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
> - A fast-moving control plane needs stable local tests and repeatable
local maintenance tools so contributors can safely split and review work
> - Several route suites needed stronger isolation, Codex manual model
selection needed a faster-mode option, and local browser cleanup missed
Playwright's headless shell binary
> - Storybook static output also needed to be preserved as a generated
review artifact from the working branch
> - This pull request groups the test/local-dev maintenance pieces so
they can be reviewed separately from product runtime changes
> - The benefit is more predictable contributor verification and cleaner
local maintenance without mixing these changes into feature PRs
## What Changed
- Added stable Vitest runner support and serialized route/authz test
isolation.
- Fixed workspace runtime authz route mocks and stabilized
Claude/company-import related assertions.
- Allowed Codex fast mode for manually selected models.
- Broadened the agent browser cleanup script to detect
`chrome-headless-shell` as well as Chrome for Testing.
- Preserved generated Storybook static output from the source branch.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts
src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts`
from `server/` passed: 2 files, 19 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/server/codex-args.test.ts --config
vitest.config.ts` from `packages/adapters/codex-local/` passed: 1 file,
3 tests.
- `bash -n scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh &&
scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh --dry` passed; dry-run detected
`chrome-headless-shell` processes without killing them.
- `test -f ui/storybook-static/index.html && test -f
ui/storybook-static/assets/forms-editors.stories-Dry7qwx2.js` passed.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-test-local-maintenance --
. ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts --config
cli/vitest.config.ts` did not complete in the isolated split worktree
because `paperclipai run` exited during build prep with `TS2688: Cannot
find type definition file for 'react'`; this appears to be caused by the
worktree dependency symlink setup, not the code under test.
- Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: the stable Vitest runner changes how route/authz tests
are scheduled.
- Generated `ui/storybook-static` files are large and contain minified
third-party output; `git diff --check` reports whitespace inside those
generated assets, so reviewers may choose to drop or regenerate that
artifact before merge.
- 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 to source UI behavior;
the included Storybook static output is generated artifact preservation
from the source branch.
---------
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>
Dotta