mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 04:02:18 +01:00
f09d5ba416fa84342bd18174eec700b5dec58d65
13
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
10d0555189 |
fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5
|
8ee1fb21a6 |
feat(ui): badge the review policy when it constrains approval (#10938)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents move their work into review, and a reviewer must then give a verdict on it > - By default anyone with write access can give that verdict, including the agent that did the work > - The server can constrain that default per issue with a `reviewPolicy` column, but no screen showed the value > - A reviewer could therefore press Approve on a review that the server refuses, and get a 403 > - This pull request shows the policy as a badge on the two surfaces where a person gives a verdict > - It also makes an agent verdict read as a verdict in the activity timeline > - The benefit is that a reviewer sees who can approve before they try ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The description below follows `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The issue review flow. A reviewer cannot see the approval constraint on an issue before they give a verdict. **Subsystem affected** Web UI (`ui/`), with one supporting change in the server attention service. **Current behavior** The server stores an optional approval constraint for each issue in a `reviewPolicy` column. The column has three meaningful states: the default (`NULL` or `anyone`), `not_creator`, and `human_only`. The server enforces the constraint when it receives a verdict. No screen shows the value. Two problems follow: 1. A reviewer presses Approve on a review that the server refuses. The server answers 403, and the reason is not visible on the card. 2. An agent that accepts or rejects a review renders in the activity timeline as the raw action id, for example "issue thread interaction accepted". A person who reads the timeline cannot tell that a verdict was given. **Proposed behavior** Show the constraint as a read-only badge on the two surfaces where a person gives a verdict. Show no pixels for the default state, because the default is what every issue already does. Make an agent verdict read as a verdict in the timeline. Only agents set the column today, so this change adds no control to set it. **Reason and benefit** A reviewer sees the constraint before they act. This prevents the 403, and it removes the need to explain the 403 afterwards. The timeline also becomes complete, because it now shows agent verdicts and human verdicts in the same way. **Breaking changes** None. The change adds a badge and changes copy. It adds no column, no endpoint, and no request. **Additional context** The server-side column and the verdict enforcement landed earlier in #10931. This pull request is the user interface for that column. The default state stays unchanged on screen, so the badge appears on a small number of issues. ## What Changed - **A read-only "Approvals" row** in the issue Execution properties. The row renders *only* for a constrained policy: "Anyone else" (`not_creator`) or "Human only" (`human_only`). A `NULL` or `anyone` column adds no row, so the panel is untouched on the overwhelming majority of issues. - **The same badge on the stalled-review card** in `/decisions`, above the three review verbs. A reviewer now sees the constraint before they press Approve. The condition is the same, so the default card is unchanged. - **Agent verdicts read as verdicts in the activity timeline.** An agent that accepted or rejected a review request previously rendered the raw action id ("issue thread interaction accepted"). It now reads "approved the request". A stalled-review decision names the verb that the actor chose. - **A cleared policy reports as "anyone", not "none",** in the field-change receipt. The `reviewPolicy` column is nullable by default, so an absent value is a real setting rather than a missing one. - **All copy comes from `ui/src/lib/review-policy.ts`.** Its badge lookup returns `null` for the default. This makes "no pixels for the default" one enforced decision instead of a condition repeated at each call site. It also keeps the badge, the activity line, and the receipt reading alike. - **The server attention service carries the policy** on the review attention subject, so the stalled-review card can read it. ## Verification Automated tests: - `ui/src/lib/review-policy.test.ts` — the default returns no badge, however the column spells it (`null`, `undefined`, `"anyone"`). An unrecognised policy from the wire shows nothing rather than leaking an enum value. - `ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` — no badge on the default card, and the verbs still render. Suppression of the badge must not suppress the card. - `ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — no Approvals row on the default. The constrained row contains no `button`, so nothing there can PATCH. - `server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts` — the review attention subject carries the policy, and subjects built from narrower selects do not claim one. Run them with: ```sh pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/review-policy.test.ts \ ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx \ ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx \ server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts ``` Manual steps: 1. Open an issue that has no `reviewPolicy`. Confirm that the Execution properties panel shows no Approvals row. 2. Set the column to `not_creator`. Reload the issue. Confirm that the Approvals row reads "Anyone else", and that the row has no control. 3. Move that issue into review. Open `/decisions`. Confirm that the stalled review card shows the same badge above the review verbs. 4. Let an agent approve the review. Confirm that the activity timeline reads "approved the request" and not "issue thread interaction accepted". Screenshots were captured at 1440x900 and 390x844, in light mode and dark mode, with the three policy states side by side. The leftmost column in each capture is the default. It carries no badge and no extra row. ## Risks Low risk. - The change is additive on screen. Every new surface is behind a constrained policy, so the default path renders exactly as before. - The badge is read-only. It has no control and sends no request, and a test asserts that the row contains no `button`. - An unknown policy value from the wire renders nothing. It does not render the raw enum. - No migration, no schema change, and no endpoint change. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context window, with extended thinking and tool use enabled. Used through Claude Code for the implementation, the tests, and this description. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
