Files
PaperClipAI/doc/PRODUCT.md
T
DottaandPaperclip 505e1a5582 feat(cases): add persistent workflows with same-task agent handoffs (#16959)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - An agent workflow needs persistent facts and a safe way to transfer
work.
> - Creating a task for each phase splits the objective, discussion,
workspace, and review policy.
> - A case can retain the facts while one primary task moves between
agents.
> - Transfers must survive process failure and preserve private access,
budgets, and completion gates.
> - This pull request adds durable case handoffs, native case tools, and
read-only case pages.
> - Prompts describe the workflow. Existing task controls decide when
work can run and finish.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Problem or motivation**

Prompt-driven agent teams need a persistent record that can move through
triage, implementation, verification, and correction. Ordinary
reassignment does not provide a durable instruction, safe release
barrier, or recoverable delivery receipt for an agent handing off its
own running task.

**Proposed solution**

Extend standalone cases with one primary task, a descriptive phase,
retained access sources, and a handoff ledger. Apply assignments after
source execution and workspace settlement. Deliver each transfer through
the existing durable wake queue. Provide `create_case`, `read_case`,
`update_case`, and `handoff_case` in the native runner. Creation
requires kickoff and explicit workflow text. An explicit handoff to
`done` closes the case when normal task completion is accepted.

**Alternatives considered**

Do not add a workflow engine, filesystem queue, configured state graph,
or one task per phase. The workflow document combines transition prose
with an optional Mermaid `stateDiagram-v2` map. The server does not
execute the diagram. The Pipelines experiment removed on master stays
removed.

**Roadmap alignment**

This extends Agent Reviews and Approvals, Enforced Outcomes, Bounded Run
Recovery, and Activity Log attribution. Existing approval, review,
budget, privacy, workspace, and responsible-user rules remain
authoritative.

Related work: [ordinary handoff wake
recovery](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15019). This
feature adds a separate persisted case-handoff receipt and release
barrier.

## What Changed

- Add case routing fields, retained access sources, durable handoff
history, delivery leases, and replay-safe migrations.
- Keep the same primary task across agent phases. Preserve each
returning agent's own session and the task's workspace.
- Fence outgoing mutations, wait for provider and workspace release, and
recover delivery without duplicate task comments or runs. Recheck
current assignment permissions as the original caller before applying a
delayed transfer. Scope a run Stop to that run’s own handoff intents, so
repeated old Stop requests preserve newer work. Cancelling terminal
intent without a source run also requires fenced current task ownership,
including native retries and preparation with an old checkout. For Cloud
callers, revalidate current stack membership with an uncached Cloud RPC
and derive owner elevation from the current managed setting.
- Keep case reads, documents, assets, Audit, and live events inside
retained task/project permissions.
- Add native case creation/read/update/handoff tools. Store required
workflow text and initial documents on the first task. Page oversized
case facts and referenced document bodies through the dedicated tool
with bounded UTF-8 JSON, current routing versions, snapshot conflicts,
and current source authorization on every page.
- Add read-only case lists and detail pages, task-style list controls,
compact dotted field tables, linked handoff tasks, and case filters in
Audit.
- Add native/legacy integration tests, migration/restart tests, browser
coverage, and bounded live receipt fixtures. Extend the trusted sandbox
condition to cover the new subscription fixture profile.
- Hide obsolete paused-agent warnings on completed or cancelled task
threads.
- Synchronize the company-switch settings test with React effects after
a CI failure. Preserve its security assertions and production remount
behavior.

## Verification

The branch directly includes master `9ef434fe79`. The required `ci /
verify` and `ci / e2e` gates pass on head `765fccd67c`. [Current-head
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39464348614)
passes typecheck, build, tests, and all eight browser shards. Security
checks pass. [Greptile gives this exact head
5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16959#issuecomment-6291156549),
with no unresolved review threads. The optional Paperclip Review check
remains queued because its assigned agent is paused. It is not a
required branch check. No check result was overridden.

Local workspace typecheck and build pass after the master merge, along
with database migration checks, token gates, map checks, Storybook
catalog checks, and the Copilot profile identity check. Standard builds
refresh Runner vendor output. Focused checks pass 2,008
API/paging/context tests and 7 strict case protocol tests. The final
commit changes one test fixture only; its ten tests, UI typecheck, and
token gates pass. No production source changed in that commit.

