DottaandPaperclip
7e595fd055
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages real work by AI agents. > - Daily QA must verify that work on the staging deployment. > - Classic Agent Chat coverage already exercises hiring and teammate reuse. > - The deployment journey should share that behavior and its ownership oracle. > - Saved documents, exact callback replies and physical cleanup establish success. > - The corrected journey and complete daily suite now pass on QA. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Product E2E deployment journeys and their shared browser controls. **Problem or motivation** QA must prove that one newly hired teammate completes two different tasks and returns both saved results to the lead conversation. Names, chat claims and successful-run counts alone cannot establish authorship or completion. **Proposed solution** Reuse the classic hiring oracle and production composer. Verify immutable creation audits, initial assignment, current project and ownership, saved document revisions, exact native authors, durable callbacks and their own task links after reload. Bound execution to five lead turns and two child turns. **Alternatives considered** A separate QA implementation would duplicate the classic journey. Name matching or later reassignment would accept broken initial ownership. Links elsewhere in the conversation cannot substitute for either callback's own result link. **Roadmap alignment** This verifies existing features. Related merged repairs: #18389, #18465, #18459, #18463, #18502, #18503, #18504, #18506, #18507 and #18514. Separate dependency #18517 repairs file preservation after lifecycle cancellation and is merged as Core `050365e`, which also contains #18514. This primary PR now differs from that protected mainline in only 16 unchanged H harness/documentation paths; it adds no application production delta. The measured QA deployment serves Core `050365e`, with its matching bundled provider pack and unchanged approved model/ROM. ## What Changed - Add the shared `hire-delegate-reuse` journey, catalog, types, dispatch, launch fingerprints, journey-feature entries and documentation. Hire one teammate, delegate a checklist, then reuse the same teammate for a saved review. Require seven canonical native runs: five lead and two child turns. - Require exact company, lead, chat and native creation receipts. Both tasks must be created for the intended teammate using immutable creation-audit assignee fields. Independently verify current project and ownership. Creation-time project is not recorded in that audit and is not claimed by this assertion. - Verify both current document revisions belong to the exact child runs and preserve the original checklist. - Use ordinary production rich-editor agent/project autocomplete controls. Verify exact reference chips, then send once. Preserve the shared default sender. - Require each durable, run-owned callback reply to contain its own exact completed-task link. Collect links through the actual production Markdown renderer and issue-reference decoration, then apply the existing company-scoped route authority. An unrelated table or code fence cannot hide a rendered link; foreign, wrong-task and code-only links remain failures. - Preserve approved connection, account, grant and responsible-user attribution. Verify the child's independent installation and retain the immutable binding snapshot. Do not copy credentials or broaden grants. - Record ownership before later observations can fail. Retry only typed transient observation GET failures. Preserve authority and cleanup failures. - Retain all 14 daily journeys, the model matrix, deadlines, seven-run cap and 500-cent aggregate allowance split 300/200. ## Verification - **Current composed head:** `afa3f5552ab0c1a9f0ee7327dfa5665d57cc7bcb`. It normally merges mainline `1e8e322` and exact #18517 source `adb1d4e`, retaining the intermediate `b2d9eb4` and `6fd1042` ancestry. The only merge conflict was the Playwright support registration; it is resolved to the exact previously qualified union. All 16 H harness/documentation paths are byte-identical to `5c0830f`; all four #18517 paths are byte-identical to `adb1d4e`. Every other tracked path matches actual protected mainline `050365e`. A clean merge preview of `050365e` and this head equals the current head tree, so no additional source commit is needed. GitHub's three-dot display still lists the four already merged helper files because #18517 used a squash merge; those blobs equal protected mainline and add no net application change. No journey, oracle, cap or model change accompanies this composition. A final clean merge preview on intervening mainline `006d5691a6245d5a710e25ba3df6d609754e163a` preserves all unrelated changes and adds exactly the same 16 measured H blobs, with no net App production delta. That later mainline is not represented as the AppCore measured by the QA run. - **Local qualification:** 149/149 focused tests across six suites, including the report-catalog case, and 11/11 real Chromium checks passed on `b2d9eb4`. All H modules, browser inputs and parser/package dependencies are byte-identical at `afa3f55`; those unchanged suites were not repeated. Current-source transitive types, maps, module boundaries and diff checks pass. Official Node24 QA runtime imports pass again using exact public `afa3f55` and private `8671fa9`, with a clean credential-free environment and network disabled. The initial local report-catalog failure is retained: the child `tsx` process was denied its local IPC socket before importing the report or writing an artifact. The same source and selected case pass after correcting only sandbox IPC permission; no source workaround or deselection was used. - **Current canonical CI and reviews pass.