145d86911b |
Remove decision training UI (#11225)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Decisions desk shows work that needs an operator response. > - It also exposed decision-training actions and a separate training library. > - Paperclip does not plan to use these training surfaces now. > - Keeping inactive controls makes the Decisions workflow harder to scan. > - This pull request removes the training UI and keeps the backend snapshot contract unchanged. > - The benefit is a smaller and clearer Decisions workflow without a data migration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Decisions desk currently exposes training controls, training state, and a separate training library route. **Subsystem affected** `ui/` — React and Vite board UI. **Current behavior** Operators can open a training library from the Decisions toolbar. They can also mark a decision for training from rows and inspect the result in a drawer. **Proposed behavior** Remove the training controls, badges, drawer, library pages, and routes from the Decisions UI. Keep the server APIs and stored training examples unchanged. **Reason and benefit** The product does not plan to use decision training now. Removing the unused surfaces reduces Decisions UI noise and avoids presenting a workflow that operators should not use. **Breaking changes** The `/decisions/training` UI routes are no longer registered. Existing server endpoints and stored decision-training data remain compatible. ## What Changed - Removed decision-training controls and state from Decisions toolbars, rows, queue pages, and shelves. - Removed the training drawer, library, inspector, API client, helpers, query keys, and routes. - Added route and row regressions that assert training UI does not return. - Updated the Decisions Storybook description to match the available controls. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/App.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` — 32 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI partitions passed. The CLI partition had one environment-only failure because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials. The exact CLI file passed all 8 tests when those credential variables were unset. - Searched `ui/src` and `ui/storybook` for the removed training routes, drawer, library, badges, and actions. Only negative regression assertions remain. ## Risks - Low implementation risk. This change deletes UI-only entry points and does not change the database or server APIs. - Saved training-page URLs no longer render a board route. This is the intended behavior. > 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, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with `xhigh` reasoning. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. The agent used repository tools, shell execution, and automated tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
678728f650 |
feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. **Subsystem affected** The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. **Problem or motivation** Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. **Proposed solution** Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. **Alternatives considered** A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, 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 (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8e7f1c03eb |
feat(decisions): improve desk triage and queue parity (#10785)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The decisions desk and queue help operators find work that needs a human decision. > - The current views use different grouping, sorting, and labels. > - Repeated confirmation requests can also leave stale pending actions in the queue. > - Blocked-work attention can point at an intermediate issue instead of the terminal blocker. > - This pull request aligns the server contract and both user interfaces. > - The benefit is a smaller, clearer queue that ranks the decisions with the largest impact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: #10774 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The decisions desk and queue currently use different triage rules. They can show stale repeated confirmations and can rank blocked work by an intermediate issue. **Subsystem affected** This change affects attention aggregation, issue thread interactions, shared attention contracts, and the decisions user interface. **Current behavior** The desk uses a can-wait group that has no clear arrival meaning. The queue has fewer controls than the desk. Repeated pending confirmations remain actionable. Blocked-work rows do not always identify the terminal actionable blocker. **Proposed behavior** Group desk items by arrival date, and reserve Decide now for explicit due dates. Use one toolbar and shelf model on both pages. Supersede older repeated pending confirmations. Aggregate blocked work under the terminal actionable blocker and rank it by impact. **Reason and benefit** Operators get one consistent triage model. The badge reflects new and overdue work. High-impact blockers move to the top. Duplicate confirmation work no longer consumes attention. **Breaking changes** The attention summary field `decideNowCount` changes to `deskBadgeCount`. Consumers must use the new field. Older repeated confirmation interactions can now finish with the `superseded_by_newer_request` outcome. ## What Changed - Supersede older pending confirmation requests for the same issue and record the mutation in activity history. - Resolve blocked-work attention to actionable terminal blockers, suppress live blocker trees, and rank rows by blocked-work impact. - Group the decisions desk