## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Cases keep facts, documents, and one primary task across agent handoffs. > - Each case currently needs its own procedure text. > - Agents need to reuse procedures and move cases between them without replacing the task. > - This change adds company workflow definitions with a name and Markdown prompt. > - Existing handoff and document transactions preserve authority, revisions, and recovery. > - Cases remain behind `experimental.enableCases`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16959. Related proposal: #3951 uses task graphs and a visual editor. This change extends existing Cases with prompt definitions and keeps its current handoff model. **Problem or motivation** Agents cannot share a reusable procedure across cases or inspect a case's movement between procedures. **Proposed solution** Add name-and-prompt workflow definitions. Adopt a prompt into the primary task's revisioned workflow document through a handoff. Keep phases as free text. **Alternatives considered** Defer graphs, workflow versions, run entities, role schemas, authoring screens, and Spec Kit integration. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Cases experiment and same-task review flow. It adds no work queue or new execution engine. The maintainer approved this scope in the implementation plan. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped definition storage, shared request schemas, REST routes, and four optional Cases tools. - Accept a workflow ID at kickoff. Agent handoffs can adopt, refresh, preserve, or detach a workflow. - Capture prompt text and the document base revision at acceptance. Apply workflow, phase, and document revision together after outgoing execution settles. - Hold conflicting document edits for recovery. Preserve cancellation, replay, and restart behavior. - Show current workflow names and captured transition names/phases in Work, history, and Audit. - Update instructions, API/tool contracts, capability maps, and the isolated workflow journey. - Pin bounded workflow prompt reads to a content fingerprint; continuation conflicts on edits and can restart safely. - Remove experimental Cases/workflow/Mermaid guidance from the always-on native prompt. Extract runtime-context prompt strings into a CODEOWNERS-protected constants file while preserving the public imports. - Refresh Copilot’s pinned source identity to v57, including the extracted prompt file and retaining historical identities. ## Verification Local checks: repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on the prompt-extraction tree (`88222d45d8`). Full repository coverage previously completed through the supported isolated shard groups (1,082 general server suites, 161 serialized suites, and all three workspace groups). The earlier default serial run was interrupted and remains incomplete. The first sharded run retained the failures described below; targeted corrections and separate limited-concurrency reruns pass. All CI jobs, security checks, and the 5/5 Greptile review passed on `fc1bd79c28`. Fresh CI and review are pending for the prompt extraction in `88222d45d8`. Focused verification passes: real-database handoff recovery and reuse; 2,002 native-tool/API contract checks; 144 Runner catalog/discovery checks; 27 Runner context/coverage checks; 37 case/Audit UI checks; and Product E2E oracle calibration. Token gates, migration safety/numbering, module boundaries, capability maps, and generated tool/Storybook catalogs pass. The final route/context corrections pass 49 API/native-tool tests, 90 real-database handoff tests, and server typecheck; 142 Copilot installation/sidecar tests pass with the refreshed identity. Greptile’s first review found that successive prompt pages could mix definitions after an edit. The fix returns a content fingerprint, requires it for continuation, and rejects edits with 409. Strict live/catalog schemas pass (171 Runner checks). The 2,005 API/OpenAPI tests pass; the initial native regression caught compression’s weak ETag prefix, and all 23 native integration tests pass after handling it. The regression covers same-length edits and a four-byte restart window. No stored version fields or entities were added. The prompt extraction passes all 462 checks across six focused suites, including persisted-context recovery and provider transport. The first local transport attempt lacked the required debug Runner binaries (102 failures, retained); after building the normal prerequisites, all 283 tests in that suite pass without source or assertion changes. Existing saved snapshots retain their recorded prompt text, and new executions use core-only prompt v7. The extracted prompt source is now covered by both CODEOWNERS and Copilot’s source fingerprint. Live-provider evidence is separate from those simulated checks: the isolated API-key campaign `reusable-workflows-api-final-2026-10-21` passed with local code matching `a1d73b4652`. Four actual Codex API runs read the adopted task documents, moved one case A → B → A on the same task, completed normally, and passed all nine durable checks. Browser assertions verified the current workflow/phase, historical names/phases, five handoff records including terminal completion, and the completed original task. Cleanup passed. The local report remains under `tests/runner-e2e/results/reusable-workflows-api-final-2026-10-21/`; no credentials or screenshots are committed. CI initially caught an omitted route-inventory entry and a stale pinned instruction-source hash; both are corrected and separately verified. Local