## Thinking Path > - Paperclip must preserve saved agent work while proving earlier execution stopped. > - A deliberate task Retry can observe a newer failure while an older preparation still holds execution. > - That older preparation can also have a finalized empty object log despite never reaching the provider. > - Binding only the latest run and requiring every log field to be absent keeps valid recovery deferred. > - This change follows the exact persisted predecessor chain and binds current Retry authority to eligible holds. > - It recognizes only an exact finalized empty-log receipt within the existing strict preparation proof. > - One fresh user turn can then start with saved work and the existing ownership, stop and accounting checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18989, #18860 and #18997. The first waits for predecessor cleanup during automatic dispatch. The second selects the committed native session owner. The third retains admitted Retry authority when no source recovery action exists. None passes current board Retry intent to a held failed predecessor. A search of open repairs found no duplicate. ROADMAP.md was checked; this is a recovery bug fix. **What happened?** A failed native preparation retains a legacy run row and an inherited session. Its remote workspace is later saved and verified. An automatic successor also fails during preparation. Board Retry observes that newer run, but the effective hold belongs to its predecessor. The Retry does not bind the predecessor's recovery generation. The native historical-source guard then keeps the request deferred. **Expected behavior** Carry the deliberate Retry through its verified same-company, same-task and same-agent persisted predecessor chain. Start one fresh user turn after every source passes current execution, stop and saved-work checks. Keep incomplete or unrelated proof held. Preserve prior work and recorded action outcomes. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Fail native preparation with an inherited session and a remote workspace. 2. Finish its real workspace recovery and stop receipts. 3. Save a newer failed automatic successor with `retryOfRunId` bound to that source. 4. Submit ordinary task Retry for the newer run. 5. Before the change, no successor is admitted. The request remains deferred behind the older hold. **Paperclip version or commit** The regression fails on master `039e0dad2c51c80251e1302a19c5566e039c357a`, which includes #18989. **Deployment mode** Source checkout on macOS arm64 with real PostgreSQL, HTTP task Retry and the assembled heartbeat service. The remote filesystem boundary uses temporary files. Hosted rollout and an original-task Retry are not yet verified. This PR incorporates the reviewed empty-log follow-up #19021, preserving its commits and regression controls. Both parts are required for hosted preparation recovery, so the combined revision is qualified and deployed together. ## What Changed - Accept a finalized zero-byte `s3_segments` log only when its reference binds the exact company, agent and run, its digest matches empty content, compression is false, and no output progress or nonempty excerpt exists. Add a real-recorder HTTP regression and 14 negative controls. Unknown or nonempty logs stay held. - Read a complete persisted Retry chain in one recursive query, limited to 32 runs. Reject missing, cyclic, newer, unfinished, cross-company, cross-task and cross-agent sources. Transcript hints grant no authority. - Bind eligible historical recovery records to the current Retry intent. Keep complete or running recovery budgets. Leave successful ancestors and mismatched recovery-source records unchanged. - Recheck that same chain when selecting an ancestor's fresh-user strategy. - Admit only a held ancestor through the shared native preparation proof. Keep the closed preparation failure codes, no-provider state, profile, input, result, output and accounting checks. Treat inherited session input as prior context and accept the exact bounded host start marker. Verify current ownership, saved work and stop receipts before forcing a fresh session. - Add HTTP and PostgreSQL regressions and document the rule. - Give the HTTP Retry nudge and explicit test worker the same real heartbeat facade and provider boundary. Establish the revoked catalog receipt before either can dispatch. ## Verification - Combined integration head `91f021f233151192f69dd7a035d083abcc67c47c` requires fresh complete CI and review; qualification is in progress. - Repair validation: all **six** recovered preparation provider-boundary cases pass. The catalog cases still require the exact access refusal, zero provider inputs and zero provider turns. The success case still checks preserved file bytes and one native turn. - [Previous exact-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41883421120/job/126785508136) failed the catalog case with `remote_workspace_transport_unsupported`. The route created a default heartbeat that could race the injected worker and allocate outside the controlled transport. The repaired test shares its real heartbeat across both dispatchers and holds the agent start lock until