** [CI 41275109691](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41275109691) completed successfully at exact `afa3f55`: all 59 contexts are terminal and clean (55 success, three skipped, one neutral). Fresh exact-head Greptile and official Paperclip reviews both scored 5/5; all 27 review threads are resolved with pagination complete. The official review is static and its check is neutral; it did not execute tests or live QA. A separate exact-head independent composition assessment found no actionable issues at 4/5 confidence and performed no live actions. **Fresh QA qualification passed: all 14 daily journeys, including the corrected H7, passed against deployed Core `050365e`.** Prior check conclusions and review scores retain their actual heads. The previous `5c0830f` completed all 59 contexts cleanly, actual exact-head Greptile and official Paperclip reviews both scored 5/5, and all 27 review threads were resolved. Its separate independent journey-source review at `2b803f08` remained 4/5 with a unit-helper authorship caveat. Intermediate `b2d9eb4` received an actual exact-head Greptile 5/5 with zero open findings, then was updated to compose the valid dependency review fix before live QA. That score and its pending CI are not attributed to `afa3f55`. - Existing causal controls remain unchanged: invalid immutable assignee, either missing callback link, foreign/code/wrong-task links and an earlier handoff fail against the relevant prior source. Renderer controls prove that tables and fenced code elsewhere in a valid callback do not hide its actual task link. Both composer and document-navigation browser registrations remain present. - #18503 merged after its actual QA document case passed four canonical checks and five phases, positively established zero native work, and completed cleanup. Its measured files are unchanged in this composition. #18506 and #18507 merged after their own checks; their causal worker-settlement controls remain intact. - #18514 is merged as `1e8e322`. It reproduces the selected-task metadata-only-project startup failure against deployed `756599e` and passes 19 real-PostgreSQL selected controls after repair. Both direct and assembled baseline controls fail before it. Real source, explicit selection, policy and workspace-isolation guards remain enforced. It is included in measured Core `050365e`; fresh H7 reached and completed both delegated native tasks. - #18517 initial source `6fd1042` passed 320/320 focused and sibling Stop/recovery tests, including 20 preservation controls. Its actual official review was 4/5 and found a valid follow-up: the new live-controller guard should wait for actual lease expiry rather than repeat locked checks every 30 seconds. Both an already-live lease and a real under-lock renewal reproduce that issue against `6fd1042`. Corrected source `adb1d4e` passes all 22 preservation controls and 124 directly affected tests across three suites, exact-head server build/stamp, typecheck and structural checks. It defers before locking and rechecks renewed expiry afterward, preserving the transactional owner guard. The old score/failure and successful owner tests remain attributed to their actual sources. Independent exact-head review of `adb1d4e` found no actionable issues at 4/5 confidence. This is local/source evidence, not physical QA recovery. Its current [CI 41274963476](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41274963476) completed successfully with all 59 contexts clean; both actual current reviews are 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. It merged normally as `050365e` after those gates. QA now runs that image. The historical allocation is positively stopped and retained; its files-only export remains a separately tracked repair, not a passing-test assertion. - The historical [first H7 pass](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41226065043-1/) remains attributed to public `5d3f143`, private `dabad62` and App `b7f1c37`: all checks and five phases passed, seven native runs succeeded, both saved documents and exact callbacks were verified, and physical cleanup completed. An optional runtime-metadata receipt was inconclusive and was not grade authority. Material failed attempts remain failed: | Attempt | Actual result and correction | | --- | --- | | [41231853638](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41231853638-1/) | 13 passed; hiring omitted initial teammate/project assignment and started extra work. The production composer repair retains the ownership negative. Later recovery stopped physical work without changing the failed grade. | | [41238711372](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41238711372-1/) | All seven native runs succeeded, but the final callback had no durable chat reply. Cleanup passed. #18502 repairs premature completion-outbox retargeting; the fresh measured H7 now verifies both durable, run-owned callback replies and their own task links. | | [41253428446](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41253428446-1/) | 12 passed; hiring rejected a mentioned metadata-only project before delegation, and document reopening hit an immediate-control-probe race. #18504 and #18503 repair those separate boundaries. Historical missing-task absence remains quarantined; physical termination does not manufacture absence