mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 19:28:46 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
8bd45b5b30
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and review their actions.
> - Ask first tool actions require a person to inspect the proposed
operation.
> - The task and Apps review surfaces share the pending tool-action
card.
> - That card shows a short preview but omits the available redacted
argument body.
> - A valid preview can omit important text, such as the date at the end
of a proposal.
> - This pull request adds optional argument inspection to the shared
card.
> - The person can inspect the proposed content before using the
existing decision controls.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #16540.
Related PRs: #16571 exposes reviewed arguments on formal board approvals
and scrolls the task review into view. #16716 routes tool actions to
their required formal board approvals. This change addresses the
separate shared pending tool-action card used by the task takeover and
linked Apps reviews. It does not close the other reported paths in
#16540.
## What Changed
- Add the existing Arguments and audit hash disclosure pattern to the
shared pending card.
- Show only the bounded argument summary already redacted by the server
and its audit hash. Show an unavailable message for missing, malformed,
or oversized fields.
- Keep the current approval, decline, and remembered-scope callbacks.
- Add a long-proposal story and update the tool-review feature recipe.
- Add React coverage for the real task review transition, the linked
Apps review, plain text rendering, invalid fields, and unchanged
decision calls.
## Verification
- The new task-review test failed on the parent because the disclosure
was absent. It opens Review request, inspects the proposal tail and
hash, then approves the same interaction.
- Oversized-whitespace controls fail on the previous guard ordering
because trimming runs before the length bound. The guard now checks
length first for both fields.
- Passed: 117 React tests across TaskChatInteractionCard,
IssueThreadInteractionCard, and ReviewQueueCard. The tests use the
repository UI config with the existing installed Vitest 5.0.3 dependency
tree.
- Passed: token gates, map checks, Storybook catalog checks, and git
diff checks.
- Local full UI typecheck did not pass. The linked dependency tree lacks
adapter and json-schema-to-ts declarations and has stale shared exports.
It reports no diagnostics in the changed files. This is not a successful
full typecheck.
- Full workspace build, browser, and provider checks were not run
locally. Current head 50600786f7 passed
all 48 normal CI jobs with one expected skip. Greptile and Paperclip
Review both report 5/5 at this head; all review threads are resolved. No
tool action or model call was run for this change.
- Inspect the new ToolActionLongProposal story. Open Arguments and audit
hash and read the final launch date. Inspection must not submit a
decision. Existing destructive, running, failed, declined, and expired
states keep their controls.
## Risks
- This changes the pending review presentation in tasks and linked Apps
reviews.
- The UI displays the existing server-redacted projection. It does not
request or reconstruct signed execution arguments. The existing server
schema caps the summary at 20,000 characters and the hash at 255
characters. The UI uses the same limits and escapes both as text.
- The server still owns redaction, scope checks, approval, and
execution. Inspection makes no API mutation. The current callbacks
retain the same request identity and permission scope.
- The PR will remain unmerged for separate review and candidate-source
integration.
## Model Used
OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` (Codex), with source inspection, code editing,
React tests, and Git/GitHub tools. The context window size is 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
- [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>
@paperclipai/ui
Published static assets for the Paperclip board UI.
What gets published
The npm package contains the production build under dist/. It does not ship the UI source tree or workspace-only dependencies.
Storybook
Storybook config, stories, and fixtures live under ui/storybook/.
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui storybook
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook
Typical use
Install the package, then serve or copy the built files from node_modules/@paperclipai/ui/dist.
Editor dependency identity
Keep the root and workspace overrides for @codemirror/state,
@codemirror/view, and @lezer/common aligned. CodeMirror requires shared
extension identity, while Lezer parsers and syntax highlighters require shared
NodeProp IDs. Multiple Lezer copies can crash code-block highlighting with
tags is not iterable. src/lib/codemirror-single-instance.test.ts checks the
installed dependency graph and highlights sample code through the editor's real
language dependencies. GitHub Actions owns regeneration of pnpm-lock.yaml.