the revoked catalog receipt is committed. It tracks and drains both Retry nudges during teardown. It changes no production access check or expected refusal. - The first broad local reproduction hit a full local disk. It passed 201 cases and failed 86, including explicit manifest free-space errors. Generated build caches were removed from these isolated checkouts. The owning run passed 670/671 cases. Its one failure was the saved-Files loader refusing insufficient temporary disk space. After cleanup, that unchanged test passes in isolation. The final shared-facade and start-lock version passes all six dispatch cases. Both legacy continuation suites pass all 29 cases. The final fixture teardown also retires deferred input before removing recovery proof, so global queue sweeps cannot revisit earlier cases. All seven dispatch and saved-Files controls pass together after that change. No disk reserve, assertion or timeout changed. The initial local typecheck also stopped on `ENOSPC` while materializing provider assets. Server typecheck now passes after cleanup. No test timeout or reserve was lowered. - Current-head CI is complete: 52 successful checks, three expected skips, and a successful security status. Both required gates (`ci / e2e` and `ci / verify`) passed on `0adc2e38103533dd45bcc56f957ac019642c57b1`. [Full CI evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41898305521). Greptile scored final head `0adc2e38103533dd45bcc56f957ac019642c57b1` 5/5 with no blocking findings or unresolved threads. The earlier verification below describes the previous head. - RED on unchanged master `039e0dad2c`: the certified-preparation sibling passes, while the inherited-session case admits zero successors instead of one. A second isolated RED on latest base `8f06bd4e17`, including #18997, uses the exact final three-node test fixture. The HTTP route returns 202, then the test observes zero successors instead of one. All baseline production files remain unchanged. The initial dependency/setup failures are separate from these behavioral failures. - The positive cases cover the failed-failed-successful chain. They keep the completed result unchanged, verify the original saved file and validate fresh-session continuation authority. Repeated HTTP input and concurrent resume calls keep one successor. - PostgreSQL controls accept a complete 32-run chain. A 33-run chain and a newer-created predecessor return no usable ancestry and do not bind the older recovery record. - Safety controls cover company, task and agent scope, conflicting canonical bindings, missing and cyclic edges, transcript hints, live execution and controllers, unknown stop, failed saving, unsafe writer state, Stop, actor and generation changes, independent holds and mismatched recovery records. - Ancestor controls retain provider-event, native-input, session-checkpoint, controller-recovery, result, process, runtime, accounting and unknown-result guards. Host start and warning prefixes use exact origins, sequence and payloads. A fifth extra event is rejected. - The first complete owning run found 22 introduced admission failures. The initial historical-native allowance also applied to exact-source Retry. It admitted contradictory preparation evidence. The fix now requires a canonical ancestor and the shared strict startup proof. The original direct-source assertions remain unchanged. - The next focused run passed 82 cases, including both catalogue-warning controls. One new result fixture lacked the database's required owner tuple. Two existing controls reached their original 30-second limit. The fixture now uses the real native task and completion-contract owner tuple. A controlled nine-case run passes the result case, both unchanged timed-out controls, three failure-code controls and all three positives. The earlier timeout causes remain undetermined. All failed-run logs are retained. - Complete owning suites passed on previous head `137a8eb3febf41052e112fc3c4ffe1abb92bcab7`: all 675 tests across workspace recovery, task Retry, explicit continuation and legacy continuation. The command exits successfully with normal teardown. This includes every earlier introduced admission failure and the two unchanged timeout controls. Its base includes the merged #18997 authority repair and #18982 rolling-copy packaging repair. The rebase retained both test imports at their one adjacent-import conflict. - Node 24.19.0 and pnpm 9.15.4. Module boundaries and `git diff --check` pass. The initial PostgreSQL start lacked package library links after install with scripts disabled. The documented hydration restored the isolated dependency; that setup failure was not a behavioral red. - Previous-head [full typecheck](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41883421120/job/126785506215) and [full build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41883421120/job/126785506094) passed. Earlier attempts received synchronized runner shutdown signals and a lost-runner annotation. The shutdown initiator remains unknown. A CI owner used the documented hosted-runner failover for attempt three and restored the original routing value after capture. That attempt exposed