evidence. | | [41266385118](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41266385118-1/) | On `5c0830f` and App `756599e`, 13 passed, including the exact composed document helper. Hiring created the correctly assigned task, but its child admission failed before runtime selection because the organizational project had no repository source. #18514 repairs that selected-task boundary. The cancelled native lead retained an active prepared-workspace lease; cleanup 41271035231 failed with `owned_work_stop_unconfirmed`. #18517 addresses its file-preservation admission. Launch 1110, original evidence and automatic Slack FAIL remain failed. | | [CI 41257779002](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41257779002) / [CI 41263476916](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41263476916) | Existing enrollment and snapshot-retention fixtures observed intermediate I/O before worker settlement. #18506 and #18507 have controlled causal failures, complete-settlement observers and preserved deadlines/negative controls. Runtime scheduling behavior is unchanged. | **Fresh measured acceptance:** [QA run 41285131220](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/actions/runs/41285131220) and its [permanent report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41285131220-1/) passed **14/14**, zero failed or incomplete, with all five phases and complete cleanup for every case. The strict verifier independently matched original grades, current provenance and completed manifests: public harness `afa3f5552ab0c1a9f0ee7327dfa5665d57cc7bcb`, private workflow `8671fa93e27501fabbfffa377bec6dea453b5db7`, AppCore `050365e09d88411960fc3bacc1c08c46c0d9b6fa` and matching Cloud image/provider pack. All model, ROM, deadline and run-budget controls remained unchanged. All three workflow jobs completed successfully; the automatic Slack notification reported PASS with links to this run. The passing TestOps launch was closed normally after evidence verification. The hiring case passed all 11 check entries across nine IDs and five phases, with exactly five lead and two child native runs. Both saved documents match their live current revision/body hashes and exact hired-agent run attribution. The immutable original checklist remains intact; the same teammate authored the review. Both own callback replies contain their exact delegated task link. Independent canonical readback confirmed all seven native runs succeeded and committed their accepted result, assessment and decision, with no live owner and zero pending or failed effects; each of the seven exact owned leases has its own bound DESTROYED receipt and successful cleanup. All seven final snapshot operations match their source run, workspace, task, epoch, SHA, generation and export location. The four earlier lead snapshots are retained SUPERSEDED ancestors of the current committed snapshot; the latest lead and both child snapshots are COMMITTED. The initial diagnostic required current COMMITTED status for every historical snapshot and correctly remained false until the separate lineage diagnostic established this supported supersession. The product oracle and original grade were not changed. Canonical Suite metadata is `qa-basics`; the daily plan was saved with its standard suite-only query and synchronized, retaining all 14 ACTIVE cases. The older failed allocation remains separately stopped, retained, isolated from reuse and owned by terminated actors. That permits fresh campaigns without replaying old work. Its same-allocation files export is still unresolved and has separate bounded files-only recovery work; it is not claimed by this successful campaign. Original failed grades, reports and automatic FAIL notifications remain unchanged. No failed result was closed, relabelled, hidden or retried unchanged to obtain green. ## Risks The journey requires Agent Chat, normal hiring permission, a scoped lead and a provider that finalizes owned resources. Missing or extra work, wrong ownership, absent saved documents, missing callbacks and unconfirmed cleanup must fail. The deployed app and bundled runner pack must match the verified Core. The old run's cancellation ACK and terminal database row do not prove physical termination or saved files. Its coordinator has no accepted result or decision; pending-effect absence cannot be inferred from that missing decision. File recovery must preserve the exact allocation and original destroy disposition without a provider turn. Current source checks, reviews, fresh H7 and full-14 aggregate all pass. Canonical Suite metadata and actual 14-case daily-plan synchronization were verified after closing the genuine passing launch. The original failed allocation still has a separate files-export debt; its STOPPED receipt is not a SAVED or DESTROYED claim. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The session does not expose a more specific backend model ID or fixed context window. Used reasoning, repository tools, TypeScript and browser test 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 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 - [x] Historical passes and material failed attempts retain their actual source and outcome - [x] The composed document helper passed normal QA with complete cleanup on its actual source - [x] The corrected hiring journey passes fresh normal H7 with complete cleanup - [x] The active hiring case has canonical Suite and daily-plan membership after the passing launch is closed --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@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.