## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents, tasks and their external chat responses. > - A completed chat turn can owe a response while an earlier review gate remains pending. > - Periodic recovery revisits that response history even when no work can advance. > - This change uses the existing delivery coordinator and saved retry deadlines. > - Approval, interaction and authority changes wake the affected issue or run after commit. > - The existing presentation owner verifies the durable result and current authority. > - Settled and dormant history becomes quiet without losing future eligible responses. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17696 (merged) and #15625. This is slice 49, now based on master. It owns governed-review response presentation. Accepted responses and pending decision effects keep their existing owners. **What happened?** Native finalization recovery repeatedly inspects committed review responses. Removing the scan without covering approval, interaction, task-policy and authority changes would strand responses that become eligible later. **Expected behavior** Recover an owed response once from existing durable facts. Enforce authority at publication, wake after relevant outer transactions commit, retain real retry deadlines and restart/drain recovery, and stop recurring SQL when no response can advance. **Steps to reproduce** Complete an external chat turn while an earlier completion review remains pending. Block its response behind an approval or interaction, then resolve that blocker. The response must appear once without a periodic scan or resolving the original review gate. ## What Changed - Add a scoped governed-review worker using the existing coordinator, finalizations, decisions and comment receipts. No queue table or transaction wrapper is added. - Keep recovery and publication policy in the native finalizer. Preserve binding, source/session authority, ownership, deadline and deleted-comment fences; match coordinator-before-issue lock ordering. - Notify through actual approval, interaction, OAuth, task-policy and lifecycle producers before their owned writes. Serialize approval resolution with task linking so a concurrent link retains its wake. Nested transactions still settle at outer commit. - Scope ordinary milestones, finalization and coalesced input to their issue/run. Use the explicit company authority boundary for genuine global restoration, including membership changes. Both response workers share this boundary. - Register under maintenance and drain gates, disable the two periodic repair entrances, and retain fresh finalization and explicit recovery. Add the concurrent 0413 comment-receipt index and migration registration; retain five snapshots. - Preserve the producer inventory, source qualifications and earlier failures in the owner audit. Retain a real Photon regression proving routine ownership assertions stay quiet and concurrent authority restoration wakes each worker once. ## Verification - Scoped repair source `2341714720b5c273f0ce011b48345af0ef39227f` passes **2053 distinct cases**: 1703 in 15 complete producer/authority/recovery files, including all 273 governed-response cases and 95 wake-queue adapter cases, plus 350 selected chat cases. Another 1463 chat cases are outside that selection. Thirteen fresh PostgreSQL 17 fixtures migrate through unchanged 0413; the one temporary queue-fixture import restores exactly. All sixteen captured hashes match. - Two actual repeated coarse-hint SQL regressions fail before repair and pass afterward. Actual membership restoration passes before and after. The same assertions and time limits prove dormant work stays quiet and real authority restoration still publishes once. Real coalesced input covers both queues after commit. - Combined source `586f5674cd9798b33cd22437255e0480b5726d20`, including independent master #18129, passes **1297 distinct cases**: 1093 in five complete server files, 185 in five runner files, 14 Node protocol cases and five UI registry cases. This includes the complete 22-case Photon file for both response workers. The external Photon transport is mocked; Paperclip callbacks, transaction fences and observed SQL are real. The earlier and combined case counts are separate, with no cumulative double-counting. - A normal merge retains both complete owned and independent master binary patches. All twelve new-context hashes and sixteen earlier repair hashes match. Three dedicated fresh 0413 fixtures plus the live-event helper's own fresh database use PostgreSQL 17 without source adaptations. Database build, server types/build, boundaries, full-SHA migration order and generated TS/Rust profiles pass. The new inherited Runner vendor inputs rebuild successfully. - Database bytes remain identical to the previously qualified 0413 source. The recorded populated 0412-to0413 upgrade retains all 411 prior receipts and 38 companies, appends one receipt and none on replay; the index is valid and ready. The earlier 2828-case acceptance, CLI journey, setup failures and their repairs retain their recorded source scope in `doc/plans/2026-10-26-governed-review-response-sleep-audit.md`. - Parent #17696 merged with 58 clean checks, Greptile 5/5 and Ponytail 5/5. Its Photon warning was disproved by real callback/SQL evidence and the security check became successful. This PR still requires its own fresh exact-head CI and review gates. No deployed sleep, external alarm or fleet savings claim is made. ## Risks - Notifications use the existing process-local writer contract. Independent SQL writers and uncoordinated replicas are outside its coverage. - Genuine startup and company authority reconstruction remain proportional to the owed backlog. Queries page 100 rows, but discovery accumulates the candidates; this is not a constant-cost global operation. - Current publication authorization, durable binding, ownership and lock ordering remain mandatory. The worker does not resolve the original review gate. - The concurrent index uses existing migration replay handling. Other recovery duties and Cloud sleep eligibility remain separate. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, shell execution and PostgreSQL tests. The runtime does not expose a more specific serving snapshot or context-window size. ## 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: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
Quickstart · Docs · GitHub · Discord · Twitter · Website
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.
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. |
Paperclip is right for you if
- ✅ You want to build autonomous AI companies
- ✅ 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
Features
🔌 Bring Your Own AgentAny agent, any runtime, one org chart. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired. |
🎯 Goal AlignmentEvery task traces back to the company mission. Agents know what to do and why. |
💓 HeartbeatsAgents wake on a schedule, check work, and act. Delegation flows up and down the org chart. |
💰 Cost ControlMonthly budgets per agent. When they hit the limit, they stop. No runaway costs. |
🏢 Multi-CompanyOne deployment, many companies. Complete data isolation. One control plane for your portfolio. |
🎫 Ticket SystemEvery conversation traced. Every decision explained. Full tool-call tracing and immutable audit log. |
🛡️ GovernanceApprove hires, override strategy, pause or terminate any agent — at any time. |
📊 Org ChartHierarchies, roles, reporting lines. Your agents have a boss, a title, and a job description. |
📱 Mobile ReadyMonitor and manage your autonomous businesses from anywhere. |
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. | ✅ Cost tracking surfaces token budgets and throttles agents when they're out. Management prioritizes with budgets. |
| ❌ You have recurring jobs (customer support, social, reports) and have to remember to manually kick them off. | ✅ Heartbeats handle regular work on a schedule. Management supervises. |
| ❌ 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 execution. | Task checkout and budget enforcement are atomic, so no double-work and no runaway spend. |
| Persistent agent state. | Agents resume the same task context across heartbeats instead of restarting from scratch. |
| 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. |
| Goal-aware execution. | Tasks carry full goal ancestry so agents consistently see the "why," not just a title. |
| Portable company templates. | Export/import orgs, agents, and skills with secret scrubbing and collision handling. |
| True multi-company isolation. | Every entity is company-scoped, so one deployment can run many companies with separate data and audit trails. |
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), board users, agent API keys, short-lived run JWTs, company memberships, invite flows, and OpenClaw onboarding. Every mutating request is traced to an actor. |
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. No double-work, no lost context. |
Heartbeat Execution — DB-backed wakeup queue with coalescing, budget checks, workspace resolution, secret injection, skill loading, and adapter invocation. Runs produce structured logs, cost events, session state, and audit trails. Recovery handles orphaned runs automatically. |
|
Workspaces & Runtime — Project workspaces, isolated execution workspaces (git worktrees, operator branches), and runtime services (dev servers, preview URLs). Agents work in the right directory with the right context every time. |
Governance & Approvals — Board approval workflows, execution policies with review/approval stages, decision tracking, budget hard-stops, agent pause/resume/terminate, and full audit logging. Nothing ships without your sign-off. |
|
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. Overspend pauses agents and cancels queued work automatically. |
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 — Instance and company secrets, encrypted local storage, provider-backed object storage, attachments, and work products. Sensitive values stay out of prompts unless a scoped run explicitly needs them. |
|
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 — Export and import entire organizations — agents, skills, projects, routines, and issues — with secret scrubbing and collision handling. One deployment, many companies, complete data isolation. |
What Paperclip is not
| Not a chatbot. | Agents have jobs, not chat windows. |
| 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 a workflow builder. | No drag-and-drop pipelines. Paperclip models companies — with org charts, goals, budgets, and governance. |
| Not a prompt manager. | Agents bring their own prompts, models, and runtimes. Paperclip manages the organization they work in. |
| Not a single-agent tool. | This is for teams. If you have one agent, you probably don't need Paperclip. If you have twenty — you definitely do. |
| Not a code review tool. | Paperclip orchestrates work, not pull requests. Bring your own review process. |
Quickstart
Open source. Self-hosted. No Paperclip account required.
