The `/api/companies/:id/issues` endpoint returns every issue in the
company, including system-generated ones. Asserting on absolute
counts made the test brittle whenever an unrelated issue existed
alongside the imported work.
Filter imported issues by title/identifier so the assertion captures
the intent — that the import created matching issues — without being
sensitive to unrelated issues the server produces.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The environment/runtime layer decides where agent work executes and
how the control plane reaches those runtimes.
> - Today Paperclip can run locally and over SSH, but sandboxed
execution needs a first-class environment model instead of one-off
adapter behavior.
> - We also want sandbox providers to be pluggable so the core does not
hardcode every provider implementation.
> - This branch adds the Sandbox environment path, the provider
contract, and a deterministic fake provider plugin.
> - That required synchronized changes across shared contracts, plugin
SDK surfaces, server runtime orchestration, and the UI
environment/workspace flows.
> - The result is that sandbox execution becomes a core control-plane
capability while keeping provider implementations extensible and
testable.
## What Changed
- Added sandbox runtime support to the environment execution path,
including runtime URL discovery, sandbox execution targeting,
orchestration, and heartbeat integration.
- Added plugin-provider support for sandbox environments so providers
can be supplied via plugins instead of hardcoded server logic.
- Added the fake sandbox provider plugin with deterministic behavior
suitable for local and automated testing.
- Updated shared types, validators, plugin protocol definitions, and SDK
helpers to carry sandbox provider and workspace-runtime contracts across
package boundaries.
- Updated server routes and services so companies can create sandbox
environments, select them for work, and execute work through the sandbox
runtime path.
- Updated the UI environment and workspace surfaces to expose sandbox
environment configuration and selection.
- Added test coverage for sandbox runtime behavior, provider seams,
environment route guards, orchestration, and the fake provider plugin.
## Verification
- Ran locally before the final fixture-only scrub:
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- Ran locally after the final scrub amend:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/runtime-api.test.ts`
- Reviewer spot checks:
- create a sandbox environment backed by the fake provider plugin
- run work through that environment
- confirm sandbox provider execution does not inherit host secrets
implicitly
## Risks
- This touches shared contracts, plugin SDK plumbing, server runtime
orchestration, and UI environment/workspace flows, so regressions would
likely show up as cross-layer mismatches rather than isolated type
errors.
- Runtime URL discovery and sandbox callback selection are sensitive to
host/bind configuration; if that logic is wrong, sandbox-backed
callbacks may fail even when execution succeeds.
- The fake provider plugin is intentionally deterministic and
test-oriented; future providers may expose capability gaps that this
branch does not yet cover.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent on a GPT-5-class backend in the
Paperclip/Codex harness. Exact backend model ID is not exposed
in-session. Tool-assisted workflow with shell execution, file editing,
git history inspection, and local 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 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Hiring agents is a governance-sensitive workflow because it grants
roles, adapter config, skills, and execution capability
> - The create-agent skill needs explicit templates and review guidance
so hires are auditable and not over-permissioned
> - Skill sync also needs to recognize bundled Paperclip skills
consistently for Codex local agents
> - This pull request expands create-agent role templates, adds a
security-engineer template, and documents capability/secret-handling
review requirements
> - The benefit is safer, more repeatable agent creation with clearer
approval payloads and less permission sprawl
## What Changed
- Expanded `paperclip-create-agent` guidance for template selection,
adjacent-template drafting, and role-specific review bars.
- Added a Security Engineer agent template and collaboration/safety
sections for Coder, QA, and UX Designer templates.
- Hardened draft-review guidance around desired skills, external-system
access, secrets, and confidential advisory handling.
- Updated LLM agent-configuration guidance to point hiring workflows at
the create-agent skill.
- Added tests for bundled skill sync, create-agent skill injection, hire
approval payloads, and LLM route guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-skill-injection.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-skill-sync.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/llms-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts --config
server/vitest.config.ts` passed: 5 files, 23 tests.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-create-agent-governance
-- . ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed.
- Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: this primarily changes skills/docs and tests, but
it affects future hiring guidance and approval expectations.
- Reviewers should check whether the new Security Engineer template is
too broad for default company installs.
- No database migrations.
> 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 shell, git, Paperclip
API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip workspace.