serialized coverage also recorded an unrelated environment-route socket disconnect and activity-route timeout; their separate 11-test and 17-test suites passed without code or timeout changes. An unchanged chunked-webhook check also passed its separate four-test rerun. The initial adapter/database workspace groups hit time and resource limits under default worker counts; complete reruns with `VITEST_MAX_WORKERS=2` pass, including all 55 database files and 211 tests. The UI/CLI groups passed 837 files and 9,442 tests in the original run. Original failures remain retained and are not regraded. Earlier failed live campaigns remain unchanged: subscription HTTP 429 before agent execution; an obsolete exact-four-row oracle that rejected the valid terminal fifth row; and a chat-marker expectation that did not account for the existing explicit-comment presentation policy. The final fixture requires terminal completion and places the marker in its authoritative comment. Positive/negative oracle tests and the fresh live campaign pass. ## Risks - The additive migration adds a table and nullable case/handoff fields. Existing rows keep null workflow metadata; no assignments are inferred. - Adoption can wait on an intervening task-document edit. Recovery must cancel the old intent and accept a new one after readback. - Shared definition edits affect future adoptions. Existing case copies keep their revisions. - The feature remains experimental. This PR does not merge or deploy the change. - Live acceptance covers native Codex before the prompt extraction; this cleanup has contract/transport verification rather than a new live-provider campaign. The refreshed Copilot identity has static compatibility evidence, not new live-provider qualification. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, configured model ID `gpt-6-astra`, xhigh reasoning. Used terminal execution, file editing, and tool calls. The active context-window size is not exposed. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>
26 KiB
Paperclip — Product Definition
Reusable workflows stay inside the Cases experiment. A workflow is a company-shared name and Markdown prompt; a case may adopt, leave and revisit workflows without changing its primary task. The task's workflow document is the effective copy, so shared edits affect future adoptions and explicit refreshes. Existing handoffs record workflow/phase movement and document revisions, including names as they were at the time. Authoring starts with agents/APIs; the case UI reads current workflow information and history.
What It Is
Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies. One instance of Paperclip can run multiple companies. A company is a first-order object.
Core Concepts
Company
A company has:
- A goal — the reason it exists ("Create the #1 AI note-taking app that does $1M MRR within 3 months")
- Employees — every employee is an AI agent
- Org structure — who reports to whom
- Revenue & expenses — tracked at the company level
- Task hierarchy — all work traces back to the company goal
Employees & Agents
Every employee is an agent. When you create a company, you start by defining the CEO, then build out from there.
Each employee has:
- Adapter type + config — how this agent runs and what defines its identity/behavior. This is adapter-specific (e.g., an OpenClaw agent might use SOUL.md and HEARTBEAT.md files; a Claude Code agent might use CLAUDE.md; a bare script might use CLI args). Paperclip doesn't prescribe the format — the adapter does.
- Role & reporting — their title, who they report to, who reports to them
- Capabilities description — a short paragraph on what this agent does and when they're relevant (helps other agents discover who can help with what)
Example: A CEO agent's adapter config tells it to "review what your executives are doing, check company metrics, reprioritize if needed, assign new strategic initiatives" on each heartbeat. An engineer's config tells it to "check assigned tasks, pick the highest priority, and work it."
Then you define who reports to the CEO: a CTO managing programmers, a CMO managing the marketing team, and so on. Every agent in the tree gets their own adapter configuration.
Each person also has a personal primary agent per company. Their first human-created agent becomes primary automatically; they can choose another from its profile. An existing primary is replaced only after confirmation. The crown appears on the profile and roster, while the primary stays first in the Agents sidebar without a sidebar crown. Stars remain independent. Task drafts, explicit assignments, and recent choices take precedence over the primary; Chat similarly reopens a valid recent conversation before falling back to the primary. Opening Chat does not start execution. This preference does not change the org chart or permissions.
Agent Execution
Paperclip supports several ways to run an agent's heartbeat:
- Local CLI/session adapters — Paperclip starts or resumes local coding-tool sessions such as Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, Pi, and Cursor, then tracks the run.
- Run a command — Paperclip kicks off a process (shell command, Python script, etc.) and tracks it. The heartbeat is "execute this and monitor it."
- Fire and forget a request — Paperclip sends a webhook/API call to an externally running agent. The heartbeat is "notify this agent to wake up." OpenClaw-style hooks work this way.
- External adapter plugins — Paperclip loads adapter packages through the plugin/adapter flow so self-hosted installs can add runtimes without hardcoding them in core.
