Files
PaperClipAI/maps/feature-map/chat-channels.md
T
DottaandPaperclip 4173059081 fix(inbox): keep advisory GitHub review waits quiet (#17318)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their
response.
> - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work
needs human input.
> - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while
CI or a PR was still open.
> - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work
filter from #16356.
> - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event
wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion
requests.
> - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current
behavior.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #16356
Refs #13314

An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR
does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can
track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine.

## What Changed

- Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions.
Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after
publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are
met.
- Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait.
Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer,
or polling loop.
- Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and
recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub
receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their
current status.
- Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same
bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention
request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests
without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only;
withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current
governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts.
- Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage.

## Verification

- Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub
checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed.
Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are
resolved.

- Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server
typecheck and build after the final authorization guard.
- Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`,
`status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and
`issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL
18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`.
- Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with
pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied
conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters
Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction
rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed
heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or
membership.
- Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node
scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`.
- The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the
test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee
authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed,
including the final rerun.
- Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository
access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The
revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The
saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review
state.
- `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac.
Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space
left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host
resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not
the full repository suite.
- These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine
queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or
submit a live GitHub review.

## Risks

- The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit
attention request still enters Mine.
- Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a
later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a
bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries.
- Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires
an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current
conversation, repository, and principal authorization.
- No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified
because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and
context-window size are not exposed in 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 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 (195 focused tests;
full-suite limitation above)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-23 07:14:40 -07:00

