DottaandPaperclip 208a093d19 fix(chat): preserve resumed review waits and retry newer saved input (#17725)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start -->
https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/36/changes/paperclip/36
<!-- entire-trail-link-end -->

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - GitHub review agents publish findings and wait for an authorized
reply or head change.
> - Review tools could retain the requester after resume while
completion lost that same wait proof.
> - A yielded report could then queue its own continuation or repeat a
missing-wait error.
> - Ordinary Retry could also select an older failed turn while a newer
saved request had no admission.
> - This change shares the existing authority proofs and canonical
admission owners.
> - Current access, publication, execution and budget gates remain
required.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #17318. Builds on the canonical saved-input retry owner in #17733.
Related #16550 covers deferred legacy comments after ownership waits.
The separate recovery repair in #17724 owns the cleanup-to-saved-input
handoff; this PR does not add a second admission owner.

A resumed review could publish an assessment, then turn its
`response_wake` into an immediate `issue_status_changed` wake. A
provider that omitted its continuation could instead repeat a completion
error. A newer linked-human message saved during a budget hold could
also remain unstarted because Retry selected the older failed source.

## What Changed

- Resolve passive review waits through the accepted requester ledger
used by GitHub tools. Require the latest reviewed head, exact company,
task, agent, repository and processed publication under current access.
- Fill omitted/null yielded continuation from that server proof. Permit
an inherited normal tree resume only through its accepted parent
identity. Permit an ordinary follow-up only after this run has a
processed useful reply linked to its exact inbound message. Reject
acknowledgements, partial assessments, pending or uncertain writes as
that reply proof.
- Recheck the same run/review/head/source proof during feedback,
finalization and final status commit. Preserve explicit malformed-input
rejection and Done policy. Add no monitor permission or publication
grant.
- Keep heartbeat and publication projections narrow. Preserve both
published Copilot v62 identities and generate source-bound v63 from the
pinned merged base. No v63 live qualification is claimed.
- Certify the structured isolated-directory binding failure only at its
pre-allocation boundary and only through canonical task Retry. Other
workspace validation reasons and unknown effects remain denied.
- Route Retry to eligible newer saved input through the existing
canonical owner. Preserve the old result and skipped receipt. Require
current principal, source, App, runtime fence, budget, native ownership
and exact cleanup proof.
- Recover absent historical App metadata only through an earlier trusted
processed response receipt and an immutable non-null endpoint claim.
Explicit malformed or conflicting metadata stays denied.
- Revalidate execution through the exact claimed wake, coalesced task
Retry and resolved user-continuation receipt after admission. A second
normal Retry can recover the exact never-started authorization failure
with unchanged saved input. Require empty execution evidence, exact
diagnostics and no allocated or active executor.
- Explain when a recorded result prevents exact replay. Ordinary board
Retry directs a new task message to continue from saved work. Inherited
requester identity alone never grants replay.
- Keep accepted board-message preparation failures with the canonical
task Retry owner. Certify the exact unchanged comment, original user
wake, accepted same-user identity and absence of provider execution. Pin
that source, recheck it at admission, and bind identity initialization
to the coalesced intent and exact claimed successor receipt.
Uncertifiable sources retain an actionable fresh-message refusal.
- Return safe named authority categories for board Retry refusals.
Update execution documentation and capability maps. Add no schema or
polling loop.

## Verification

- A fresh external review request exposed a separate isolated-directory
preparation failure before allocation. Its first normal Retry saved an
intent but admitted no successor. This follow-up certifies only that
exact structured preparation boundary through the existing canonical
Retry owner, with trusted failed settlement and no executor, lease,
result or output. A real HTTP/queue regression reproduces the missing
successor before the repair. Twenty-three current-source safety cases
and the final 98-case Retry/HTTP group pass, including a fresh click
after a denied intent, source revocation, accepted results and the older
direct API remaining denied. The warning case uses actual configuration
preparation and production event append; unknown warning shape or
provider provenance stays denied. Full workspace typecheck, build, maps
and diff checks pass. Renewed hosted normal Retry now succeeds on the
final combined source: it preserves the exact saved request and linked
requester, starts one native successor in a fresh attempt workspace,
publishes the current-head 2/5 assessment and commits In review with
passive response wake.