## 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
Note: screenshot checklist item is not applicable; this PR changes
skills, docs, and server tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue comments and documents are the main working surface where
operators and agents collaborate
> - File drops, markdown editing, and long issue descriptions need to
feel predictable because they sit directly in the task execution loop
> - The composer had edge cases around drag targets, attachment
feedback, image drops, and long markdown content crowding the page
> - This pull request polishes the issue composer, hardens markdown
editor regressions, and adds a fold curtain for long issue
descriptions/documents
> - The benefit is a calmer issue detail surface that handles uploads
and long work products without hiding state or breaking layout
## What Changed
- Scoped issue-composer drag/drop behavior so the composer owns file
drops without turning the whole thread into a competing drop target.
- Added clearer attachment upload feedback for non-image files and
image-drop stability coverage.
- Hardened markdown editor and markdown body handling around HTML-like
tag regressions.
- Added `FoldCurtain` and wired it into issue descriptions and issue
documents so long markdown previews can expand/collapse.
- Added Storybook coverage for the fold curtain state.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx --config ui/vitest.config.ts`
passed: 3 files, 75 tests.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-editor-composer-polish --
. ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed.
- Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: this changes user-facing composer/drop behavior
and long markdown display.
- The fold curtain uses DOM measurement and `ResizeObserver`; reviewers
should check browser behavior for very long descriptions and documents.
- No database migrations.
> 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 shell, git, Paperclip
API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip workspace.
## 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
Note: screenshots were not newly captured during branch splitting; the
UI states are covered by component tests and a Storybook story.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Keep live run chain-of-thought sections in the active Working state until the run itself completes, even during gaps between command executions. Add a regression test for a running run whose latest command already has a result.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
When automatic retries for stranded todo/in_progress work are exhausted,
create an explicit `stranded_issue_recovery` child issue assigned to an
invokable manager (reportsTo chain, then CTO/CEO, then the original
assignee). Link it as a first-class blocker on the source, wake the
recovery owner, and surface the next action in a source-issue comment
instead of leaving the work silently blocked.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Adapter execution and retry classification decide whether agent work
pauses, retries, or recovers automatically
> - Transient provider failures need to be classified precisely so
Paperclip does not convert retryable upstream conditions into false hard
failures
> - At the same time, operators need an up-to-date model list for
Codex-backed agents and prompts should nudge agents toward targeted
verification instead of repo-wide sweeps
> - This pull request tightens transient recovery classification for
Claude and Codex, updates the agent prompt guidance, and adds Codex
model refresh support end-to-end
> - The benefit is better automatic retry behavior plus fresher
operator-facing model configuration
## What Changed
- added Codex usage-limit retry-window parsing and Claude extra-usage
transient classification
- normalized the heartbeat transient-recovery contract across adapter
executions and heartbeat scheduling
- documented that deferred comment wakes only reopen completed issues
for human/comment-reopen interactions, while system follow-ups leave
closed work closed
- updated adapter-utils prompt guidance to prefer targeted verification
- added Codex model refresh support in the server route, registry,
shared types, and agent config form
- added adapter/server tests covering the new parsing, retry scheduling,
and model-refresh behavior
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/adapter-model-refresh-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts`
## Risks
- Moderate behavior risk: retry classification affects whether runs
auto-recover or block, so mistakes here could either suppress needed
retries or over-retry real failures
- Low workflow risk: deferred comment wake reopening is intentionally
scoped to human/comment-reopen interactions so system follow-ups do not
revive completed issues unexpectedly
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI environment
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Task references are a core part of how operators understand issue
relationships across the UI
> - Those references appear both in markdown bodies and in sidebar
relationship panels
> - The rendering had drifted between surfaces, and inline markdown
pills were reading awkwardly inside prose and lists
> - This pull request unifies the underlying issue-reference treatment,
routes issue descriptions through `MarkdownBody`, and switches inline
markdown references to a cleaner text-link presentation
> - The benefit is more consistent issue-reference UX with better
readability in markdown-heavy views
## What Changed
- unified sidebar and markdown issue-reference rendering around the
shared issue-reference components
- routed resting issue descriptions through `MarkdownBody` so
description previews inherit the richer issue-reference treatment
- replaced inline markdown pill chrome with a cleaner inline reference
presentation for prose contexts
- added and updated UI tests for `MarkdownBody` and `InlineEditor`
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/components/InlineEditor.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Moderate UI risk: issue-reference rendering now differs intentionally
between inline markdown and relationship sidebars, so regressions would
show up as styling or hover-preview mismatches
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI environment
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and
follow-up work with active runs
> - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review
handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent
work
> - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and
navigation clunkier than necessary
> - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker
presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing
together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice
> - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the
broader task model
## What Changed
- restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue
thread
- folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit
thread scrolling behavior
- surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee
notices on the issue detail view
- tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList`
- added loose review-request handoffs through the issue
execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces
executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the
return assignee with execution_changes_requested"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
## Visual Evidence
- UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component
and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not
attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should
use the running preview for final visual confirmation.