npx paperclipai 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 onboard --yes --bind lan
# or:
npx paperclipai onboard --yes --bind tailnet
If you already have Paperclip configured, rerunning onboard keeps the existing config in place. Use paperclipai configure to edit settings.
Or manually:
git clone https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
cd paperclip
pnpm install
pnpm dev
This starts the API server at http://localhost:3100. An embedded PostgreSQL database is created automatically — no setup required.
Requirements: Node.js 24.11+, pnpm 9.15+
FAQ
What does a typical setup look like? 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.
If you're a solo entrepreneur you can use Tailscale to access Paperclip on the go. Then later you can deploy to e.g. Vercel when you need it.
Can I run multiple companies? Yes. A single deployment can run an unlimited number of companies with complete data isolation.
How is Paperclip different from agents like OpenClaw or Claude Code? Paperclip uses those agents. It orchestrates them into a company — with org charts, budgets, goals, governance, and accountability.
Why should I use Paperclip instead of just pointing my OpenClaw to Asana or Trello? 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)
Do agents run continuously? By default, agents run on scheduled heartbeats and event-based triggers (task assignment, @-mentions). You can also hook in continuous agents like OpenClaw. You bring your agent and Paperclip coordinates.
Importing & Exporting Companies
Export a company to a portable package and import it into any other instance — local or cloud — from a local path or GitHub:
paperclipai company export <company-id> --out ./my-export
paperclipai company import ./my-export --dry-run
paperclipai company import org/repo --target new
The board UI has matching Export and Import pages in company settings: the Export page shows a fidelity panel listing what the bundle will not carry, and the Import page starts imported agents and routines paused by default, with a post-import activation step. See the Importing & Exporting guide for details.
Development
pnpm dev # Full dev (API + UI, watch mode)
pnpm dev:once # Full dev without file watching
pnpm dev:server # Server only
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
- ✅ Scheduled Routines
- ✅ Better Budgeting
- ✅ Agent Reviews and Approvals
- ✅ Multiple Human Users
- ⚪ Cloud / Sandbox agents (e.g. Cursor / e2b / Novita agents)
- ⚪ Artifacts & Work Products
- ⚪ Memory / Knowledge
- ⚪ Enforced Outcomes
- ⚪ MAXIMIZER MODE
- ⚪ Deep Planning
- ⚪ Work Queues
- ⚪ Self-Organization
- ⚪ Automatic Organizational Learning
- ⚪ CEO Chat
- ⚪ Cloud deployments
- ⚪ Desktop App
This is the short roadmap preview. See the full roadmap in ROADMAP.md.
Community & Plugins
Find Plugins and more at awesome-paperclip
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.
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.
Community
- Discord — Join the community
- Twitter / X — Follow updates and announcements
- GitHub Issues — bugs and feature requests
- GitHub Discussions — ideas and RFC
License
MIT © 2026 Paperclip Labs, Inc
Star History
Open source under MIT. Built for people who want to get work done, not babysit agents.