into New today and Earlier, and count new plus overdue work in the desk badge. - Share the decision toolbar and shelf components across the desk and queue. - Add queue grouping, sorting, filtering, aging, visible training controls, and clearer recommendation copy. - Add server, shared-contract, and user-interface tests for the new behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` (all server, UI, CLI, shared, and catalog tests passed; one fixed five-second DB timeout flaked under full-suite load) - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` (passed in isolation) - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The attention summary field rename requires synchronized consumers. - Terminal-blocker traversal uses cycle and depth guards. A malformed dependency graph can stop at the last safe node. - The new arrival grouping changes which items contribute to the decisions badge. - Superseding repeated confirmations changes the terminal state of older pending interactions. > 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 with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
0a09e4d975 |
feat(decisions): add desk workflow and retention (#10672)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision > - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work > - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle old work > - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and reversible retention > - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set > - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts. **Problem or motivation** Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that does not delete work. **Proposed solution** Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed, exact item manifest. **Alternatives considered** Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in `ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474. ## What Changed - Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue page, and aging shelf UI. - Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides. - Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent notification outbox. - Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query, and revive actions. - Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep. - Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks. - Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction contract. - Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused tests, and Storybook screens. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408 files and 3,362 tests passed) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup, and UI API tests. - Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal 50-item page boundary. The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The isolated test passes when those two variables are removed. ## Risks - The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation. - Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set version checks prevent stale archive writes. - Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity, version, or the reviewed set changes. - Archive is reversible and does not delete source records. > 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 with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used tool calls, code execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The context-window size 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
9c1f8e7887 |
feat(decisions): add first-class propose mode (#10010)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can currently perform many mutations directly, while humans often need a durable review point before cross-issue or destructive actions occur > - Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone, reusable object for presenting options, collecting typed inputs, detecting stale targets, and auditing effect execution > - The control plane therefore needs a first-class propose mode that separates an agent's recommendation from the governed mutation it may cause > - This pull request adds Decisions v1 across the database, shared contracts, server execution and telemetry, agent skill guidance, and operator UI > - The benefit is that agents can propose multi-option actions safely while operators get explicit provenance, fail-closed execution, per-effect results, and a focused attention workflow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server`, and `ui`. ### Problem or motivation Agents need a governed way to propose consequential work without immediately mutating issues, especially when one choice can affect several issue trees. Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a standalone object with typed options, target snapshots, effect-level authorization, expiration, execution outcomes, and reusable attention-feed presentation. ### Proposed solution Add first-class Decisions that store options and typed inputs, surface open proposals in the operator attention feed, validate target freshness and the origin-agent/operator authorization intersection at decision time, execute a bounded set of auditable effects, and retain terminal outcomes. Decisions v1 supports comments, status and assignee changes, follow-up issue creation, blocker resolution, and issue-tree cancellation, plus bundle grouping, expiration/dismissal, rule-key telemetry, and agent-facing API guidance. ### Alternatives considered - Extend approvals with arbitrary effects: rejected because approvals represent governed yes/no actions and would become an unsafe generic mutation envelope. - Model every proposal as an issue-thread interaction: rejected because decisions can span several targets and need independent lifecycle, telemetry, idempotency, and effect results. - Let agents perform the mutation and ask for retrospective review: rejected because it removes the pre-execution governance boundary this feature is meant to provide. ### Roadmap alignment Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` sections **Agent Reviews and Approvals**, **Enforced Outcomes**, **MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool access)**, and **Activity History** by making explicit decisions, authorization gates, auditable execution, and terminal outcomes first-class control-plane objects. ### Additional context This does not replace existing approvals or issue-thread interactions, and it does not add an unrestricted generic mutation effect. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped decision, option, target, and effect-execution schema plus migration and shared TypeScript/Zod contracts. - Added decision routes and services for propose, list/get, decide, dismiss, cancel, target freshness checks, authorization intersection, idempotency, activity logging, and execution auditing. - Added rule-key decision telemetry and attention-feed metadata so open decisions are visible and measurable. - Added agent skill documentation for proposing and resolving decisions through the Paperclip API. - Added the Decisions UI: API client, query keys, inline attention resolver, bundle grouping, target-issue strip, terminal history, destructive confirmation, and per-effect result rendering. - Added server service coverage, DecisionCard state tests, and Storybook stories for the supported visual states. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,876 passed, 1 skipped, with one unrelated cross-suite cleanup-order failure in `heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`; the failing file passes in isolation (`6/6`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx` — passed (`9/9`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed (`5/5`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — passed (`16/16`). - `pnpm --filter paperclipai exec vitest run src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` — passed (`1/1`). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Rebased-head focused suite — passed (`6` files, `88` tests): shared decision contracts, Decisions service, OpenAPI routes, startup feedback export, DecisionCard states, and attention helpers. The follow-up stale-secondary-target regression passes in the DecisionCard suite (`10/10`). - Rebased-head scoped typechecks — passed for `@paperclipai/shared`, `@paperclipai/db`, `@paperclipai/server`, and `@paperclipai/ui`. - Rebased-head migration numbering and safety checks — passed after renumbering the additive migration to `0193` and making it replay-safe for environments that applied the earlier feature-branch number. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - GitHub PR workflow and Greptile review for `1f9f7645882d05dfdd9c99377c03a1f53f20e8be` — running after the stale-secondary-target fix and PR metadata refresh on July 27, 2026. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` exposes an existing Storybook version mismatch (`storybook` 10.4.6 vs `@storybook/addon-docs` 10.5.0); Decisions stories were validated with the docs addon temporarily disabled and the tracked config remains unchanged. ## Risks - **Migration:** Adds replay-safe migration `0193`; migration numbering and safety checks pass. The new tables and indexes are additive. - **Authorization:** Effect execution intersects the proposing agent's permissions with the responsible user context and fails closed; mistakes could reject a valid proposal rather than silently over-authorize it. - **Concurrency:** Target snapshots and idempotency keys protect against stale or duplicate execution, but reviewers should focus on mixed-effect partial outcomes and retry behavior. - **UI:** Decisions are integrated into the existing attention feed rather than a separate navigation surface, reducing routing risk but increasing the importance of attention-item metadata compatibility. > 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 CLI using `gpt-5.6-sol` for final PR preparation, review fixes, and verification; repository tools and code execution were enabled, and context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context assisted with the Decisions UI implementation, as recorded in the relevant commits. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
TonioandClaude Opus 5
|
492555aaf9 |
design(decisions): flatten decision cards to two task-borrowed types (#10474)
The Decisions queue ran five parallel colour/icon vocabularies chosen by source kind, plus a separate severity badge, so two rows needing the same response could look unrelated and none of it matched the task list. Every row now resolves to one of two kinds, each borrowing the task status it corresponds to: blocking renders as `blocked`, review as `in_review`, both through StatusGlyph and the existing --status-task-icon-* tokens. Source kinds keep their own wording; only colour and icon merge. Card anatomy follows the design mock: no left accent rail, rounded cards 16px apart, a "/"-separated meta breadcrumb, a named See more / See less control, and no separately tinted drawer when expanded. Verb order is fixed across both states. Severity moves from chrome to a toolbar filter. Four defects fixed along the way: - blocked rows reported themselves as their own blocker (server-side) - the task key was missing wherever the row's subject IS the task - the task quicklook stuck open, because closing handed focus back to a trigger that opens on focus - the card ring appeared on click, and only on cards with a toggle Also: the standard task preview is aligned to its trigger's text and scales out of it, the task eyebrow renders its project as a tile, and the first motion tokens land alongside the disclosure and crossfade. Supersedes #9574 and #9575. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
051ae4d102 |