- A later hosted normal Retry published a low-score assessment but lost
its accepted source identity because the previous attempt failed before
identity initialization. It repeated continuation errors, then submitted
Done. This is failed acceptance, not a successful qualification. The
initializer now retains the exact source only after execution-time
failed-chat Retry authorization; generic Retry and Done policy are
unchanged. A real queue/initializer regression fails with a null source
on the previous code and passes with the newer saved source. Two real
database completion cases verify that source yields the authoritative
wait and commits In review. Renewed hosted normal Retry now retains the
accepted source and exposes the authoritative current-review wait. It
completed after two semantic feedback corrections (wrong contract
revision, then wrong criterion IDs); the correct contract was present in
emitted input. The third finish was accepted and committed In review,
with no missing-wait loop or Done escalation.
- Repeated board-message preparation failures now walk their canonical
intent, failed dispatch and accepted parent identity, rechecking each
contained predecessor. A production queue regression fails the second
ordinary HTTP Retry before the repair and passes afterward. Changed
source, contradictory execution evidence and cyclic receipts remain
denied; traversal stops after twenty links.

- New inherited omission cases failed before the repair. The final full
PostgreSQL 18 wait/status suite passes **252 tests** under Node 24.22.
It covers omitted/null input, malformed-first recovery, same-head
resume, exact-source replies, changed heads, revoked access,
pending/uncertain/mixed publications, final commit revalidation, no
duplicate review and no self-wake.
- **15 existing publication tests passed before the pinned merge** on a
separate fresh database. They retain default partial-delivery and
failure-fallback behavior. Context reads remain below the unchanged 16
KiB heartbeat and publication response limits with large saved output
present.
- Saved-input tests cover a real signed PR webhook, production
accounting-budget refusal, normal policy recovery and canonical Retry.
Historical producer-shaped tests prove the missing-App case red, then
check trusted prior receipts and malformed, late, revoked or mismatched
proof. A broader order-coupled test was reproduced on the prior source;
its global fault injector now targets its own authorization query. The
43-case sequence passes without changing production behavior or its
safety assertions.
- New signed-ingress and real heartbeat execution tests reproduced the
admitted-successor failure, then the next normal Retry failure. The
final pinned merged source passes 249 full GitHub review/publication and
Retry cases on a fresh database, including all 49 saved-input cases. A
separate 74-case Retry/HTTP run also passes. Exact dispatch negatives
cover source, company, agent, task, successor, receipt, pause,
assignment, accepted success, controller and cleanup proof. Bootstrap
contradictions remain denied. The canonical Retry suite passes 16 cases
through its supported external PostgreSQL test connection.
- The normal board HTTP route reproduced the unusable inherited-result
refusal. It now returns actionable guidance without starting a
successor. The actual UI Retry hook and banner tests pass 12 cases.
- A production-shaped accepted board comment followed by a pre-provider
qualification failure reproduced HTTP 409 before the repair. The final
real HTTP/queue test certifies one canonical successor and preserves the
accepted identity. It rejects changed source, actor, task, agent,
result, controller, process, profile, allocation and receipt evidence. A
post-acceptance source change keeps the same intent pending. Execution
revalidation rejects removed or mismatched proof. The probe stops
deliberately after production identity initialization; it does not claim
provider execution. The final source passes the 75-case Retry group, the
focused two-case board/inherited-policy group and 19 canonical Retry
cases. Full workspace typecheck, build and map checks pass.
- Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Map,
module-boundary and diff checks pass. Full local `pnpm test:run` remains
unverified. The 256-case explicit-native suite cannot initialize its
packaged PostgreSQL because libzstd is absent; an existing
command-scoped fallback did not resolve it. Current-head remote
full-suite checks are required. Merged-source full GitHub+Retry (249),
separate Retry/HTTP (74), full wait/status (252), profile/history and
completion (75), and visible Retry hook/banner (12) checks pass. The
fresh owned PostgreSQL 18 databases applied all 377 migrations.
- Actual Rust Runner, OpenCode 1.18.34 and exact DeepSeek used unchanged
production-generated synthetic contexts. Resume finished with an
explicit server wait. The author-reply trial omitted continuation twice:
its first report failed the existing empty-criteria check; the corrected
second report still omitted continuation and received the exact server
wait. It completed once with no missing-wait loop or Done escalation.
Controller acknowledgments were synthetic; these probes do not establish
hosted publication or board state.
- Hosted combined testing proved automatic admission of the exact saved
author reply, a useful GitHub answer and committed passive wait. It
required two malformed-continuation rejections before a nullish fallback
succeeded. A later normal Pause/Resume completed in one finish with
explicit response_wake and no new review/comment. The admitted normal
Retry then exposed the execution guard gap repaired here. Those remain
checkpoint results. On the final combined source, renewed normal Retry
completed actual native provider work and GitHub publication, committed
the passive wait, released ownership and cleaned up its environment. A
subsequent ordinary unmentioned author reply woke once, made no GitHub
tool calls or new assessment, and completed its first finish with an
explicit response wake. Both exact leases expired with successful
cleanup and the queue was empty. However, final destination inspection
found a separate automatic fallback overwrote the existing summary with
a generic no-final-response message. External summary preservation
therefore remains failed acceptance; the separate publication repair in
#17726 owns that producer. Full combined publication preservation has
not passed. These hosted runs include the pinned-base native additions;
they do not qualify Copilot v63.
- Current-head automated review is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. All
current-head CI gates passed (54 successful checks/contexts, four
skipped, none pending). The earlier login-cleanup idle-work assertion
also reproduced locally while its controlled baseline passed; its cause
remains unknown, but the exact assertion passed in the fresh
current-head CI shard. No timeout, assertion or production workaround
was added. This PR is ready for review within its source, authority,
native finalization, state, wake and cleanup scope. The independent
automatic fallback publication regression is tracked by #17726; no
complete combined workflow pass is claimed.