220 lines
16 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
---
navigation: {"section":"Apps, channels, and extensions","sectionOrder":50,"order":30}
---
# External chat and email
People can talk to an assigned agent through configured external channels, bind their identity, exchange files, and inspect delivery state. Each provider has a different identity, threading, and attachment contract.
Feature ID: `chat-channels`.
Implementation: [endpoint setup](../../ui/src/pages/apps/chat/ChatEndpointSetup.tsx), [endpoint detail](../../ui/src/pages/apps/chat/ChatEndpointDetail.tsx), [email setup](../../ui/src/pages/apps/chat/EmailEndpointSetup.tsx).
Agent access: [companion](../agent-access-map/chat-channels.md).
## Sub-features
- `providers`: `chat-channels/providers` — configure the available Slack, Discord, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, GitHub, AgentMail, and experimental iMessage Photon and Speko paths; availability still depends on gates and provider support.
- `identity`: `chat-channels/identity` — link the external sender to the intended authorized Paperclip identity.
- `conversation`: `chat-channels/conversation` — route inbound messages to the selected agent and send replies to the correct thread.
- `attachments`: `chat-channels/attachments` — transfer supported files with inspectable delivery and failure states.
- `lifecycle`: `chat-channels/lifecycle` — inspect endpoint activity, repair auth, and disable delivery when required.
- `outbound-email`: `chat-channels/outbound-email` — start a task-bound AgentMail conversation, reply to its exact message, and inspect deduplicated publication and provider delivery.
## How to get to it (user POV)
### `external-thread`
Message the configured bot/address from its external provider and follow the corresponding Paperclip conversation/task.
### `endpoint-management`
Open `/apps/chat/:endpointId/settings` and the endpoint’s other available tabs; identity confirmation uses `/chat-identity/confirm`.
### `outbound-agentmail`
Use `paperclipai email inboxes --company-id <company-id>`, then `email send --company-id <company-id> --file <new-email.json>` or `email reply --company-id <company-id> --file <reply.json>`. Inspect `email thread <email-task-id> --company-id <company-id>` and `email delivery <publication-id> --company-id <company-id>`. Agent mutations must provide --run-id or the active PAPERCLIP_RUN_ID.
## Driving it with Playwright and provider clients
Preconditions: follow the [baseline](./README.md#before-driving-a-journey). Use a
test provider account/channel with permission to send messages. Gates differ:
AgentMail bypasses the chat-connectors UI gate, GitHub uses
`enableGitHubReviewBots`, and other chat providers use `enableChatConnectors`.
Setup is covered in [connection setup](./connection-setup.md).
### `external-thread`
Automated: [channel integration](../../server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts) uses provider fixtures; it does not prove a live Slack, Discord, Teams, Telegram, GitHub, email, or Photon delivery.
Monitor continuation regression: [database checks](../../server/src/services/chat-monitor-continuation.test.ts)
verify the exact originating conversation, rejected forged/mismatched receipts,
one working publication, no completion for a yielded run, and saved-response
recovery. In a disposable live thread, request work that needs deferred repository
preparation. Verify a useful continuation explanation, automatic resumption, and
the final result in that same thread. A successful provider turn alone is insufficient.
GitHub review comment regression (2026-10-19): repeated PR review requests reuse
one main App comment, including across restart and reconnect. Test a leading
request for an external bot (`@greptile review`) and verify it creates no wake or
acknowledgement. Stop execution before a milestone is staged, run maintenance,
and verify the existing comment reports the stop; saved requests on a blocked
task show paused state. Preserve newer progress and confirmed or uncertain replies.
Repeat terminal reconciliation with native identity and no legacy wake fields.
Check delayed acknowledgements, check-only assessments followed by formal reviews,
and combined requests with separate pre-upgrade placeholders.
GitHub review attention regression: publish a 3/5 assessment, then wait for the
next provider event. The task stays in review without a completion card or Mine
entry. A later 5/5 review with passing required checks can finish quietly. A real
repository-access request enters Mine until resolved. The native external-chat
database suite checks these states and revoked endpoints using stored provider
receipts; live model adherence remains a separate check.
It also checks saved monitors, disabled repositories, multiple reviewed heads,
read-only finish validation, withdrawal rollback, and separate approval gates.
Manual: For each supported provider being changed, send a unique message, verify the intended agent/company receives it, and inspect the actual external reply in the original thread. Repeat with an unlinked/unauthorized sender, duplicate inbound delivery, and one supported attachment. Record provider-specific results separately.
GitHub review prompt regression: open a PR and push twice. Each task message
contains the event and commit identifiers; configuration comes from the admitted
delivery snapshot and the PR description is fetched when needed. Inspect the
native provider's submitted envelopes: a verified resume sends only the current
batch and any changed configuration, while a fresh session receives full review
instructions and task context. Change configuration between pushes and verify
the queued older request retains its original snapshot. Integration fixtures
cover the database and prompt contracts; they do not prove live provider delivery.
For Slack, enable **Require at-mention** and **Allow direct messages**. Send a
plain DM and follow up without a mention: both should reach the agent, with
top-level replies to top-level DMs. Channel messages and thread replies still
require a mention when that setting is enabled. Disable direct messages and
confirm a plain DM is rejected. Use a private channel for threaded conversations.
For Slack acknowledgement latency, mention the bot with and without an attachment.
Eyes should appear after authorized task/comment persistence, independently of
file preparation, subscription and agent startup. Duplicate delivery must keep
one receipt; the final reply must remove only its source message's eyes. Record
live mention-to-reaction timing separately from the PostgreSQL fixture tests and
the `chat.slack.receipt` transport span described in [Observability](../../doc/observability.md).
During a top-level DM run, verify that the bot adds eyes to the source message
and removes them when the final reply arrives. The pinned Slack SDK encodes a
linear DM with an empty thread timestamp; receipt transport accepts that address
while still validating the channel and the source message timestamp.
For an agent with two linked Slack endpoints, compare assignment preparation and
tool discovery in the run trace. Endpoint checks may overlap in pairs. Confirm
that both permitted tool sets remain available, then revoke one linked identity
and confirm that the next preparation excludes it. The
[database regression](../../server/src/__tests__/slack-tool-preparation.test.ts)
uses real PostgreSQL with one connection and controlled credential resolution;
it does not prove live provider latency or an end-to-end response target.
Catalog discovery rechecks live authority and current credentials without
computing the unused compatibility fingerprint. Assignment snapshots and
governed calls retain full revision resolution. The same regression verifies
identical catalog membership, absence of digest SQL during discovery, and
revocation on the next preparation. A faster component is not proof of a faster
Slack reaction or final reply; measure those separately on the deployed revision.
For GitHub and Slack tool continuity, start a task from the channel, then admit