the catalog failure above. Source workflows and check requirements remain unchanged. The current head now has green CI, Greptile 5/5, no unresolved review threads, and no merge conflicts. Hosted rollout and the original task are not yet verified. - Combined recovery proof: 24 of 24 cases passed on this exact head in 43.13 seconds, with normal teardown and unchanged assertions and limits. They cover the real recorder, all 14 empty-output rejection controls, ancestor and direct Retry, saved messages, the configured native provider, and verified stop. The targeted TypeScript graph also passed; the preceding integration step passed 95 safety/provider/message cases and all 49 task Retry cases. - The incorporated #19021 was independently red/green with the real recorder: unchanged predecessor code returned HTTP 202 but admitted zero successors. Its 18 focused cases, all 690 owning recovery cases, full typecheck/build, 1,904 local chat cases, complete CI and Greptile 5/5 passed before integration. The unchanged CLI startup lane passed one justified retry; no hosted acceptance is inferred from those results. - Additional local qualification of the unchanged workspace fixture alongside the native bootstrap fixture passed 288 of 289 cases. One manual-admission HTTP case ended with `socket hang up` after 451 ms, without an assertion or HTTP status. That unchanged case passed once in isolation at the original 40-second limit, with normal teardown, and passed in exact `0adc` CI in 17.2 seconds. The earlier disconnect cause remains unknown; no assertion or timeout changed. - An earlier CI attempt failed the newly merged native ingress fixture because its shared Node command failed strict permission qualification. The current base includes #19020's owned executable fixture repair; no production permission check was relaxed. - Integration with current master had one documentation conflict. An automatic test merge also duplicated an app declaration; that syntax failure was retained and fixed by reusing the configured real HTTP app. Both new message-state assertions remain intact. Workflows and lockfile retain master's contents. ## Risks - A damaged or overlong chain remains held. The helper does not truncate it and grant partial authority. - The new query runs only for a deliberate Retry or its ancestor strategy check. It adds no background polling, table, credential or provider policy. - A fresh intent is not stop or file-recovery proof. The existing owners retain those checks. Prior effects remain fenced, and no old result is replayed. - Local tests do not prove hosted rollout. Live acceptance must use the served fixed revision and the task's original saved work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex for the original change. OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), xhigh reasoning, for the merge and CI repair. Both used repository tools and PostgreSQL verification. Context-window limits were not exposed by the harness. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>
Quickstart · Docs · GitHub · Discord · Twitter · Website
Sign up for the Paperclip Cloud waitlist →
Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.
Open-source orchestration for teams of AI agents.
If OpenClaw is an employee, Paperclip is the company.
Paperclip is a Node.js server and React UI that orchestrates a team of AI agents to run a business. Bring your own agents, assign goals, and track work and costs from one dashboard. Choose models and harnesses per agent while keeping your team's tasks, skills, permissions, and history in one place.
It looks like a task manager. Under the hood: org charts, budgets, governance, goal alignment, and agent coordination.
Manage business goals, not pull requests.
| Step | Example | |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | Define the goal | "Build the #1 AI note-taking app to $1M MRR." |
| 02 | Hire the team | CEO, CTO, engineers, designers, marketers — any bot, any provider. |
| 03 | Approve and run | Review strategy. Set budgets. Hit go. Monitor from the dashboard. |
| Works with |
OpenClaw |
Claude Code |
Codex |
Cursor + Cloud |
Gemini CLI |
OpenCode |
Pi |
Hermes + Gateway |
Grok Build |
Kimi Code |
If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.
Custom processes, HTTP endpoints, and external adapter packages extend the roster. See the adapter overview for setup and capabilities.
Paperclip is right for you if
- ✅ You want to build autonomous AI organizations
- ✅ You coordinate many different agents (OpenClaw, Codex, Claude, Cursor) toward a common goal
- ✅ You have 20 simultaneous Claude Code terminals open and lose track of what everyone is doing
- ✅ You want agents running autonomously 24/7, but still want to audit work and chime in when needed
- ✅ You want to monitor costs and enforce budgets
- ✅ You want a process for managing agents that feels like using a task manager
- ✅ You want to manage your autonomous businesses from your phone
The four pillars
Four things have to work for an organization of AI agents to actually produce: the tasks, the org, the training, and the infrastructure. Paperclip is built around exactly those four pillars.