## Risks

- The latest saved review defines the durable head boundary. Ingress
must record a new head before admission. A reply receipt proves delivery
only for its exact saved source; a shared GitHub comment ID alone cannot
authorize this wait.
- Historical App recovery cannot infer identity without direct proof or
an earlier valid server response receipt. It never replays that
response.
- This does not infer review-score policy from instructions or override
Done. No deployment, merge or repair of historical tasks is claimed by
the PR.

## Model Used

OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
editing and test execution. 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 (focused database and
native suites; full local suite limitation described 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 (verified on immutable latest
head)
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(verified on the latest head)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-26 22:22:47 -05:00
2026-03-07 02:57:28 +09:00

Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.

Quickstart · Docs · GitHub · Discord · Twitter · Website

MIT License Stars Discord Security posture verified by Superagent

Star History Rank


Sign up for the Paperclip Cloud waitlist →


Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.

Open-source orchestration for teams of AI agents.

If OpenClaw is an employee, Paperclip is the company.

Paperclip is a Node.js server and React UI that orchestrates a team of AI agents to run a business. Bring your own agents, assign goals, and track work and costs from one dashboard. Choose models and harnesses per agent while keeping your team's tasks, skills, permissions, and history in one place.

It looks like a task manager. Under the hood: org charts, budgets, governance, goal alignment, and agent coordination.

Manage business goals, not pull requests.