a later monitor or retry run for the same task. Check that the later run can
discover and call its channel tools without a new inbound message. For GitHub,
also continue from a board message by the same accepted requester and complete
the review in the original conversation, including when the original source is
recorded only in legacy wake metadata. Revoke the linked identity and check
that the next call fails. Repeat the boundary checks with another task, agent,
company, and requester. The channel and provenance fixtures above cover these
contracts with synthetic providers; record a live journey separately.
For a long-lived task, repeat more than 100 continuations and check that tool
access remains available. Fail a later GitHub run after a final answer and
check that the earlier answer remains intact.
### `endpoint-management`
Automated: [channel integration](../../server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts) covers shared endpoint/delivery behavior; live credential repair and provider ownership remain manual checks.
Manual: Inspect the bound agent and identity, recent activity, and delivery failure details. Repair a disposable credential, retry a safe message when offered, and verify exactly one external reply. Disable the endpoint and confirm new traffic is not silently processed.
For publication failures, reject one operation with a provider 403 and verify
that its failure remains visible while unrelated tools and publications continue.
Repeat with an authentication failure: the endpoint must require attention and
stop provider traffic, while the connection's enabled setting remains unchanged.
Reconcile persistent receivers and restart the service; authentication failures
must remain stopped while transient disconnections can still recover.
The PostgreSQL suite uses controlled provider failures for these cases; live
provider credential repair remains a separate acceptance check.
GitHub connections in attention or revoked state show a repair notice above the
settings. **Reconnect GitHub → Reconnect saved App** checks the same App with
stored credentials and repairs delivery. **Replace App credentials** is the
fallback, with the saved App ID, a link to its GitHub settings, and PEM upload or
paste instructions. The production management Storybook's **04 Recovery** group
covers these views, pending/failure/success, mobile, and light theme with simulated
provider responses. Verify actual credential validity and restored delivery
separately against GitHub; a Storybook success does not establish live recovery.
For GitHub, submit a disposable PR and verify the summary heading uses the bot's
display name and the check remains **Paperclip Review**. For two separate bots on one PR, verify
their App-scoped checks and comments remain independent.
For GitHub publication recovery, interrupt a response after GitHub accepts a
write and verify one summary, finding, and App-scoped check. Retry the same tool
call and verify it returns the saved receipt. Include text longer than 500
characters and coverage with more than 50 entries. Change only the text suffix
or final coverage entry and verify rejection without another write. Remove the
durable publication and verify that a retry cannot dispatch a new write.
Leave a transient failure queued,
restart the instance, and verify publication resumes at its saved deadline
without another inbound message. Revoked access and permanent rejections must
stop retries. These recipes are separate from live provider proof.
Configure optional project and workspace defaults at the connection and destination
levels. Start a new conversation and inspect its task workspace. Verify that
inheritance, an explicit selection, and clearing a default remain distinct.
Changing defaults must not move an existing conversation or interrupt its run.
For experimental Speko, enable chat connectors, choose an agent during setup,
and verify the provider credentials. On an assigned task, use **Talk to agent**
to open browser voice controls. Check microphone denial, mute, end/restart,
navigation during a call, and access revocation. Inspect transcripts and the
connection's call history. Callback preferences, incoming phone configuration,
and incoming-call approval are separate settings and authorization journeys.
The [voice components](../../ui/src/components/voice/TaskVoiceLauncher.tsx)
and fixture tests cover presentation; they do not establish live answer retrieval
or telephone playback. Those provider outcomes remain explicit release gates.
### `outbound-agentmail`
Automated: [Email channel integration](../../server/src/__tests__/email-channels.integration.test.ts) uses controlled providers to test durable child tasks/intents, deduplication, reply binding, attachments, delivery, revocation, budgets, run authority, and company boundaries. No dedicated end-to-end CLI email test was identified; these fixtures do not establish actual recipient delivery.
Manual: Use a disposable parent task, authorized AgentMail inbox, and recipient you own. Put endpointId, a stable UUID idempotencyKey, text, parentIssueId, to, and subject in the new-message JSON; supply eligible attachmentIds only if needed. Send, inspect the child conversation/publication, and verify actual received mail. Repeat the identical request/key and confirm one child and provider send; changed content with that key must conflict. Reply with endpointId, conversationId, exact replyToMessageId, text, and a fresh stable idempotencyKey; inspect the actual recipients and received reply. Replies must reject caller-supplied recipient/subject/parent overrides. Test wrong inbox/task/company/run, a canceled task, revoked access/credentials, and an inaccessible attachment. Inspect uncertain provider outcomes before using the administrative resolution path.
Sources: [Email CLI](../../cli/src/commands/client/email.ts), [request schema](../../packages/shared/src/validators/email.ts), [email routes](../../server/src/routes/email.ts), and [email authority/publication](../../server/src/services/email-channels.ts).
## Gotchas
- New outbound email requires a parent task. A reply binds to its stored conversation/message and cannot replace recipients or subject; a queued 202 is not a delivered message.
- Visibility flags do not pause existing delivery. Disable the disposable
endpoint itself to test stopped traffic.
- One provider’s passing fixture does not qualify another provider or live delivery.
- An accepted send request does not prove the recipient received the message or file.
- Use [steering](./steering.md) and [questions](./questions-and-approvals.md) for their channel-specific interaction checks.
### Storybook verification
#### `attachments`
Capability ID: `chat-channels/attachments`.
Scope: ui
Storybook: Mount TaskChatBubble attachments and ChatEndpointDetail provider-specific consent/upload/delivery failure and unknown-outcome states. Local email attachment dialog remains a prototype.
Production: Transfer a disposable supported file through each affected provider; verify recipient delivery, read scope, duplicate/replay handling and failure/unknown state without treating notification as file-upload proof.
Sources: Source: [TaskChatBubble.tsx](../../ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.tsx), [ChatEndpointDetail.tsx](../../ui/src/pages/apps/chat/ChatEndpointDetail.tsx), [chatEndpoints.ts](../../ui/src/api/chatEndpoints.ts), [chat-channels.ts](../../server/src/routes/chat-channels.ts). Tests: [TaskChatBubble.test.tsx](../../ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.test.tsx), [task-chat-attachments.test.ts](../../ui/src/components/task-chat/task-chat-attachments.test.ts), [chat-channels.integration.test.ts](../../server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts), [issue-attachment-routes.test.ts](../../server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts)
### Documentation scope: Chat and email channel setup
Shared recipes name provider checks; each provider transport/thread/identity/file-size/type combination needs separate live evidence and deeper instructions.