| Pillar | Built for | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Agentic Task Manager — Declare intent. Agents work. You verify the output. | Everyone, daily | Tasks, approvals & review gates · proactive agent coworkers · auditable routines & workflows · verify from diffs, screenshots & tests |
| Org Chart for Agents — Roles, permissions & boundaries for humans and agents. | Managers | Mixed human + agent org chart · responsibilities, delegation, specialization · governance: who can do what · scoped secrets & company boundaries · connection permissions & responsible-user identities |
| Agent Employee Training — Design, train & evaluate your AI employees. | Enablers | Skill Studio & shared org-wide skills · evals & saved test runs · active learning loops & quality metrics · performance reviews for agents · saved test inputs · skill version history & restore · reusable team templates |
| Agentic OS — The infrastructure that makes the work run. | IT & platform | Cross-provider runtime: any model, any agent · sandboxing, integrations & MCP servers · SSO, GRC, RBAC & cost controls · data privacy, internal trace collection, compounding data value · personal & shared app connections · run history & opt-in tracing |
Features
🔌 Bring Your Own AgentAny agent, any runtime, one org chart. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired. |
🎯 Goal AlignmentLink tasks and projects to your organization goals. Agents receive the goal context behind their work. |
💓 HeartbeatsAgents wake for assigned work, follow-up messages, or configured schedules. Delegation flows up and down the org chart. |
💰 Cost ControlCompany, agent, and project budgets. Track reported spend, get threshold alerts, and pause work at configured limits. |
🏢 Multi-OrganizationOne deployment, many organizations. Separate tasks, agents, permissions, and activity histories for each. |
🎫 Task ThreadsKeep conversations, plans, blockers, files, and run history attached to the work. Assign tasks to agents or people. |
🛡️ GovernanceConfigure review and approval stages, approve hires, and pause, reassign, or stop work when needed. |
📊 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. |
🔗 Apps & ConnectionsConnect services such as GitHub, Notion, and Railway, or your own MCP server. Set gateway actions to Allowed, Ask first, or Off. |
👥 Shared Agents, Personal AccountsChoose who can use a connection and which agents can access it. Managed GitHub operations can use the account of the person directing the work. |
🧠 Skills & Skill StudioInstall or write shared skills, test them with saved inputs, inspect results, and restore earlier versions. |
📅 Scheduled RoutinesRun recurring work on a schedule or trigger it through an API or webhook. Each run has a task, an owner, and a history. |
📎 Artifacts & FeedbackFind the files and documents agents produce. Preview supported formats and leave comments on specific passages in documents. |
📦 Ready-Made TeamsPreview and install teams with roles, skills, projects, and routines. Choose their runtimes and make the setup your own. |
Experimental Agent Chat and chat/email connectors add conversations with agents in Paperclip and through configured services such as Slack, Discord, Telegram, and AgentMail. Enable the relevant instance settings to try them.
Problems Paperclip solves
| Without Paperclip | With Paperclip |
|---|---|
| ❌ You have 20 Claude Code tabs open and can't track which one does what. On reboot you lose everything. | ✅ Tasks are ticket-based, conversations are threaded, sessions persist across reboots. |
| ❌ You manually gather context from several places to remind your bot what you're actually doing. | ✅ Context flows from the task up through the project and company goals — your agent always knows what to do and why. |
| ❌ Folders of agent configs are disorganized and you're re-inventing task management, communication, and coordination between agents. | ✅ Paperclip gives you org charts, ticketing, delegation, and governance out of the box — so you run a company, not a pile of scripts. |
| ❌ Runaway loops waste hundreds of dollars of tokens and max your quota before you even know what happened. | ✅ Spend tracking, budget alerts, and automatic pauses help you control the cost of ongoing work. |
| ❌ You have recurring jobs (customer support, social, reports) and have to remember to manually kick them off. | ✅ Routines create assigned tasks on a schedule, with outputs and run history you can inspect. |
| ❌ You have an idea, you have to find your repo, fire up Claude Code, keep a tab open, and babysit it. | ✅ Add a task in Paperclip. Your coding agent works on it until it's done. Management reviews their work. |
Why Paperclip is special
Paperclip handles the hard orchestration details correctly.