Step Example
01 Define the goal "Build the #1 AI note-taking app to $1M MRR."
02 Hire the team CEO, CTO, engineers, designers, marketers — any bot, any provider.
03 Approve and run Review strategy. Set budgets. Hit go. Monitor from the dashboard.

Works
with
OpenClaw
OpenClaw
Claude Code
Claude Code
Codex
Codex
Cursor and Cursor Cloud
Cursor
+ Cloud
Gemini CLI
Gemini CLI
OpenCode
OpenCode
Pi
Pi
Hermes and Hermes Gateway
Hermes
+ Gateway
Grok Build
Grok Build
Kimi Code
Kimi Code

If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.

Custom processes, HTTP endpoints, and external adapter packages extend the roster. See the adapter overview for setup and capabilities.


Paperclip is right for you if

  • ✅ You want to build autonomous AI organizations
  • ✅ You coordinate many different agents (OpenClaw, Codex, Claude, Cursor) toward a common goal
  • ✅ You have 20 simultaneous Claude Code terminals open and lose track of what everyone is doing
  • ✅ You want agents running autonomously 24/7, but still want to audit work and chime in when needed
  • ✅ You want to monitor costs and enforce budgets
  • ✅ You want a process for managing agents that feels like using a task manager
  • ✅ You want to manage your autonomous businesses from your phone

The four pillars

Four things have to work for an organization of AI agents to actually produce: the tasks, the org, the training, and the infrastructure. Paperclip is built around exactly those four pillars.

The four pillars of Paperclip
Pillar Built for What it covers
Agentic Task Manager — Declare intent. Agents work. You verify the output. Everyone, daily Tasks, approvals & review gates · proactive agent coworkers · auditable routines & workflows · verify from diffs, screenshots & tests
Org Chart for Agents — Roles, permissions & boundaries for humans and agents. Managers Mixed human + agent org chart · responsibilities, delegation, specialization · governance: who can do what · scoped secrets & company boundaries · connection permissions & responsible-user identities
Agent Employee Training — Design, train & evaluate your AI employees. Enablers Skill Studio & shared org-wide skills · evals & saved test runs · active learning loops & quality metrics · performance reviews for agents · saved test inputs · skill version history & restore · reusable team templates
Agentic OS — The infrastructure that makes the work run. IT & platform Cross-provider runtime: any model, any agent · sandboxing, integrations & MCP servers · SSO, GRC, RBAC & cost controls · data privacy, internal trace collection, compounding data value · personal & shared app connections · run history & opt-in tracing

Features

🔌 Bring Your Own Agent

Any agent, any runtime, one org chart. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.

🎯 Goal Alignment

Link tasks and projects to your organization goals. Agents receive the goal context behind their work.

💓 Heartbeats

Agents wake for assigned work, follow-up messages, or configured schedules. Delegation flows up and down the org chart.

💰 Cost Control

Company, agent, and project budgets. Track reported spend, get threshold alerts, and pause work at configured limits.

🏢 Multi-Organization

One deployment, many organizations. Separate tasks, agents, permissions, and activity histories for each.

🎫 Task Threads

Keep conversations, plans, blockers, files, and run history attached to the work. Assign tasks to agents or people.

🛡️ Governance

Configure review and approval stages, approve hires, and pause, reassign, or stop work when needed.

📊 Org Chart

Hierarchies, roles, reporting lines. Your agents have a boss, a title, and a job description.

📱 Mobile Ready

Monitor and manage your autonomous businesses from anywhere.

🔗 Apps & Connections

Connect services such as GitHub, Notion, and Railway, or your own MCP server. Set gateway actions to Allowed, Ask first, or Off.

👥 Shared Agents, Personal Accounts

Choose who can use a connection and which agents can access it. Managed GitHub operations can use the account of the person directing the work.

🧠 Skills & Skill Studio

Install or write shared skills, test them with saved inputs, inspect results, and restore earlier versions.

📅 Scheduled Routines

Run recurring work on a schedule or trigger it through an API or webhook. Each run has a task, an owner, and a history.