Agent runs can use project and execution workspaces, managed runtime services such as preview/dev servers, adapter-specific session state, and HTTP/webhook-style execution. We provide sensible defaults, but the adapter is still the boundary: if a runtime can be invoked, observed, and authorized, Paperclip can coordinate it.
Task Management
Task management is hierarchical. At any moment, every piece of work must trace back to the company's top-level goal through a chain of parent tasks:
I am researching the Facebook ads Granola uses (current task)
because → I need to create Facebook ads for our software (parent)
because → I need to grow new signups by 100 users (parent)
because → I need to get revenue to $2,000 this week (parent)
because → ...
because → We're building the #1 AI note-taking app to $1M MRR in 3 months
Tasks have parentage. Every task exists in service of a parent task, all the way up to the company goal. This is what keeps autonomous agents aligned — they can always answer "why am I doing this?"
The current issue model includes stable issue identifiers, parent/sub-issues, blockers, a single assignee, comments, issue documents, attachments and work products, and review/approval handoffs. That structure keeps work inspectable by both the board and agents while still allowing agents to decompose work into smaller tasks.
The experimental Cases feature also supports persistent work records and
prompt-driven agent handoffs. Native case creation requires kickoff and creates
one primary task; later handoffs move that same task
between agents with a phase and instructions. The case retains facts, document references,
and history while normal task assignments form each agent's queue. Task sessions,
workspaces, private access, review rules, and human intervention remain part of
the ordinary execution model. Ordinary task completion leaves case status unchanged.
An explicit handoff to done closes the case when primary-task completion is
accepted through the existing gates; review and human waits keep it open.
Native agents can create, read and update case facts through dedicated tools.
Creation always includes a kickoff and either workflowId or explicit workflow_document_text.
The latter becomes the primary task's Markdown workflow document, describing
phase owners, routing, evidence and completion rules. Agents read it before
choosing their next step. Recommended authoring includes both a Mermaid
stateDiagram-v2 map and prose explaining each transition's conditions, evidence,
destination agent, human waits and correction limits. Transitions remain advisory. Initial documents belong to
the first task and are saved before its agent wakes; the case displays documents
from its primary and accessible linked tasks without copying them. Agents use
ordinary task document tools; historical case-owned documents remain readable.
Each phase receives its current handoff instructions;
compatible resumed sessions receive changed facts without repeating unchanged
case contents. Agents can read current persisted data whenever they need it.
Case pages are a lightweight read-only view: search or filter the list, open a record, read its findings and documents, and follow its current task and handoff history. Agents and APIs author the records; the pages have no editing controls.
When a task is assigned to the current human, the message composer defaults to the latest agent that assigned it to them. If no assignment is available, it uses the latest other commenter, or leaves the recipient empty. A manual recipient choice stays selected while task data refreshes.
Task collection creation filters
Tasks and project lists hide agent-created and system-created tasks by default. The Filters menu's show agent-created tasks checkbox includes routine runs, recovery/watchdog tasks, chat-channel tasks, and other automation. Channel tasks remain bot-created for this filter even when a human starts the conversation. The choice is saved per company and collection; Clear filters restores the hidden default. Nested lists preserve ancestors and expandable subtasks as context without promoting unrelated automated work to independent results. Agent profiles, routine histories, and task-detail subtasks retain their full history.
Mine contains personal work. Channel tasks, routine tasks, and agent-created tasks stay outside Mine by default. This includes routines that a person starts manually. Linked accounts, creator IDs, responsible-user IDs, synchronized provider comments, and read markers do not establish participation in automatic work. Direct board or human API comments, human assignment, and deliberate user mutations do establish participation. Open requests addressed to the person also admit the task until resolution. Ordinary human-created tasks keep their creator's participation. These rules apply to existing tasks, Mine, unread counts, badges, and task toasts. Approvals retain their existing recipient and permission rules.
New inbound comments retain their provider in metadata.sourceChannel. Historical
imports use inbound message links or the stored provider-sender metadata. These
checks preserve direct board comments on channel tasks. If both historical
records are absent, the comment remains unclassified and keeps its previous
behavior. A task origin alone cannot prove the source of an old comment.
Inbox discovery searches and Blocked hide unrelated automatic tasks unless the checkbox is checked. The checkbox does not subscribe a person to automatic work. Source feeds and project task lists retain their existing access rules.
Company Skills and Policy
Company skills are shared operating capabilities, not privileged objects by default. Every authenticated agent in a company can create, import, install, edit, update, test, reset, and remove that company's skills unless the company has configured an explicit restriction.