On current head `765fccd67c`, all **194 critical workflow tests**
executed and passed with no skipped tests in those files:

- 38 Stop/ownership tests, including board completion intent, native
retries, stale Stop, and preparation with an old checkout.
- 2 actual legacy process/HTTP handoff tests, including scratch failure,
a closed-stdio child that continues writing, and recovery through a
fresh worker after the process group stops.
- 5 migration tests, including SQL column metadata, preserved null
authority context, and all six prior-numbering receipts.
- 3 process-settlement and 5 scratch tests.
- 88 handoff-service, 18 heartbeat handoff, and 21 native case-tool
integration tests.
- 7 bounded case/document-read projection tests and 7 strict
protocol-contract tests.

The current CI checkout was `fed65d49`, merging `765fccd67c` into master
`9ef434fe79`. Its new document regressions reconstruct exact
Unicode/escaped bodies and revisions through real native authority and
authenticated HTTP with generic API tools disabled. They cover
case-owned, primary-task, and linked-task documents; routing on every
page; stale document snapshots; access loss and unlinking;
unrelated/foreign/private sources; system documents; and quarantined
content. Active-task document tools retain their existing behavior.
These are current-head test results from the first CI attempt; the
browser-only retry did not rerun these suites.

The full `64fdd3403f` CI failed one separate settings test: after a
company switch, it observed an unsettled API-key draft. The production
component and test were unchanged from prior green source. Production
switches remount both keyed settings layers; the test directly reused an
unkeyed view and used a timer tick instead of waiting for React effects.
The final commit replaces that fixture synchronization with React `act`.
The exact secret-clearing assertions and all timeouts remain unchanged.
The original assertion failure remains recorded; no unchanged retry was
used. The narrow unchanged baseline and fixed fixture each pass 10
tests.

The upstream result-paging merge preserves case capture namespaces and
current asset privacy. Its API integration suite executed 39 of 41 tests
successfully, with two skipped; the optional assigned-result PRP
integration test was skipped. Neither skipped suite is counted in the
194 critical tests or as live provider proof.

All 361 upstream migration entries and SQL bodies remain unchanged. Six
case migrations follow master as 0363–0368 with identical SQL hashes.
Official Drizzle generators produced the combined metadata and five
retained snapshots. Generation reports no schema changes, and the
snapshot drift test passes. The earlier `ce361ae5d0` CI passed on
attempt 1, including its then-current 179 critical tests. Fresh review
later identified unusable document references with generic API tools
disabled; the bounded document reads and ten additional authenticated
HTTP tests address that finding.

The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was cancelled after this Mac
exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore capacity; it is **not** counted as a
pass. Later database attempts also stopped before assertions or skipped,
including one sandbox socket denial. Two original stale-Stop regressions
did reproduce the bug against the old source. A REST serialization
assertion passed after two preserved database-startup failures. No test
timeout was increased. All 194 assertions listed above executed and
passed in current-head CI. The complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard
also passed after the fixture repair.

A configured-provider receipt workflow passed 13 backend checks across
triage → implementation → verification → correction → done, using one
task and four work runs. The saved receipt is revision 2 with total 6
USD; case and task both closed. The original canonical attempt remains
failed because its browser assertion confused the terminal destination
with completed-task tooltips. The corrected full browser verifier passed
on the same retained database and original runs, with no additional
provider calls. The last clean-build browser readback is on
`6a86c54a53`; later changes affect recovery, authorization, bounded
reads, and settlement. Accounted work cost is a $1.010574 rate-card
estimate; provider billing and setup-probe usage are unavailable.

Copilot profile 49 passed the unchanged seven-fixture private protocol
pack (46/46 checks, no retries) and the product file-edit canary after
master's completion-replay change. All 60 bound implementation hashes
remain unchanged on the current source. Historical profile-47/48
identities and results remain intact. See the [profile-49 compatibility
record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/persistent-case-handoffs/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-completion-recovery-compatibility-v49.json).
This is bounded compatibility evidence, not a fresh full matrix,
installed-package product test, or Daytona rollout.

Preserved CI failures and retries:

- On `20662930ac`, Slack managed setup failed a five-second success
assertion after reload. Its test/application path was unchanged from a
prior green head. One unchanged-source retry passed all 25 tests in that
shard; no source or timeout changed.
- On `9402b4f17a`, two CI workers received shutdown signals at 15:24:19
UTC. Neither log had an assertion failure before interruption. One
unchanged-source retry of each passed all Runner static checks and all
32 tests in browser shard 6; both aggregates passed. The next head,
`7b4374edaf`, passed all CI without retries.
- On `295f289b5a`, serialized shard 9 timed out during its first
device-login test, then the next test found an active login lease.
Direct login/test paths were unchanged from a prior green head. Cold
import plus a timed-out async body using the next test's mutable
actor/store is the supported fixture-race explanation; no request trace
proves that sequence. The original failure remains recorded. One
unchanged-source retry passed all 294 tests in 19 files, including all
41 device-login tests. No login source or timeout changed. The
subsequent `ce361ae5d0` CI passed without retries.
- On `64fdd3403f`, one company-switch settings assertion observed an
unsettled draft. The final test-only commit uses React `act` without
changing assertions, timeouts, or production code. On `765fccd67c`, all
ten settings tests and the complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard
passed.
- On `765fccd67c`, browser shard 3 completed the split-handoff
assertions, then cleanup received HTTP 500 from run cancellation after a
one-second PostgreSQL row-lock timeout. The extra chat run was reporting
completed work while teardown began. Cleanup stopped before restoring a
global experiment flag, causing a later assertion to fail. Relevant
production and test paths are unchanged from an earlier green commit.
Stop's lock order is consistent, and no nested self-lock was found; the
exact PostgreSQL blocker was not recorded. One unchanged-shard retry
passed. The original failure, trace, and downstream flag failure remain
recorded. No Stop implementation, cleanup assertion, or timeout changed.
The retry supports intermittent cleanup contention; it does not identify
the original blocking transaction.


## Risks

- Local process transfers require host-owned PID/group absence. Missing
or uncertain termination evidence keeps delivery pending, independently
of scratch setup.
- Handoff admission and task cancellation share execution ownership. New
regression tests cover temporary holds, late source writes, and
uncertain provider termination.
- Retained private sources use an intersection of existing permissions.
This intentionally fails closed when a source is missing or an existing
task cannot preserve that boundary.
- Migrations add tables and indexes. They preserve master history and
can replay over prior feature installs. Migration 0368 adds nullable
internal authorization provenance with no default or authority backfill.
Historical transfers still awaiting release without this context fail
closed; an operator must cancel them and request a new handoff.
- Delayed Cloud handoffs depend on the current Cloud membership RPC. An
unavailable, ambiguous, expired, or mismatched response holds the
handoff for retry; it does not reuse cached authority or grant access.
- Bounded reads reload and reauthorize the selected projection per page.
Underlying work grows with the data size and number of pages. Changed
data or routing requires restarting from offset zero without the old
snapshot.
- Phase names and workflow diagrams remain advisory. They do not satisfy
review or approval gates.
- This is a large, cross-cutting PR. The maintainer requested one PR for
the whole feature; the commits separate data, runtime, UI, and
qualification work.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and delegated
code review. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size were
not exposed in the session. Live fixture agents used the explicitly
configured provider model recorded in their test evidence.

## 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>
2026-10-20 12:46:14 -05:00

25 KiB
Raw Blame History

Paperclip — Product Definition

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:

  1. 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.
  2. Run a command — Paperclip kicks off a process (shell command, Python script, etc.) and tracks it. The heartbeat is "execute this and monitor it."
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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.

Inbox membership continues to follow human creation, assignment, comments, and existing qualifying participation actions, including manually running a routine. Routine ownership or responsibility alone does not subscribe a person to scheduled runs; opening or reading a task is not participation. Inbox discovery searches and Blocked hide unrelated automated tasks unless the checkbox is checked, while preserving tasks admitted by the existing participation rules. Checking it does not subscribe the user to all automation. Approvals and other non-task items keep their existing 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

  1. 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.

  2. Company is the unit of organization. Everything lives under a company. One Paperclip instance, many companies.

  3. 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."

  4. 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.

  5. Control plane, not execution plane. Paperclip orchestrates. Agents run wherever they run and phone home.

User Flow (Dream Scenario)

  1. Open Paperclip, create a new company
  2. Define the company's goal: "Create the #1 AI note-taking app, $1M MRR in 3 months"
  3. 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
  4. Define the CEO's reports: CTO, CMO, CFO, etc.
    • Each gets their own adapter config and role definition
  5. Define their reports: engineers under CTO, marketers under CMO, etc.
  6. Set budgets, define initial strategic tasks
  7. 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 friction
  • authenticated: 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

  1. Time-to-first-success under 5 minutes A fresh user should go from install to “my CEO completed a first task” in one sitting.

  2. 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.

  3. Conversation stays attached to work objects “Chat with CEO” should still resolve to strategy threads, decisions, tasks, or approvals.

  4. Progressive disclosure Top layer: human-readable summary. Middle layer: checklist/steps/artifacts. Bottom layer: raw logs/tool calls/transcript.

  5. Output-first Work is not done until the user can see the result: file, document, preview link, screenshot, plan, or PR.

  6. 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.

  7. Local-first, cloud-ready The mental model should not change between local solo use and shared/private or public/cloud deployment.

  8. Safe autonomy Auto mode is allowed; hidden token burn is not.

  9. 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.