📎 Artifacts & Feedback

Find the files and documents agents produce. Preview supported formats and leave comments on specific passages in documents.

📦 Ready-Made Teams

Preview and install teams with roles, skills, projects, and routines. Choose their runtimes and make the setup your own.

Experimental Agent Chat and chat/email connectors add conversations with agents in Paperclip and through configured services such as Slack, Discord, Telegram, and AgentMail. Enable the relevant instance settings to try them.


Problems Paperclip solves

Without Paperclip With Paperclip
❌ You have 20 Claude Code tabs open and can't track which one does what. On reboot you lose everything. ✅ Tasks are ticket-based, conversations are threaded, sessions persist across reboots.
❌ You manually gather context from several places to remind your bot what you're actually doing. ✅ Context flows from the task up through the project and company goals — your agent always knows what to do and why.
❌ Folders of agent configs are disorganized and you're re-inventing task management, communication, and coordination between agents. ✅ Paperclip gives you org charts, ticketing, delegation, and governance out of the box — so you run a company, not a pile of scripts.
❌ Runaway loops waste hundreds of dollars of tokens and max your quota before you even know what happened. ✅ Spend tracking, budget alerts, and automatic pauses help you control the cost of ongoing work.
❌ You have recurring jobs (customer support, social, reports) and have to remember to manually kick them off. ✅ Routines create assigned tasks on a schedule, with outputs and run history you can inspect.
❌ You have an idea, you have to find your repo, fire up Claude Code, keep a tab open, and babysit it. ✅ Add a task in Paperclip. Your coding agent works on it until it's done. Management reviews their work.

Why Paperclip is special

Paperclip handles the hard orchestration details correctly.

Atomic task checkout. A single assignee and execution locks prevent competing runs from claiming the same task.
Persistent work context. Tasks, comments, and documents stay in Paperclip. Supporting adapters resume saved sessions across runs.
Runtime skill injection. Agents can learn Paperclip workflows and project context at runtime, without retraining.
Governance with rollback. Approval gates are enforced, config changes are revisioned, and bad changes can be rolled back safely.
Accountable connections. Human access, agent eligibility, and gateway action permissions are separate controls. Approve a call once or save a revocable rule.
Goal-aware execution. Linked tasks and projects carry goal ancestry so agents see the "why," not just a title.
Portable company templates. Export/import orgs, agents, and skills with secret scrubbing and collision handling.
Organization boundaries. Company-scoped access checks keep each organization's work, agents, and activity separate within one deployment.

What's Under the Hood

Paperclip is a full control plane, not a wrapper. Before you build any of this yourself, know that it already exists:

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                       PAPERCLIP SERVER                       │
│                                                              │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  │
│  │Identity & │  │  Work &   │  │ Heartbeat │  │Governance │  │
│  │  Access   │  │   Tasks   │  │ Execution │  │& Approvals│  │
│  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  │
│                                                              │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  │
│  │ Org Chart │  │Workspaces │  │  Plugins  │  │  Budget   │  │
│  │ & Agents  │  │ & Runtime │  │           │  │ & Costs   │  │
│  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  │
│                                                              │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  │
│  │ Routines  │  │ Secrets & │  │ Activity  │  │  Company  │  │
│  │& Schedules│  │  Storage  │  │ & Events  │  │Portability│  │
│  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
         ▲              ▲              ▲              ▲
   ┌─────┴─────┐  ┌─────┴─────┐  ┌─────┴─────┐  ┌─────┴─────┐
   │  Claude   │  │   Codex   │  │   CLI     │  │ HTTP/web  │
   │   Code    │  │           │  │  agents   │  │   bots    │
   └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘

The Systems

Identity & Access — Two deployment modes (trusted local or authenticated), human roles and permissions, agent API keys, short-lived run JWTs, company memberships, and invite flows. Responsible-user attribution follows work through delegation and supported managed connections.