The governing rule is: skill permissions are opt-in restrictions, not opt-in capabilities. Missing skill grants never create a denial in an otherwise unconfigured company, and ordinary skill work does not require board confirmation, a draft-only workflow, or an activation approval.
Core Paperclip owns the skill runtime, company-boundary enforcement, policy evaluation contract, API denials, validation, path containment, secret redaction, and activity logging. Those safety invariants cannot be disabled by policy. Open-by-default skill work never authorizes arbitrary host-path reads, unsafe executable content, or policy edits: local imports and scans must stay within Paperclip-known workspace or managed-skill roots, remote sources must resolve to validated immutable content, and platform safety denials must stay distinct from optional administrative restrictions. Paperclip EE may provide detailed administration for per-agent, per-role, per-action, per-source, and protected-skill rules, but EE is not required to use skills and is not an enforcement boundary. Without EE, companies remain open by default and any already-configured restrictions continue to be enforced by core.
GitHub repositories attached to new projects automatically become skill sources. Paperclip imports their skills and checks the configured branch every five minutes, using the setup person's authorized GitHub connection. New skills import automatically unless excluded. Existing projects can adopt their repositories from Skills → Sources; existing manually imported sources preserve their selections and gain automatic updates. Refresh remains available, and operators can pause automatic updates. Independent skill sources have a searchable branch picker with the repository's default branch marked. People can also enter a branch name that is not listed. Saving checks GitHub access and the selected ref before changing tracking; failed saves keep the selection and installed content. Project refs remain owned by project configuration so changing a source cannot redirect another project's tracking. If a repository exceeds the supported package size, Paperclip first packages its skill folders and referenced repository files, preserving their original paths. Missing references are advisory: a valid selected skill can still be imported. Unavailable files are listed, and existing installed dependencies are retained when a bounded refresh cannot preserve them. File limits and content validation still apply; importing never executes repository code.
Project-derived skills inherit current project access. Access through any originating project is sufficient, including the responsible-user restrictions on agent execution. Existing explicit company imports retain their visibility. Editable copies inherit project restrictions; private content cannot be published or exported implicitly. Detachment retains installed content and access provenance. Deleting its last project never makes a skill company-visible.
Task and routine skill mentions remain stable references to the latest installed version. Each execution records the immutable versions it uses; resuming keeps those versions, while a new execution resolves latest again. Upstream failures and removals preserve installed snapshots. GitHub refresh does not delay task execution.
Old, unused skill-version disk caches expire automatically while current and in-use versions remain. Saved database snapshots rebuild an expired copy on demand, including when its upstream repository is unavailable. Recovery data has separate retention.
Disconnecting removes a repository from Sources after an explicit choice: keep independent editable copies in My Skills, or delete its imported skills. Kept copies and derived forks retain their project access restrictions. Copies preserve agent assignments; skills used by agents must be detached before deletion.
An explicit restricted policy may deny selected operations or switch to a default-deny preset with explicit allow rules. Core exposes a stable versioned policy API so EE and other administrative clients configure and simulate the same evaluator used by skill mutation routes. Core Skill Studio only needs to perform normal skill work, explain an explicit denial, and point administrators to EE when its richer policy UI is available; it must not recreate a partial enterprise permission editor.
Principles
-
Unopinionated about how you run your agents. Your agents could be OpenClaw bots, Python scripts, Node scripts, Claude Code sessions, Codex instances — we don't care. Paperclip defines the control plane for communication and provides utility infrastructure for heartbeats. It does not mandate an agent runtime.
-
Company is the unit of organization. Everything lives under a company. One Paperclip instance, many companies.
-
Adapter config defines the agent. Every agent has an adapter type and configuration that controls its identity and behavior. The minimum contract is just "be callable."
-
All work traces to the goal. Hierarchical task management means nothing exists in isolation. If you can't explain why a task matters to the company goal, it shouldn't exist.
-
Control plane, not execution plane. Paperclip orchestrates. Agents run wherever they run and phone home.
User Flow (Dream Scenario)
- Open Paperclip, create a new company
- Define the company's goal: "Create the #1 AI note-taking app, $1M MRR in 3 months"
- Create the CEO
- Choose an adapter (e.g., process adapter for Claude Code, HTTP adapter for OpenClaw)
- Configure the adapter (agent identity, loop behavior, execution settings)
- CEO proposes strategic breakdown → board approves
- Define the CEO's reports: CTO, CMO, CFO, etc.