feat: restore decision training library and inspector (#9779)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and supervise governed work. > - Decisions capture high-value operator judgment, and the decision-training foundation merged in #9702 freezes that evidence for later evaluation and learning. > - Operators still need the UI from the closed stacked PR #9718 to intentionally capture examples and inspect the resulting dataset. > - GitHub automatically closed #9718 when its stacked base branch was deleted after #9702 merged, leaving the server foundation on `master` without the corresponding UI. > - This pull request restores the final UI and its still-required supporting API fields directly on current `master`, while excluding the obsolete migration and duplicated server-foundation diffs. > - The benefit is a reviewable replacement PR that preserves the completed decision-training workflow without replaying stale stack history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #9718 - Refs #9702 ## What Changed - Restored the top-level `/training` library and record inspector with search, filters, JSONL export, notes editing, and evidence tabs. - Restored the Decisions-row training affordance and capture drawer, including preview, provenance, deletion, cache refresh, and approval consistency behavior. - Restored the shared types and focused server support needed by the UI without reintroducing decision-training migrations or the already-merged server foundation. - Restored focused UI and attention-service tests from the final #9718 state. - Credit to the authors and reviewers of #9718; this recovery transplants their final reviewed delta after the stacked base deletion. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Training.test.tsx ui/src/components/DecisionTrainingDrawer.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 5 files, 48 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3 tests passed; confirms exact route/OpenAPI parity for the restored preview endpoint. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — the restored files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports five pre-existing false positives where comments reference GitHub issue `#9627` as if it were a color literal. ## Risks - Low migration risk: this PR contains no database migrations and is based directly on current `master`. - The main behavioral risk is cache invalidation across Decisions and Training views; focused tests cover capture, update, deletion, row state, and approval refresh behavior. - The token-gate baseline remains red on unrelated `#9627` comment references; this PR does not modify those files. > 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-5.3-Codex, reasoning with repository/tool access and code execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f1508a7929 |
feat(decisions): expand image rows into gallery (#9532)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and review work that needs human attention. > - The Decisions page condenses approvals, failed runs, reviews, and issue interactions into a scannable attention queue. > - Some decision rows already include screenshot evidence, but the collapsed thumbnail stack is too small for meaningful inspection. > - Image-only rows were not expandable because expansion was previously reserved for inline decision resolvers. > - Reviewers therefore had to leave the Decisions page before they could understand the visual evidence attached to a row. > - This pull request makes rows with images expandable and presents a readable, linked gallery while preserving the compact collapsed view. > - The benefit is faster evidence review without sacrificing queue density or existing inline-resolution behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue currently tracks this feature. ### Subsystem affected `ui/` — React + Vite board UI ### Problem or motivation Screenshot evidence in Decisions rows is only visible as small overlapping thumbnails, and non-inline rows cannot expand to show it. This makes visual review unnecessarily slow and forces reviewers to navigate away from the queue. ### Proposed solution Treat active rows with images as expandable, render the first three images at a readable size in an expanded gallery, and link images plus any remaining-image affordance to the related issue. ### Alternatives considered Always rendering large images would make the queue difficult to scan; opening the issue immediately preserves density but prevents in-context review. An explicit expandable gallery keeps both behaviors available. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` does not list overlapping Decisions image-gallery work. This is a focused improvement to the existing review surface rather than a new product area. ### Additional context The Storybook variants document both the collapsed thumbnail treatment and deterministic expanded gallery state for reviewer inspection. ## What Changed - Allow active Decisions rows with screenshot evidence to expand even when they have no inline resolver. - Keep compact thumbnails in collapsed rows and render up to three larger, linked images when expanded. - Add an accessible remaining-image tile that links to the related issue when more screenshots exist. - Add component coverage for image-only expansion and the remaining-image issue link. - Add collapsed and expanded image-gallery Storybook variants, including deterministic initial expansion. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --dir ui typecheck` - `pnpm --dir ui build-storybook` - QA visual verification (light + dark, no defects): https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9532#issuecomment-4964769485 ## Risks - Low risk: the change is isolated to Decisions row rendering and Storybook fixtures. - Rows with images gain a new expansion interaction, but existing inline resolver behavior and deep links remain intact. - The gallery intentionally limits the in-row preview to three images to avoid unbounded row height. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 assisted with the original implementation and tests. - OpenAI `gpt-5.4` via Codex CLI assisted with current-master rebase integration, verification, and PR preparation. The runtime context-window size is not exposed; capabilities used include reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c36f1a4afd |