Org Chart & Agents — Agents have roles, titles, reporting lines, permissions, and budgets. Adapter examples match the diagram: Claude Code, Codex, CLI agents such as Cursor/Gemini/bash, HTTP/webhook bots such as OpenClaw, and external adapter plugins. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.

Work & Task System — Issues carry company/project/goal/parent links, atomic checkout with execution locks, first-class blocker dependencies, comments, documents, attachments, work products, labels, and inbox state. Search across work, review document revisions, and leave anchored feedback.

Heartbeat Execution — DB-backed wakeup queue with coalescing, budget checks, workspace resolution, secret injection, skill loading, and adapter invocation. Runs produce logs, usage records, and adapter-specific session state. Bounded recovery handles supported failures and surfaces cases that need human action.

Workspaces & Runtime — Project repositories and workspaces, optional isolated execution workspaces (git worktrees, operator branches), and runtime services (dev servers, preview URLs). Sandbox providers extend execution beyond the local host; availability depends on the configured environment and adapter.

Governance & Approvals — Board approval workflows, execution policies with review/approval stages, decision tracking, budget hard-stops, and agent pause/resume/terminate. Configured task reviews govern completion; connection action approvals govern calls through the tool gateway.

Budget & Cost Control — Token and cost tracking by company, agent, project, goal, issue, provider, and model. Scoped budget policies with warning thresholds and hard stops. Enforcement uses recorded spend; usage reporting and in-flight work can delay a stop.

Routines & Schedules — Recurring tasks with cron, webhook, and API triggers. Concurrency and catch-up policies. Each routine execution creates a tracked issue and wakes the assigned agent — no manual kick-offs needed.

Plugins — Instance-wide plugin system with out-of-process workers, capability-gated host services, job scheduling, tool exposure, and UI contributions. Extend Paperclip without forking it.

Secrets & Storage — Company secrets and per-person secret values, encrypted credential storage, local or S3-compatible file storage, attachments, and work products. Secret references supply credentials to authorized runs without copying values into ordinary agent configuration.

Activity & Events — Mutating actions, heartbeat state changes, cost events, approvals, comments, and work products are recorded as durable activity so operators can audit what happened and why.

Company Portability — Preview, export, and import organization packages with agents, skills, and optional projects, routines, tasks, and attachments. Referenced secret values are omitted; review packages before sharing because plain environment values and local paths can remain. Packages share an operating setup; full-instance recovery uses backups.


What Paperclip is not

Not just a chatbot. Conversations stay attached to tasks, plans, decisions, and outputs. Experimental Agent Chat can hand work off to assigned tasks.
Not an agent framework. We don't tell you how to build agents. We tell you how to run a company made of them.
Not just a workflow builder. Routines operate within an organization, with roles, goals, budgets, and governance.
Not a prompt manager. Agents bring their own prompts, models, and runtimes. Paperclip manages the organization they work in.
Not limited to one agent. Start with one agent and grow into a team with shared skills, delegation, and review.
Not only for code review. Coding and PR review fit alongside research, operations, content, and other work.

Quickstart

Open source. Self-hosted. No Paperclip account required. Follow the guided quickstart to set up your first agent.

Just ask your agent to install Paperclip

Share the installation guide with your agent.

Or install it yourself

With Node.js 24.11 or newer installed:

npx paperclipai@latest onboard --yes

The CLI runs from npm's cache; your instance configuration and data persist locally.

See the installation guide for managed installs, pinned versions, canary and git-ref installs, updates, rollback, service management, and uninstalling.

For an isolated manual test instance that is already initialized with a CEO agent, use test-drive. It stays in the foreground, never installs a service or creates a first task, and opens the browser only after setup succeeds:

ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive
OPENAI_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive --harness codex
OPENROUTER_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive \
  --harness opencode \
  --model openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Each run without --data-dir gets a unique, retained temporary directory; its absolute path is printed at startup. Pass --data-dir to reuse one, or --no-browser to leave the initialized instance unopened. When invoked from a linked Git worktree, test-drive also enables task execution in that worktree. See the test-drive guide for credential and reuse behavior.

