mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 20:05:57 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
75b6d22aac
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The recovery service detects active runs that stop producing output. > - The dashboard already shows suspicious and critical silence to the board. > - The recovery scan also creates delegated evaluation work for the same signal. > - Output silence alone does not prove that the run or source task needs recovery. > - This pull request keeps the signal and removes automatic recovery artifacts. > - The benefit is a visible watchdog signal without assignment changes, wake requests, or issue noise. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #6596 - Refs #7036 - Refs #9475 - Refs #11544 - Refs #11839 - Refs #11961 ## What Changed - Keep the one-hour suspicious level and four-hour critical level in active-run API summaries. - Stop output silence from creating or changing issues, recovery actions, comments, relations, assignments, and wake requests. - Store snooze, continue, and false-positive decisions against the run without an evaluation issue. - Preserve terminal-source folding, orphan cleanup, and open legacy evaluation links. - Show informational watchdog copy and board controls without requiring an evaluation-task link. - Document the UI-only watchdog contract. - Add focused server and UI coverage for artifact-free scans and board decisions. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` (32 tests passed) - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` - `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,772 passing tests. It found 30 unrelated macOS test-harness failures in eight workspace, skill, listener, and runtime exposure files. The failures use `/tmp` and `/private/tmp` as different paths, require Linux `/proc` listener data, or derive invalid HMR ports from the macOS ephemeral range. - The full Linux CI matrix passed on the latest commit. It includes build, typecheck, server tests, worker tests, serialization tests, canary, and e2e tests. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. ## Risks - The recovery scan keeps its existing result shape, but its created and escalated counts remain zero for output silence. - A false-positive decision now suppresses the signal for the full life of that run. - Open legacy evaluation issues remain visible and manually resolvable. The scan does not refresh or reprioritize them. - There is no database migration and no API schema change. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change corrects existing watchdog behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with extended reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and the focused tests and non-platform gates 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>