fix(ui): make mobile decision rows readable (#9472)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Human operators use the Decisions attention queue to review and resolve work that needs them > - Decision rows were composed as a fixed content column plus a right-side controls column > - At phone widths, timestamps, actions, menus, and evidence thumbnails compressed the decision headline until it was barely readable > - This pull request makes each row respond to its own container width and stacks metadata, content, evidence, and actions on narrow surfaces while preserving the dense desktop layout > - The benefit is a useful, thumb-reachable Decisions workflow on phones and narrow side panels without regressing wide-screen density or scrolling performance ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exactly matches this bug, so it is described here using the bug-report fields. **What happened** Decision rows used a fixed two-column layout. On narrow screens, the right-hand timestamp, overflow menu, decision buttons, and optional thumbnails squeezed the headline into a truncated sliver. **Expected behavior** Decision headlines should remain readable on mobile, supporting context should flow below the headline, and primary actions should remain easy to tap. Wide rows should retain the compact desktop presentation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the Decisions / What needs me surface with populated attention items. 2. Reduce the row container to a phone-width layout (approximately 390px). 3. Observe rows with multiple actions or evidence thumbnails. **Paperclip version / deployment mode** Current `master`, board UI in local or hosted deployments. **Related public work found during dedup search** - Refs: #9311 — original What needs me attention queue work. - Refs: #9468 — recent Decisions scrolling performance work preserved by this change. ## What Changed - Reworked `AttentionQueueRow` into a container-query-driven vertical stack on narrow surfaces, with the existing compact layout restored at wide row widths. - Made decision titles wrap to two lines, moved project/evidence context below the headline, and promoted actions to full-width mobile tap targets. - Preserved upstream row memoization and `content-visibility` scrolling optimizations while rebasing onto current `master`. - Added three 390px Storybook scenarios covering populated rows, type/detail variants, and snoozed/dismissed curtains. - Updated the focused row test to assert the new thumbnail/context alignment. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` — 1 file passed, 16 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` — completed successfully. - `git diff --check public/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk: the behavior is isolated to the Decisions row presentation and its Storybook coverage. - Container-query breakpoints could need future visual tuning for unusual embedded widths, but the wide layout remains available at the row-level breakpoint. - The mobile layout increases row height by design in exchange for readable content and usable actions. > 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 CLI coding agent. The exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed to this runtime; reasoning, repository editing, shell execution, and test execution capabilities 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> |
||
|
|
8a0db228a6 |
perf(ui): improve Decisions scrolling performance (#9468)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators use the Decisions page to review an uncapped attention feed across active, snoozed, and dismissed items > - Large feeds mounted every row eagerly, and routine interactions re-rendered the full queue > - That made initial paint and scrolling progressively slower as decision history accumulated > - This pull request bounds rendering, stabilizes row props, and lets off-screen rows skip layout and paint work > - The benefit is a responsive Decisions page even for companies with large attention histories ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Opening `/decisions` for a company with a large attention history eagerly mounted every visible-feed row. Expanding, selecting, dismissing, snoozing, or restoring an item could also re-render the entire queue. ### Expected behavior The page should render a bounded initial window, progressively reveal more rows near the scroll boundary, and avoid re-rendering unaffected rows during interactions. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Populate a company with hundreds of attention items. 2. Open `/decisions`. 3. Scroll and interact with individual rows. 4. Observe increasing initial render, layout, paint, and interaction cost on the previous implementation. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` before this PR. ### Deployment and installation Local development, built from source. This is a core UI issue, not adapter- or database-specific. ### Additional context Searched open public issues and PRs; no duplicate was found. ## What Changed - Added a pure `planAttentionRenderRows` helper that allocates one render budget across active groups and open snoozed/dismissed curtains in document order. - Render 50 rows initially and add 100 more when the Decisions page approaches the scroll boundary. - Memoized `AttentionQueueRow`, stabilized parent callbacks and inbox dismissal actions, and passed row items through a shared expand callback. - Added `content-visibility: auto` and intrinsic containment so accumulated off-screen rows avoid unnecessary layout and paint work. - Added render-plan coverage and a regression test proving identical row props do not re-render after a parent update. ## Verification - `pnpm -C ui typecheck` - `pnpm -C ui exec vitest run src/lib/attention.test.ts src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 96 tests passed - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean ## Risks - Low risk: the change is UI-only and does not alter API or database contracts. - The main behavioral risk is incorrect row-budget accounting across collapsed groups or open curtains; the pure planner has focused tests for ordering, truncation, and collapsed/closed sections. - Progressive rendering means rows beyond the current budget are intentionally absent until scrolling nears the boundary, matching the existing Issues list pattern. > This is a targeted performance fix and does not overlap planned core feature work in `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Fable 5 assisted with the implementation using repository tools and code execution. - OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol` prepared and verified the PR with high reasoning effort, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub/Paperclip API access. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no documentation changes were required for this UI-only behavior) - [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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
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> |