Troubleshooting: private npm registry .npmrc

If this fails with an E404 for paperclipai (or similar) and you use a private npm registry (for example GitHub Packages) via a global ~/.npmrc, npx may be resolving paperclipai against that private registry instead of the public npm registry.

Diagnostic:

npm config get registry

Workaround (cross-platform; force the public npm registry for this command):

npx --registry https://registry.npmjs.org paperclipai@latest onboard --yes

That quickstart path now defaults to trusted local loopback mode for the fastest first run. To start in authenticated/private mode instead, choose a bind preset explicitly:

npx paperclipai@latest onboard --yes --bind lan
# or:
npx paperclipai@latest onboard --yes --bind tailnet

If you already have Paperclip configured, rerunning onboard keeps the existing config in place. Use npx paperclipai configure to edit settings.

Or manually:

git clone https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
cd paperclip
pnpm install
pnpm dev

This starts the UI and API at http://localhost:3100. An embedded PostgreSQL database is created automatically — no setup required.

Requirements: Node.js 24.11+, pnpm 9.15+

Local Claude and Codex subscription sign-in also needs Python 3 and the corresponding provider CLI on the Paperclip host. The Docker image includes them.

Source development also builds the native Paperclip Runner when enabled (the self-hosted default). Install a Rust toolchain, or set PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_BINARY to a compatible prebuilt runner.


FAQ

Q: Is this project maintained or just slop?

A: Paperclip is maintained by the Paperclip team. We've merged over 2,700 pull requests.


Q: What does a typical setup look like?

A: Locally, a single Node.js process manages an embedded Postgres and local file storage. For production, point it at your own Postgres and deploy however you like. Configure projects, agents, and goals — the agents take care of the rest.

For remote access, use authenticated mode with a private-network bind such as Tailscale, or deploy the persistent server with Docker. See deployment modes and the Docker guide.


Q: Can I run multiple companies?

A: Yes. A single deployment can host multiple organizations with company-scoped data and access checks.


Q: How is Paperclip different from agents like OpenClaw or Claude Code?

A: Paperclip uses those agents. It orchestrates them into a company — with org charts, budgets, goals, governance, and accountability.


Q: Why should I use Paperclip instead of just pointing my OpenClaw to Asana or Trello?

A: Agent orchestration has subtleties in how you coordinate who has work checked out, how to maintain sessions, monitoring costs, establishing governance - Paperclip does this for you.

(Bring-your-own-ticket-system is on the Roadmap)


Q: Do agents run continuously?

A: Agents wake for assigned work and follow-up messages. Optional timer heartbeats let them check for work periodically; routines create recurring tasks on their own schedules. You can also connect externally running agents such as OpenClaw. A mention alone does not assign work or wake another agent.


Development

pnpm dev              # Full dev (API + UI, watch mode)
pnpm dev:once         # Full dev without file watching
pnpm dev:server       # Server only
pnpm dev:mobile       # Serve prebuilt UI on :3101 for phones/tablets (proxies /api → :3100)
pnpm dev:both         # Run `pnpm dev` and `pnpm dev:mobile` together
pnpm build            # Build all
pnpm typecheck        # Type checking
pnpm test             # Cheap default test run (Vitest only)
pnpm test:watch       # Vitest watch mode
pnpm test:e2e         # Playwright browser suite
pnpm db:generate      # Generate DB migration
pnpm db:migrate       # Apply migrations

pnpm test does not run Playwright. Browser suites stay separate and are typically run only when working on those flows or in CI.

See doc/DEVELOPING.md for the full development guide.