| Atomic task checkout. | A single assignee and execution locks prevent competing runs from claiming the same task. |
| Persistent work context. | Tasks, comments, and documents stay in Paperclip. Supporting adapters resume saved sessions across runs. |
| Runtime skill injection. | Agents can learn Paperclip workflows and project context at runtime, without retraining. |
| Governance with rollback. | Approval gates are enforced, config changes are revisioned, and bad changes can be rolled back safely. |
| Accountable connections. | Human access, agent eligibility, and gateway action permissions are separate controls. Approve a call once or save a revocable rule. |
| Goal-aware execution. | Linked tasks and projects carry goal ancestry so agents see the "why," not just a title. |
| Portable company templates. | Export/import orgs, agents, and skills with secret scrubbing and collision handling. |
| Organization boundaries. | Company-scoped access checks keep each organization's work, agents, and activity separate within one deployment. |
What's Under the Hood
Paperclip is a full control plane, not a wrapper. Before you build any of this yourself, know that it already exists:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PAPERCLIP SERVER │
│ │
│ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │
│ │Identity & │ │ Work & │ │ Heartbeat │ │Governance │ │
│ │ Access │ │ Tasks │ │ Execution │ │& Approvals│ │
│ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │
│ │ Org Chart │ │Workspaces │ │ Plugins │ │ Budget │ │
│ │ & Agents │ │ & Runtime │ │ │ │ & Costs │ │
│ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │
│ │ Routines │ │ Secrets & │ │ Activity │ │ Company │ │
│ │& Schedules│ │ Storage │ │ & Events │ │Portability│ │
│ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲
┌─────┴─────┐ ┌─────┴─────┐ ┌─────┴─────┐ ┌─────┴─────┐
│ Claude │ │ Codex │ │ CLI │ │ HTTP/web │
│ Code │ │ │ │ agents │ │ bots │
└───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘ └───────────┘
The Systems
|
Identity & Access — Two deployment modes (trusted local or authenticated), human roles and permissions, agent API keys, short-lived run JWTs, company memberships, and invite flows. Responsible-user attribution follows work through delegation and supported managed connections. |
Org Chart & Agents — Agents have roles, titles, reporting lines, permissions, and budgets. Adapter examples match the diagram: Claude Code, Codex, CLI agents such as Cursor/Gemini/bash, HTTP/webhook bots such as OpenClaw, and external adapter plugins. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired. |
|
Work & Task System — Issues carry company/project/goal/parent links, atomic checkout with execution locks, first-class blocker dependencies, comments, documents, attachments, work products, labels, and inbox state. Search across work, review document revisions, and leave anchored feedback. |
Heartbeat Execution — DB-backed wakeup queue with coalescing, budget checks, workspace resolution, secret injection, skill loading, and adapter invocation. Runs produce logs, usage records, and adapter-specific session state. Bounded recovery handles supported failures and surfaces cases that need human action. |
|
Workspaces & Runtime — Project repositories and workspaces, optional isolated execution workspaces (git worktrees, operator branches), and runtime services (dev servers, preview URLs). Sandbox providers extend execution beyond the local host; availability depends on the configured environment and adapter. |
Governance & Approvals — Board approval workflows, execution policies with review/approval stages, decision tracking, budget hard-stops, and agent pause/resume/terminate. Configured task reviews govern completion; connection action approvals govern calls through the tool gateway. |
|
Budget & Cost Control — Token and cost tracking by company, agent, project, goal, issue, provider, and model. Scoped budget policies with warning thresholds and hard stops. Enforcement uses recorded spend; usage reporting and in-flight work can delay a stop. |
Routines & Schedules — Recurring tasks with cron, webhook, and API triggers. Concurrency and catch-up policies. Each routine execution creates a tracked issue and wakes the assigned agent — no manual kick-offs needed. |
|
Plugins — Instance-wide plugin system with out-of-process workers, capability-gated host services, job scheduling, tool exposure, and UI contributions. Extend Paperclip without forking it. |
Secrets & Storage — Company secrets and per-person secret values, encrypted credential storage, local or S3-compatible file storage, attachments, and work products. Secret references supply credentials to authorized runs without copying values into ordinary agent configuration. |
|
Activity & Events — Mutating actions, heartbeat state changes, cost events, approvals, comments, and work products are recorded as durable activity so operators can audit what happened and why. |
Company Portability — Preview, export, and import organization packages with agents, skills, and optional projects, routines, tasks, and attachments. Referenced secret values are omitted; review packages before sharing because plain environment values and local paths can remain. Packages share an operating setup; full-instance recovery uses backups. |
What Paperclip is not
| Not just a chatbot. | Conversations stay attached to tasks, plans, decisions, and outputs. Experimental Agent Chat can hand work off to assigned tasks. |
| Not an agent framework. | We don't tell you how to build agents. We tell you how to run a company made of them. |
| Not just a workflow builder. | Routines operate within an organization, with roles, goals, budgets, and governance. |
| Not a prompt manager. | Agents bring their own prompts, models, and runtimes. Paperclip manages the organization they work in. |
| Not limited to one agent. | Start with one agent and grow into a team with shared skills, delegation, and review. |
| Not only for code review. | Coding and PR review fit alongside research, operations, content, and other work. |
Quickstart
Open source. Self-hosted. No Paperclip account required. Follow the guided quickstart to set up your first agent.