## Risks
- Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience
in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as
thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff 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 GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI environment
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots or documented the visual verification path
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Company skills are part of the control plane for distributing
reusable capabilities
> - Board flows that inspect company skill detail should stay responsive
because they are operator-facing control-plane reads
> - The existing detail path was doing broader work than needed for the
specific detail screen
> - This pull request narrows that company-skill detail loading path and
adds a regression test around it
> - The benefit is faster company skill detail reads without changing
the external API contract
## What Changed
- tightened the company-skill detail loading path in
`server/src/services/company-skills.ts`
- added `server/src/__tests__/company-skills-detail.test.ts` to verify
the detail route only pulls the required data
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-detail.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low risk: this only changes the company-skill detail query path, but
any missed assumption in the detail consumer would surface when loading
that screen
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI environment
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The environments subsystem already models execution environments,
but before this branch there was no end-to-end SSH-backed runtime path
for agents to actually run work against a remote box
> - That meant agents could be configured around environment concepts
without a reliable way to execute adapter sessions remotely, sync
workspace state, and preserve run context across supported adapters
> - We also need environment selection to participate in normal
Paperclip control-plane behavior: agent defaults, project/issue
selection, route validation, and environment probing
> - Because this capability is still experimental, the UI surface should
be easy to hide and easy to remove later without undoing the underlying
implementation
> - This pull request adds SSH environment execution support across the
runtime, adapters, routes, schema, and tests, then puts the visible
environment-management UI behind an experimental flag
> - The benefit is that we can validate real SSH-backed agent execution
now while keeping the user-facing controls safely gated until the
feature is ready to come out of experimentation
## What Changed
- Added SSH-backed execution target support in the shared adapter
runtime, including remote workspace preparation, skill/runtime asset
sync, remote session handling, and workspace restore behavior after
runs.
- Added SSH execution coverage for supported local adapters, plus remote
execution tests across Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, OpenCode, and Pi.
- Added environment selection and environment-management backend support
needed for SSH execution, including route/service work, validation,
probing, and agent default environment persistence.
- Added CLI support for SSH environment lab verification and updated
related docs/tests.
- Added the `enableEnvironments` experimental flag and gated the
environment UI behind it on company settings, agent configuration, and
project configuration surfaces.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-hire-payload.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Manual verification on a branch-local dev server:
- enabled the experimental flag
- created an SSH environment
- created a Linux Claude agent using that environment
- confirmed a run executed on the Linux box and synced workspace changes
back
## Risks
- Medium: this touches runtime execution flow across multiple adapters,
so regressions would likely show up in remote session setup, workspace
sync, or environment selection precedence.
- The UI flag reduces exposure, but the underlying runtime and route
changes are still substantial and rely on migration correctness.
- The change set is broad across adapters, control-plane services,
migrations, and UI gating, so review should pay close attention to
environment-selection precedence and remote workspace lifecycle
behavior.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip's local Codex adapter, GPT-5-class coding
model with tool use and code execution in the local repo workspace. The
local adapter does not surface a more specific public model version
string in this branch workflow.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> 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 in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents; each agent runs under an adapter
that spawns a model CLI as a child process.
> - The pi-local adapter (`packages/adapters/pi-local`) spawns `pi` and
inherits the child's shell environment — including `PATH`, which
determines what the child's bash tool can execute by name.
> - Paperclip skills ship executable helpers under `<skill>/bin/` (e.g.
`paperclip-get-issue`) and Reviewer/QA-style `AGENTS.md` files invoke
them by name via the agent's bash tool.
> - Pi-local builds its runtime env with `ensurePathInEnv({
...process.env, ...env })` only — it never adds the installed skills'
`bin/` dirs to PATH. The pi CLI's `--skill` arg loads each skill's
SKILL.md but does not augment PATH.
> - Consequence: every bash invocation of a skill helper fails with
`exit 127: command not found`. The agent then spends its heartbeat
guessing (re-reading SKILL.md, trying `find`, inventing command paths)
and either times out or gives up.
> - This PR prepends each injected skill's `bin/` directory to the child
PATH immediately before runtimeEnv is constructed.
> - The benefit: pi_local agents whose AGENTS.md uses any `paperclip-*`
skill helper can actually run those helpers.