Roadmap

  • ✅ Plugin system (e.g. add a knowledge base, custom tracing, queues, etc)
  • ✅ Get OpenClaw / claw-style agent employees
  • ✅ companies.sh - import and export entire organizations
  • ✅ Easy AGENTS.md configurations
  • ✅ Skills Manager, Skill Studio & Skills Store
  • ✅ Scheduled Routines
  • ✅ Better Budgeting
  • ✅ Agent Reviews and Approvals
  • ✅ Multiple Human Users
  • ✅ Cloud / Sandbox agents (e2b, Cloudflare, Daytona, Modal, Novita, self-hosted Kubernetes)
  • ✅ Artifacts & Work Products
  • ✅ Deep Planning (planning mode, revisioned plans, plan approvals)
  • ✅ Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery actions, review gates)
  • ✅ MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool access)
  • ✅ Secrets Manager with per-agent access
  • ✅ Activity log & action attribution
  • ✅ Self-healing runs & automatic recovery
  • ✅ Agent evals & feedback
  • ✅ Connected Apps
  • ✅ Personal & Shared AI Accounts
  • ✅ Shared Agents Use Personal GitHub Identities
  • ✅ Skill Version History & Restore
  • ✅ Document Comments & Revision History
  • ✅ Company-Wide Search
  • ✅ Multi-Model & Multi-Harness Teams
  • 🟡 Memory / Knowledge
  • ⚪ MAXIMIZER MODE
  • ⚪ Work Queues
  • ⚪ Self-Organization
  • ⚪ Automatic Organizational Learning
  • 🟡 Agent Chat
  • 🟡 Cloud deployments
  • ⚪ Desktop App
  • ⚪ Bring-your-own-ticket-system (Asana / Linear / Jira as on-ramps)

This is the short roadmap preview. See the full roadmap in ROADMAP.md.


Community & Plugins

Find Plugins and more at awesome-paperclip

Observability

Paperclip ships with opt-in OpenTelemetry auto-instrumentation for the server (traces only). It activates when OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT is set and supports grpc, http/protobuf, and http/json via the standard OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_PROTOCOL env var. @opentelemetry/api is a normal server dependency; the SDK, auto-instrumentation, and exporter packages are optional peer dependencies — install them only if you want tracing. See doc/observability.md for install commands and the full env-var reference.

Paperclip also ships with opt-in Sentry error monitoring for the server and the browser. Set SENTRY_DSN_FRONTEND to activate it for the browser and SENTRY_DSN_BACKEND to activate it for the server — each variable is optional, and the legacy SENTRY_DSN variable still works as a fallback for either component. The supported server SDK version is @sentry/node@10.71.0; it is an optional peer dependency for the server, so install it only if you want error monitoring. The browser SDK, @sentry/browser, is pinned to the same exact version. See doc/observability.md for the install command, the privacy settings, and the full default capture set.

Telemetry

Paperclip collects anonymous usage telemetry to help us understand how the product is used and improve it. No personal information, issue content, prompts, file paths, or secrets are ever collected. Private repository references are hashed with a per-install salt before being sent.

Contributors changing emitted telemetry events should follow the Telemetry Data Contract. For proposed first-party events that are not in the generated contract yet, follow Telemetry Workflow.

Telemetry is enabled by default and can be disabled with any of the following:

Method How
Environment variable PAPERCLIP_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=1
Standard convention DO_NOT_TRACK=1
CI environments Automatically disabled when CI=true
Config file Set telemetry.enabled: false in your Paperclip config

Contributing

We welcome contributions. See the contributing guide for details.

We're hiring


Community


License

MIT © 2026 Paperclip Labs, Inc

Star History

Star History Chart

Open source under MIT. Built for people who want to get work done, not babysit agents.

S
Description
No description provided
Readme MIT
2 GiB
0 Stars 1 Watchers 0 Forks
Languages
TypeScript 92.4%
JavaScript 3.6%
Rust 2.7%
CSS 0.4%
Shell 0.4%
Other 0.3%