DottaandPaperclip 8f9f850c20 fix: limit plan-to-auto transition to plan confirmation (#12695) ...

<!-- This pull request uses ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English. -->

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue thread controls plan review and agent work modes.
> - A user can accept a full plan or confirm a smaller checkbox action.
> - Only full plan acceptance must start automatic agent work.
> - The current transition did not check the interaction kind.
> - This pull request limits the transition to an accepted plan
confirmation.
> - The benefit is a safe and clear start of agent work after plan
approval.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

An accepted confirmation that targeted a plan could change an issue from
planning mode to standard mode. This included a checkbox confirmation. A
checkbox action is not approval of the full plan.

**Expected behavior**

Only acceptance of a current full-plan confirmation starts automatic
agent work. Other interaction kinds and rejected confirmations keep the
current work mode.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Put an issue in planning mode.
2. Create a checkbox confirmation that targets the current plan
revision.
3. Accept the checkbox confirmation.
4. Observe that the issue enters standard mode before this fix.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The problem was present on `master` before this change.

**Deployment mode**

The problem is in the core server logic and is not deployment-specific.

## What Changed

- Require a full `request_confirmation` interaction before plan
acceptance starts automatic work.
- Add service tests for acceptance, rejection, stale interaction kinds,
and unchanged standard-mode behavior.
- Check the route activity log for the planning-to-standard mode change.
- Document the plan acceptance transition in the V1 contract.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` passes 140
tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- `pnpm test:run` was also started. Unrelated workspace-runtime tests
failed because fixed local runtime ports were occupied or offset on the
shared host. The same failures reproduce alone. The changed test files
pass alone.

## Risks

- Risk is low. The change adds one interaction-kind guard to the
existing transition.
- A full accepted plan confirmation still changes planning mode to
standard mode and an eligible review issue to todo in one transaction.
- Checkbox confirmations, questions, rejection, and standard-mode issues
keep their previous behavior.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The
runtime does not expose the exact model suffix or context window.

## 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>

2026-09-01 17:18:42 -05:00

..

scripts

fix(server): stamp built commit into service.version (#11748)

2026-08-19 21:20:40 -07:00

src

fix: limit plan-to-auto transition to plan confirmation (#12695)

2026-09-01 17:18:42 -05:00

CHANGELOG.md

fix: bound workspace Git scans (#11572)

2026-08-17 22:11:30 -05:00

package.json

fix(release): bundle vendored runner ACPX runtime (#12582)

2026-08-31 08:08:27 -05:00

tsconfig.json

…

vitest.config.ts

feat(runner): add hidden server PRP coordinator (#12176)

2026-08-25 14:17:14 -05:00