## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When a task's automatic recovery stops, the person's Retry rechecks
the task's gates. If a gate refuses, for example a budget hard stop, the
Retry is saved and starts by itself once the gate allows it
> - After a person pressed Retry under a budget hold, the task page went
blank: no failure, no notice and no Retry. A person had no way to see
why nothing started
> - Two gaps caused it. The task notice drew only system-owned states,
and a budget hold presents as a person-owned state with no card of its
own. Also, admission saved the wait reason without publishing anything
that an open page listens to
> - This pull request keeps the failure visible and names the budget
wait, and it refreshes an open task when admission records why a Retry
waits
> - The benefit is that "failure remains visible if the new attempt
cannot start" holds without the person reloading the page
> - These two commits were pushed to #20306 after it was squash-merged,
so they are not on master
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #20306 (merged without these two commits) and #20270.
**What happened?**
In the chat eval
`chat-features.runner-opencode.local.recovery.retry-exhausted`, a person
pressed Retry on a task whose native recovery was exhausted while the
agent's budget was held. The Retry was accepted (`POST
/api/issues/{id}/retry` returned 202). The task page then stayed blank
for more than 60 seconds on the open page.
**Expected behavior**
The task keeps the failure visible and says that it is waiting for the
budget. Once the budget allows new work, the saved Retry starts once by
itself.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Let a task's run fail, and put the assignee over a budget hard stop.
2. Open the task and press Retry.
3. The page shows nothing about the failure or the wait.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at 76254ead22
## What Changed
- `ExecutionBlockerNotice.tsx`: a Retry held by a budget hard stop
presents as `waiting_for_user` with `userAction: "budget"`. The notice
now shows "Couldn't finish this attempt. Your message is saved. It is
waiting for the budget to allow new work. Raise the budget in Costs."
(`data-testid="task-execution-waiting"`). It shows no second Retry,
because the saved Retry starts by itself. Other person-owned decisions,
such as approvals and run-stopped confirmation, keep their own surfaces.
- `deferred-execution-wait.ts`: when the wait reason of a deferred
request changes, its task records an `issue.execution_waiting` activity.
Its live event refreshes an open task page. Callers inside a transaction
(`heartbeat/queue.ts`) pass their post-commit publication list, so the
event is published only after commit.
## Verification
- A probe on the real deferred-receipt fixture showed that a budget-held
Retry presents as `waiting_for_user` / `budget` / `canRetry: false` at 0
and 11 seconds. Before this change, the notice rendered nothing for that
state.
- `ExecutionBlockerNotice.test.tsx`: 18 tests pass. The budget-held
notice is covered, it offers no duplicate Retry, and approvals still
render nothing here.
- `deferred-execution-wait.test.ts` (new, embedded PostgreSQL):
- One live event is published for each new wait reason. The same reason
again publishes nothing.
- Inside a caller's transaction, nothing is published before commit.
- A request that is no longer deferred records nothing.
- Two of these cases fail when the change is reverted.
- `deferred-execution-receipt-work.test.ts`: passes (49 tests together
with the new file).
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: clean.
- Paid live run: `recovery.retry-exhausted` on an eval branch that
includes both commits. The run ID will be added below.
## Risks
- Low. The new notice renders only for `waiting_for_user` with
`userAction: "budget"`, which rendered nothing before.
- The activity row is written only when a deferred request's wait reason
changes, so a gate that refuses repeatedly adds one row, not one row for
each evaluation.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with
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 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