- Each gets their own adapter config and role definition
- Define their reports: engineers under CTO, marketers under CMO, etc.
- Set budgets, define initial strategic tasks
- Hit go — agents start their heartbeats and the company runs
Guidelines
There are two runtime modes Paperclip must support:
local_trusted(default): single-user local trusted deployment with no login frictionauthenticated: login-required mode that supports both private-network and public deployment exposure policies
Canonical mode design and command expectations live in doc/DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md.
Further Detail
See SPEC.md for the full technical specification and TASKS.md for the task management data model.
Paperclip’s core identity is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, centered on companies, org charts, goals, issues/comments, heartbeats, budgets, approvals, and board governance. The public docs are also explicit about the current boundaries: tasks/comments are the built-in communication model, Paperclip is not a chatbot, and it is not a code review tool. The roadmap already points toward easier onboarding, cloud agents, easier agent configuration, plugins, better docs, and ClipMart/ClipHub-style reusable companies/templates.
What Paperclip should do vs. not do
Do
- Stay board-level and company-level. Users should manage goals, orgs, budgets, approvals, and outputs.
- Make the first five minutes feel magical: install, answer a few questions, see a CEO do something real.
- Keep work anchored to issues/comments/projects/goals, even if the surface feels conversational.
- Treat agency / internal team / startup as the same underlying abstraction with different templates and labels.
- Make outputs first-class: files, docs, reports, previews, links, screenshots.
- Provide hooks into engineering workflows: worktrees, preview servers, PR links, external review tools.
- Use plugins for edge cases like rich chat, knowledge bases, doc editors, custom tracing.
Do not
- Do not make the core product a general chat app. The current product definition is explicitly task/comment-centric and “not a chatbot,” and that boundary is valuable.
- Do not build a complete Jira/GitHub replacement. The repo/docs already position Paperclip as organization orchestration, not focused on pull-request review.
- Do not build enterprise-grade RBAC first. Paperclip now has authenticated mode, company memberships, instance roles, and permission grants, but fine-grained enterprise governance should remain secondary to the core company control plane.
- Do not interpret agent-profile privacy flags as project/issue privacy. Work remains company-open by default, while explicitly private issues and projects use their own task ACLs.
- Do not lead with raw bash logs and transcripts. Default view should be human-readable intent/progress, with raw detail beneath.
- Do not force users to understand provider/API-key plumbing unless absolutely necessary. There are active onboarding/auth issues already; friction here is clearly real.
Specific design goals
-
Time-to-first-success under 5 minutes A fresh user should go from install to “my CEO completed a first task” in one sitting.
-
Board-level abstraction always wins The default UI should answer: what is the company doing, who is doing it, why does it matter, what did it cost, and what needs my approval.
-
Conversation stays attached to work objects “Chat with CEO” should still resolve to strategy threads, decisions, tasks, or approvals.
-
Progressive disclosure Top layer: human-readable summary. Middle layer: checklist/steps/artifacts. Bottom layer: raw logs/tool calls/transcript.
-
Output-first Work is not done until the user can see the result: file, document, preview link, screenshot, plan, or PR.
-
Execution visibility without log worship Active runs, recovery issues, blockers, and work products should be first-class surfaces. Raw transcripts are available when needed, but they are not the primary product surface.
-
Local-first, cloud-ready The mental model should not change between local solo use and shared/private or public/cloud deployment.
-
Safe autonomy Auto mode is allowed; hidden token burn is not.
-
Thin core, rich edges Put optional chat, knowledge, and special surfaces into plugins/extensions rather than bloating the control plane.
Experimental iMessage Photon channel
A Photon Cloud project can represent one agent through the existing experimental channel subsystem. DMs and explicitly enabled groups create or continue task-bound conversations. Linked sender identity is the default; telephone numbers, email addresses, names, and group membership do not grant Paperclip authority. Photos/files and ordinary questions/confirmations use the existing attachment, interaction, continuation, and publication contracts. Pause and Disconnect govern runtime behavior independently of the UI gate. Local Mac access, unsolicited conversations, and SMS/RCS fallback are excluded. Live qualification is required before release readiness. Pro shared allocation supports DMs only, with sender enrollment in Photon and separate identity linking in Paperclip. Shared channels reserve one project, not a pool phone number; group admission and publication are disabled. Dedicated allocation retains one selected number and individually enabled groups.
See iMessage Photon for the implementation contract, setup, recovery, boundaries, and qualification status.
