operator understands "hire agents, give them work, review results" in the first five minutes > - Today those surfaces feel ticket-y and form-like: the wizard is a static multi-step form that ends in an anticlimactic "Launch" screen, the task composer and board chat behave differently from each other, and agent-feed issue quicklooks misbehave (multiple flyouts open at once, cards jump on hover) > - We wanted to iterate toward a conversational, team-centric NUX — but without risking the workflows of everyone already running Paperclip > - This PR reworks the NUX behind a new default-OFF `enableConferenceRoomChat` experimental flag: a capsule-motif onboarding wizard that builds your team as you answer, a conference-room chat surface, one shared ChatComposer across surfaces, brand-accurate status chips, and feed-quicklook fixes — with the pre-existing UI fork-and-frozen as `*Classic` components that flag-OFF users keep > - The benefit is a complete, testable modern NUX that anyone can opt into from Settings → Experimental, with zero default behavior change and a clean path to either graduate or drop the experiment ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No pre-existing GitHub issue — feature description per `feature_request.yml`: - **Problem / motivation:** Paperclip's onboarding wizard and chat surfaces grew up as separate ticket-centric forms. New users get a form-filling experience rather than the feeling of standing up a team; the board chat and task threads use different composers with different affordances; the agent feed's issue quicklook can stack multiple popovers and shifts cards on hover. - **Proposed solution:** A coherent NUX experiment behind one experimental flag (`enableConferenceRoomChat`, Settings → Experimental, default OFF): capsule onboarding wizard with an evolving team capsule, conference-room chat, unified `ChatComposer`, team-centric copy, brand status chips, quicklook single-flight fix. Flag-OFF users get the exact pre-experiment UI via frozen `*Classic` forks, verified by an on/off parity test matrix. - **Alternatives considered:** (a) incremental unflagged restyling — rejected: the changes interlock across surfaces and would drip risk into every release; (b) a separate app shell / route for the new NUX — rejected: too much divergence, the flag + classic-fork pattern keeps the diff reviewable and reversible. - **Roadmap alignment:** `ROADMAP.md` lists **CEO Chat** ("a lighter-weight way to talk to leadership agents... should still resolve to real work objects"). This experiment is groundwork in that direction (conference-room chat resolves to issues/tasks via the same composer used in task threads) and does not change the core task-and-comments model. Related PRs found in the dedup search (same area, none duplicate this work — they target the classic wizard, which this PR intentionally leaves intact and mergeable): - #5385 — Coach-driven onboarding: conversational entry + agent-companies package import - #5378 — Onboarding wizard: reusable adapter picker + probe card - #6636 — ui(onboarding): friendly error surface + retry for the wizard - #7005 — fix(onboarding): explicitly await first-task wake - #2616 — fix: restore workspace directory config in onboarding wizard ## What Changed - **Experimental flag plumbing** — `enableConferenceRoomChat` in shared types/validators, server instance-settings service + API, Settings → Experimental card with explicit enable/disable copy - **Onboarding wizard** — classic wizard forked and frozen (`OnboardingWizardClassic`); flag-ON variant is a 5-step capsule wizard with a persistent evolving `AgentCapsule` (gradient/glow motif), team-centric reframed copy, and a typing-dots intro (hardened with fake-timer tests) - **Conference-room chat** — flag-ON board-chat surface with agent bubble name/icon headers and copy/vote/timestamp action rows (`AgentBubbleActionRow`) - **Unified composer** — shared `ChatComposer` adopted across surfaces; translucent surface + scroll-mask removal; "Agent mode"/"Plan mode" relabels; no-assignee confirmation `AlertDialog` (new `ui/alert-dialog.tsx` primitive); `@task` reference picker + linkification in mentions - **Agent feed** — single-flight issue-quicklook store (one popover at a time), flyouts open to the left, removed hover translate-y jitter - **Status chips** — brand-accurate task status chips behind the flag (light/dark, 1px borders per paperclip.ing/brand) - **Tests** — flag on/off parity matrix across IssueDetail, NewIssueDialog, Sidebar, wizard, gate components; component tests for all new pieces - **Merge with `master`** — one conflict in `ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`, resolved by keeping master's new `AssigneeChip`/`HandoffWakeRow`/`RunStatusBadge` components inside the flag-gated metadata-row chrome (details in commit `21a5642a`); post-merge fixes: vitest 4 mock typing in `MarkdownEditor.test.tsx`, flag hook made safe for provider-less mounts (master's new isolated component tests) - **Branch hygiene** — internal design wireframes/mockups stripped before the PR (they live in the Paperclip issue threads) - No user-facing documentation changes required: the flag is intentionally experimental and self-described in the Settings card; no existing docs reference the affected surfaces ## Verification - `pnpm run typecheck` — green across the workspace (ui, server, shared, plugins) - Full UI suite (`vitest run` in `ui/`, clean worktree at this HEAD): **1593/1595 passing, 223/224 files** — the 2 remaining failures are in `src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx` and **fail identically on pristine `origin/master`** (pre-existing upstream, unrelated to this branch) - Full server suite (`vitest run` in `server/`, same clean worktree): results in PR checks; flag plumbing covered by instance-settings tests - Targeted post-merge resolution check: `IssueChatThread`, `IssueChatThreadSystemNotice`, `IssueDetail`, `Sidebar`, `ConferenceRoomChatGate`, `OnboardingWizardVariant`, `NewIssueDialog`, `InstanceExperimentalSettings`, `MarkdownEditor` — 172/172 passing - Manual walkthrough: flag OFF (default) → onboarding wizard, task thread, board chat, composer all render the classic UI; flag ON via Settings → Experimental → capsule wizard, conference-room chat, unified composer, status chips active - Screenshots: see below **Flag on/off screenshots** (committed on this branch under `screenshots/PR-8000-*`): | Surface | Flag OFF (classic, default) | Flag ON (experimental) | | --- | --- | --- | | Settings → Experimental |  |  | | Task thread |  |  | | Home / nav |  |  | | Conference Room (flag-ON only surface) | — |  | Capsule onboarding wizard walkthrough screenshots (flag ON) are attached to the Paperclip design/implementation threads; the wizard requires a fresh instance so it is captured via the e2e harness (`tests/e2e/nux-phase4-screenshots.spec.ts`). ## Risks - **Large surface, but gated:** all new behavior sits behind `enableConferenceRoomChat`, default OFF; flag-OFF rendering is locked by frozen `*Classic` forks plus an on/off parity test suite - **Classic forks are frozen at the fork point (`e3aada1d`):** master features added to the live thread component after that point (assignee handoff chips, run status badge, composer mention coach) render in the flag-ON path; the flag-OFF task thread keeps the fork-point behavior until the experiment graduates (forks deleted) or is dropped (forks restored as canonical). Called out for reviewer attention. - **Merge-conflict resolution in `IssueChatThread.tsx`** (commit `21a5642a`) deserves reviewer eyes: master's new handoff/run-status components were kept; the base toast-style no-assignee flow remains replaced by the AlertDialog flow introduced on this branch - Schema/server changes are additive (one optional boolean instance setting); no migrations of existing data ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) via Claude Code running in the Paperclip agent harness (agent: ClaudeCoder) - Branch implemented across multiple agent sessions on Claude Opus-class models with extended thinking + tool use (file edits, shell, Playwright screenshots); merge/PR session model ID as reported by the harness: `claude-fable-5` (Claude Code CLI) - All code was agent-authored and board-reviewed through Paperclip issue threads (plans, wireframes, confirmations) before merging ## 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 (none required — experimental flag, self-documenting Settings card; noted above) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (run 3 on `8af3041a`: all 16 gates SUCCESS, incl. e2e and all 4 serialized-suite shards) - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (re-review verdict: Confidence 5/5, “Safe to merge”; all 4 round-1 findings fixed + confirmed resolved; both summary notes addressed in `8af3041a`) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-11 16:32:55 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	bb880d9948	[codex] Polish issue interaction selectors (#7668) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue-thread interactions are the board/agent handoff surface for structured decisions and confirmations. > - Accepted checkbox confirmations can include many selected labels, and inline selectors must stay usable across desktop and mobile devices. > - The existing accepted checkbox summary capped labels behind a static `+N more` chip, so operators could not inspect the hidden selections from the card. > - The inline selector also skipped search focus on coarse pointers, which made mobile selection slower and less predictable. > - This pull request makes the hidden checkbox selections expandable and restores search focus when the selector opens. > - The benefit is a more inspectable, faster interaction UI without changing the interaction API contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Internal source work: [PAP-10488](/PAP/issues/PAP-10488), split from [PAP-10495](/PAP/issues/PAP-10495). ### Subsystem affected ui/ - React + Vite board UI ### Problem or motivation Accepted checkbox confirmations hide selected values behind a static count, and inline selector search does not focus on mobile/coarse pointer devices. That makes accepted interaction cards less inspectable and makes mobile selection slower than it needs to be. ### Proposed solution Make hidden accepted checkbox selections expandable/collapsible directly in the interaction card, and focus the inline selector search input whenever the selector opens, including coarse pointer environments. ### Alternatives considered Leaving the static `+N more` chip avoids UI state, but it keeps selected values hidden from operators. Only restoring desktop focus keeps the old mobile/coarse pointer gap, so the focus behavior should be consistent across pointer types. ### Roadmap alignment This is a small board UI polish change for the existing issue interaction surface. It does not add a new core roadmap capability or change the API contract. ## What Changed - Converted the accepted checkbox `+N more` chip into an expandable button with a `Show less` control. - Restored search input focus whenever `InlineEntitySelector` opens, including coarse pointer environments. - Updated focused component tests for the expanded selection summary and mobile/coarse-pointer focus path. - Adjusted the interaction card test harness to use the same `flushSync` act helper style used by nearby focused component tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/InlineEntitySelector.test.tsx` passed in `~paperclipai/paperclip/.paperclip/worktrees/PAP-10495-interaction-selector-polish`. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is limited to UI state and focus behavior in existing components. - Restoring focus on coarse pointers may open a virtual keyboard on mobile, but that is intentional for the faster search workflow requested by this branch. > 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, with local repository inspection, shell execution, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Runtime context window was not exposed by the environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>	2026-06-06 16:19:31 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4d5322c821	[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > 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, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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>	2026-06-06 08:48:43 -05:00
Dotta	96d4079324	Render other answers as text links	2026-06-05 03:28:07 +00:00
Dotta	4afe5ab7cb	Add other answers to issue questions	2026-06-05 03:28:07 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	c4269bab59	Add workflow interaction cancellation and issue cost summaries (#4862) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run history, and cost telemetry. > - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be visible at the issue level. > - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish. > - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a reviewable slice. > - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions and summarizing issue-tree costs. > - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave activity with run ledger rows. ## What Changed - Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result shape for question interactions. - Added the board-only `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service implementation. - Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and `/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route. - Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost summaries. - Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run interleaving. - Added focused server and component regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout. ## Risks - Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`. - Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be watched on unusually large issue trees. - Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium reasoning effort. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-30 13:57:25 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a957394420	[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00