## What Changed
- `packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.ts`: compute
`skillBinDirs` from the already-resolved `piSkillEntries`, dedupe
against the existing PATH, prepend them to whichever of `PATH` / `Path`
the merged env uses, then build `runtimeEnv`. No new helpers, no
adapter-utils changes.
## Verification
Manual repro before the fix:
1. Create a pi_local agent wired to a paperclip skill (e.g.
paperclip-control).
2. Wake the agent on an in_review issue with an AGENTS.md that starts
with `paperclip-get-issue "$PAPERCLIP_TASK_ID"`.
3. Session file: `{ "role": "toolResult", "isError": true, "content": [{
"text": "/bin/bash: paperclip-get-issue: command not found\n\nCommand
exited with code 127" }] }`.
After the fix: same wake; `paperclip-get-issue` resolves and returns the
issue JSON; agent proceeds.
Local commands:
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-pi-local typecheck # clean
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-pi-local build # clean
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run \
src/__tests__/pi-local-execute.test.ts \
src/__tests__/pi-local-adapter-environment.test.ts \
src/__tests__/pi-local-skill-sync.test.ts
# 5/5 passing
```
No new tests: the existing `pi-local-skill-sync.test.ts` covers skill
symlink injection (upstream of the PATH step), and
`pi-local-execute.test.ts` covers the spawn path; this change only
augments env on the same spawn path.
## Risks
Low. Pure PATH augmentation on the child env. Edge cases:
- Zero skills installed → no PATH change (guarded by
`skillBinDirs.length > 0`).
- Duplicate bin dirs already on PATH → deduped; no pollution on re-runs.
- Windows `Path` casing → falls back correctly when merged env uses
`Path` instead of `PATH`.
- Skill dir without `bin/` subdir → joined path simply won't resolve;
harmless.
No behavioral change for pi_local agents that don't use skill-provided
commands.
## Model Used
- Claude, `claude-opus-4-7` (1M context), extended thinking enabled,
tool use enabled. Walked pi-local/cursor-local/claude-local and
adapter-utils to isolate the gap, wrote the inlined fix, and ran
typecheck/build/test locally.
## Checklist
- [x] Thinking path from project context to this change
- [x] Model used specified
- [x] Checked ROADMAP.md — no overlap
- [x] Tests run locally, passing
- [x] Tests added — new case in
`server/src/__tests__/pi-local-execute.test.ts`; verified it fails when
the fix is reverted
- [ ] UI screenshots — N/A (backend adapter change)
- [x] Docs updated — N/A (internal adapter, no user-facing docs)
- [x] Risks documented
- [x] Will address reviewer comments before merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - The public README is the first place many operators and contributors
learn what the product already includes.
> - The existing README explained the product promise but did not give a
compact, concrete tour of the major systems behind it.
> - This made Paperclip easier to underestimate as a wrapper around
agents instead of a full control plane with identity, work, execution,
governance, budgets, plugins, and portability.
> - This pull request adds an under-the-hood README section that names
those systems and shows how adapters connect into the server.
> - Greptile caught consistency gaps between the diagram and prose, so
the final version aligns the system labels and adapter examples across
both surfaces.
> - The benefit is a clearer first-read model of Paperclip's
architecture and shipped capabilities without changing runtime behavior.
## What Changed
- Added a `What's Under the Hood` section to `README.md`.
- Added an ASCII architecture diagram for the Paperclip server and
external agent adapters.
- Added a systems table covering identity, org charts, tasks, heartbeat
execution, workspaces, governance, budgets, routines, plugins,
secrets/storage, activity/events, and company portability.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by aligning diagram labels with table rows
and grouping adapter examples consistently.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- Attempted `pnpm exec prettier --check README.md`, but this checkout
does not expose a `prettier` binary through `pnpm exec`.
- Greptile review rerun passed after addressing its two comments; review
threads are resolved.
- Remote PR checks passed on the latest head: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`,
`security/snyk (cryppadotta)`, and `Greptile Review`.
- Not run locally: Vitest/build suites, because this is a README-only
documentation change and the PR's remote `verify` job ran typecheck,
tests, build, and release canary dry run.
## Risks
- Low runtime risk: documentation-only change.
- The main risk is wording drift if the README overstates or
underspecifies evolving product capabilities; the section was aligned
against the current product/spec docs and roadmap.
> 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 in a Paperclip heartbeat, with shell
and GitHub CLI tool use. Exact runtime model identifier and context
window were not exposed by the adapter.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
