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
Dotta