Just ask your agent to install Paperclip
Share the installation guide with your agent.
Or install it yourself
With Node.js 24.11 or newer installed:
npx paperclipai@latest onboard --yes
The CLI runs from npm's cache; your instance configuration and data persist locally.
See the installation guide for managed installs, pinned versions, canary and git-ref installs, updates, rollback, service management, and uninstalling.
For an isolated manual test instance that is already initialized with a CEO
agent, use test-drive. It stays in the foreground, never installs a service
or creates a first task, and opens the browser only after setup succeeds:
ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive
OPENAI_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive --harness codex
OPENROUTER_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive \
--harness opencode \
--model openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5
Each run without --data-dir gets a unique, retained temporary directory; its
absolute path is printed at startup. Pass --data-dir to reuse one, or
--no-browser to leave the initialized instance unopened. When invoked from a
linked Git worktree, test-drive also enables task execution in that worktree.
See the test-drive guide for credential and
reuse behavior.
Troubleshooting: private npm registry
.npmrcIf this fails with an
E404forpaperclipai(or similar) and you use a private npm registry (for example GitHub Packages) via a global~/.npmrc,npxmay be resolvingpaperclipaiagainst that private registry instead of the public npm registry.Diagnostic:
npm config get registryWorkaround (cross-platform; force the public npm registry for this command):
npx --registry https://registry.npmjs.org paperclipai@latest onboard --yes
That quickstart path now defaults to trusted local loopback mode for the fastest first run. To start in authenticated/private mode instead, choose a bind preset explicitly:
npx paperclipai@latest onboard --yes --bind lan
# or:
npx paperclipai@latest onboard --yes --bind tailnet
If you already have Paperclip configured, rerunning onboard keeps the existing config in place. Use npx paperclipai configure to edit settings.
Or manually:
git clone https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
cd paperclip
pnpm install
pnpm dev
This starts the UI and API at http://localhost:3100. An embedded PostgreSQL database is created automatically — no setup required.
Requirements: Node.js 24.11+, pnpm 9.15+
Local Claude and Codex subscription sign-in also needs Python 3 and the corresponding provider CLI on the Paperclip host. The Docker image includes them.
Source development also builds the native Paperclip Runner when enabled (the self-hosted default). Install a Rust toolchain, or set PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_BINARY to a compatible prebuilt runner.
FAQ
Q: Is this project maintained or just slop?
A: Paperclip is maintained by the Paperclip team. We've merged over 2,700 pull requests.
Q: What does a typical setup look like?
A: Locally, a single Node.js process manages an embedded Postgres and local file storage. For production, point it at your own Postgres and deploy however you like. Configure projects, agents, and goals — the agents take care of the rest.
For remote access, use authenticated mode with a private-network bind such as Tailscale, or deploy the persistent server with Docker. See deployment modes and the Docker guide.
Q: Can I run multiple companies?
A: Yes. A single deployment can host multiple organizations with company-scoped data and access checks.
Q: How is Paperclip different from agents like OpenClaw or Claude Code?
A: Paperclip uses those agents. It orchestrates them into a company — with org charts, budgets, goals, governance, and accountability.
Q: Why should I use Paperclip instead of just pointing my OpenClaw to Asana or Trello?
A: Agent orchestration has subtleties in how you coordinate who has work checked out, how to maintain sessions, monitoring costs, establishing governance - Paperclip does this for you.
(Bring-your-own-ticket-system is on the Roadmap)
Q: Do agents run continuously?
A: Agents wake for assigned work and follow-up messages. Optional timer heartbeats let them check for work periodically; routines create recurring tasks on their own schedules. You can also connect externally running agents such as OpenClaw. A mention alone does not assign work or wake another agent.