Experimental persistent agent conversations
Agent Chat is an opt-in core task presentation (enableAgentChat, off by default). Each person has one persistent task-backed conversation per agent and company, with ordinary company task visibility. The shared task composer, transcript, tools, files, and document panel remain the interaction surface. Agents clarify goals and hand substantial execution to linked, assigned tasks; a reply ends a turn without completing the conversation. /new starts fresh provider context in the same conversation while preserving visible history and artifacts. Healthy idle conversations wait for a message and do not count as unfinished execution work. See doc/plans/2026-09-10-agent-chat.md for the implementation contract.
Agent chat project handoff (2026-09-11)
Chat supports research and full plan drafting/revision in its existing plan document. On handoff, each ordinary assigned task receives the relevant plan in its own plan document, committed with task creation before execution is scheduled. The source plan remains in the conversation. Plan acceptance hands off execution; it never switches the conversation into implementation.
Chat instructions require selecting a suitable project, reusing an existing one where appropriate. The project requirement is prompt-only; ordinary projectless tasks remain supported. New parent relationships beneath conversation tasks are rejected by task services, including direct API creation and reparenting. Existing children remain readable/editable and can be moved elsewhere. The Subtasks panel is unchanged.
The create_project runtime tool uses the normal project API with durable idempotency. list_projects and list_project_repositories support selection. Multiple repositoryIds select authorized catalog entries; multiple HTTPS GitHub repositoryUrls register existing repositories absent from the catalog. IDs and URLs may be combined, but cannot accompany an explicit workspace. URLs do not create repositories on GitHub or grant credentials. Execution uses normal repository access rules. Repository IDs are revalidated against the authenticated run's responsible user and connection grants. Agents should consider proper available repositories, clarify material ambiguity, and use repository-free projects when appropriate for non-code work.
Confirmed project creation appears as a durable card in the shared task transcript, including selected repository links. Tasks are linked inline. Failed creation never produces a success card. Tool evals cover planning/handoff, project/repository selection, retries, permission and mode denials, and ordinary delegation regressions using the production chat directive.
In-app announcements
An optional announcement card shares product news with board users on opening or returning to Paperclip. Dismissals persist per user across companies and browsers within an instance. Operators can disable fetching independently of telemetry. See Announcements.
Agent chat discovery
With Agent Chat enabled, Chat is the first row of the Work section and opens a secondary sidebar beside the primary nav. It lists every agent you can chat with: the open conversation first, then your other conversations by recent activity, then the rest of the roster alphabetically. Terminated agents and agents you have left are omitted unless you have history with them. Search filters by name, title, or role; + starts or reopens a conversation. Selecting an agent opens their persistent conversation; it does not reset history or create a task until the existing first-write flow requires one.
Beside a conversation, the side panel opens on the agent's tasks: one card per task the agent created, was assigned, commented on, or acted on, newest first, with the task list's filters and a sort control. The agent's artifacts are a second card stack available from the panel's + menu. Both open in a new tab so the conversation stays open.
Combined Inbox + Task List
An opt-in experimental setting (enableCombinedInboxTasks, off by default)
folds Inbox into Tasks. The Inbox nav row goes away and its unread badge moves
to Tasks. A Views menu on the task list covers the inbox views (Mine, Unread,
Blocked, Recent, Everything) and the task-status views (All, Active, Backlog,
Done). Bare /issues opens the last-used view, defaulting to Mine; links that
carry a task filter open All. Old /inbox links redirect to the matching view.
CSV file previews
Task attachment and workspace file tabs render CSV files as tables by default. The first record supplies column headers. Row numbers, row and column counts, and sticky headers help operators scan exports. Rendered and raw view icons remain next to download; raw view preserves the original source. The table shows up to 500 data rows and 100 columns, with a notice when the preview is limited. Download retains the complete file.
Filesystem access boundary (2026-10-20)
Filesystem isolation belongs to the OS, execution environment, and storage layout. Paperclip authorizes the current task/run, company, explicitly selected configuration, execution policy, and repository credentials. It does not infer file permissions from other tasks or agents that previously used the same directory, overlapping roots, symlink aliases, or shared Git storage. Existing files under an authorized task root may be read subject to OS access and API path containment.
Private task records, comments, attachments, run logs, full workspace metadata, and
operation logs retain their app authorization. Workspace _issuePrivacySources and
operation privacy metadata protect app-record disclosure; they do not grant or deny
filesystem execution or task-bound file browsing. Current trust and sandbox policy,
publication receipts, binding checks, and lifecycle locks remain authoritative.