mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
b4a7a12985
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The recovery subsystem restores work after an agent run stops or loses state > - Recovery notices currently use the same visual weight as normal work comments > - Recovery agents can also post long narratives that obscure the useful hand-off > - The server must identify recovery output because agents cannot set presentation controls > - This pull request adds compact recovery notices, structured action references, and brief recovery prompts > - The benefit is a quieter issue thread that still keeps recovery state inspectable ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `packages/adapter-utils`. **Problem or motivation** Recovery notices and recovery-run comments can dominate an issue thread. Operators must scan routine recovery narration before they find the work hand-off. **Proposed solution** Give routine recovery output a compact system-notice presentation. Derive the presentation on the server so agents cannot hide arbitrary comments. Keep the successful missing-state summary fully visible because that comment is the recovery deliverable. **Alternatives considered** The UI could detect recovery text. That approach is fragile and does not provide structured action references. Agents could also set presentation directly, but that would weaken the current board-only security boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This change refines the completed “Self-healing runs & automatic recovery” and “Enforced Outcomes” roadmap areas. It does not add a competing roadmap capability. **Additional context** The scope covers shared comment validation, server recovery notices, agent-comment derivation, and recovery prompt text. No database migration is needed because presentation data already uses JSON. ## What Changed - Add the `compact` issue-comment presentation density to shared constants, types, and validation. - Give recovery escalation, waiting, and in-place notices compact titles and structured recovery-action metadata. - Use recovery-action metadata for notice deduplication, with the legacy text marker as a compatibility fallback. - Derive compact presentation for comments from recovery-scoped runs while preserving the board-only presentation boundary. - Keep successful missing-state recovery summaries fully visible. - Ask recovery participants to record outcomes in `resolutionNote` and keep source-issue comments brief. - Add shared, route, service, and prompt tests for the new behavior and exceptions. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - Focused Vitest coverage: 320 tests passed across shared validators, adapter prompts, issue comments, recovery actions, and heartbeat recovery. - Full server phase: 292 files passed, 3,094 tests passed, and 2 tests skipped. - Full UI phase: 386 files passed and 3,182 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - Known master baseline: `cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` expects `pass`, but the current implementation returns `warn` when strict secret mode is disabled for Postgres. This branch does not change CLI secrets code. ## Risks - Low migration risk. The presentation column is JSON and needs no database migration. - Recovery-run detection depends on the persisted run context snapshot. - Structured metadata becomes the primary deduplication key. The existing body marker remains as a fallback for older comments. > 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 with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and 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 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>