Development
pnpm dev # Full dev (API + UI, watch mode)
pnpm dev:once # Full dev without file watching
pnpm dev:server # Server only
pnpm dev:mobile # Serve prebuilt UI on :3101 for phones/tablets (proxies /api → :3100)
pnpm dev:both # Run `pnpm dev` and `pnpm dev:mobile` together
pnpm build # Build all
pnpm typecheck # Type checking
pnpm test # Cheap default test run (Vitest only)
pnpm test:watch # Vitest watch mode
pnpm test:e2e # Playwright browser suite
pnpm db:generate # Generate DB migration
pnpm db:migrate # Apply migrations
pnpm test does not run Playwright. Browser suites stay separate and are typically run only when working on those flows or in CI.
See doc/DEVELOPING.md for the full development guide.
Roadmap
- ✅ Plugin system (e.g. add a knowledge base, custom tracing, queues, etc)
- ✅ Get OpenClaw / claw-style agent employees
- ✅ companies.sh - import and export entire organizations
- ✅ Easy AGENTS.md configurations
- ✅ Skills Manager, Skill Studio & Skills Store
- ✅ Scheduled Routines
- ✅ Better Budgeting
- ✅ Agent Reviews and Approvals
- ✅ Multiple Human Users
- ✅ Cloud / Sandbox agents (e2b, Cloudflare, Daytona, Modal, Novita, boxd, self-hosted Kubernetes)
- ✅ Artifacts & Work Products
- ✅ Deep Planning (planning mode, revisioned plans, plan approvals)
- ✅ Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery actions, review gates)
- ✅ MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool access)
- ✅ Secrets Manager with per-agent access
- ✅ Activity log & action attribution
- ✅ Self-healing runs & automatic recovery
- ✅ Agent evals & feedback
- ✅ Connected Apps
- ✅ Personal & Shared AI Accounts
- ✅ Shared Agents Use Personal GitHub Identities
- ✅ Skill Version History & Restore
- ✅ Document Comments & Revision History
- ✅ Company-Wide Search
- ✅ Multi-Model & Multi-Harness Teams
- 🟡 Memory / Knowledge
- ⚪ MAXIMIZER MODE
- ⚪ Work Queues
- ⚪ Self-Organization
- ⚪ Automatic Organizational Learning
- 🟡 Agent Chat
- 🟡 Cloud deployments
- ⚪ Desktop App
- ⚪ Bring-your-own-ticket-system (Asana / Linear / Jira as on-ramps)
This is the short roadmap preview. See the full roadmap in ROADMAP.md.
Community & Plugins
Find Plugins and more at awesome-paperclip
Observability
Paperclip ships with opt-in OpenTelemetry auto-instrumentation for the server (traces only). It activates when OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT is set and supports grpc, http/protobuf, and http/json via the standard OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_PROTOCOL env var. @opentelemetry/api is a normal server dependency; the SDK, auto-instrumentation, and exporter packages are optional peer dependencies — install them only if you want tracing. See doc/observability.md for install commands and the full env-var reference.
Paperclip also ships with opt-in Sentry error monitoring for the server and the browser. Set SENTRY_DSN_FRONTEND to activate it for the browser and SENTRY_DSN_BACKEND to activate it for the server — each variable is optional, and the legacy SENTRY_DSN variable still works as a fallback for either component. The supported server SDK version is @sentry/node@10.71.0; it is an optional peer dependency for the server, so install it only if you want error monitoring. The browser SDK, @sentry/browser, is pinned to the same exact version. See doc/observability.md for the install command, the privacy settings, and the full default capture set.
Telemetry
Paperclip collects anonymous usage telemetry to help us understand how the product is used and improve it. No personal information, issue content, prompts, file paths, or secrets are ever collected. Private repository references are hashed with a per-install salt before being sent.
Contributors changing emitted telemetry events should follow the Telemetry Data Contract. For proposed first-party events that are not in the generated contract yet, follow Telemetry Workflow.
Telemetry is enabled by default and can be disabled with any of the following:
| Method | How |
|---|---|
| Environment variable | PAPERCLIP_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=1 |
| Standard convention | DO_NOT_TRACK=1 |
| CI environments | Automatically disabled when CI=true |
| Config file | Set telemetry.enabled: false in your Paperclip config |
Contributing
We welcome contributions. See the contributing guide for details.
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.
