mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
adb7633d7b
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Status cards are saved summaries of company work. People and agents
can archive and restore them.
> - A person asked a chat agent to archive a card "to reuse it next
quarter". The agent archived it correctly.
> - The archive response had no board route, and the PATCH operation had
no description. The completion guidance tells agents not to guess
routes.
> - So the agent told the person to restore the card "by clearing
`archived`". That is an API instruction, not a route a person can use.
> - This pull request gives single-card responses an `href` to the
Status page and documents archive and restore on the PATCH operation.
> - The benefit is that an agent can give the person a usable link and a
true account of restore, which starts a fresh summary.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
A chat agent archived a status card. Its reply told the person to
restore the card by clearing `archived` on the card. It gave no link to
the place where a person restores it.
**Expected behavior**
The reply links the card on the Status page, where a person can show
archived cards and click Restore. It also says that restore starts a
fresh summary.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable status cards and create a card as an agent.
2. Ask the CEO agent in chat to archive the card for later reuse.
3. Read the reply. It has no usable restore route, because `PATCH
/api/status-cards/{id}` returns no `href` and has no description.
## What Changed
- `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/status-cards`, `GET
/api/status-cards/{id}` and `PATCH /api/status-cards/{id}` now return
`href`, the company-scoped Status page route for the card.
- The shared `statusCardSchema` has an optional `href` field.
- The `PATCH /api/status-cards/{id}` OpenAPI operation has a
description. It says that archive keeps the card and its history, that a
person restores it on the Status page with the returned `href`, and that
restore starts a fresh full summary.
- The create route reads the company issue prefix before it creates the
card. A failed link lookup can not delete a card whose compile task is
queued.
- Regression tests cover the `href` on the archive and get responses,
the new PATCH description, and a failed prefix read on create (no card
and no task are left).
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/status-cards.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (71 tests pass). The new
create-route test fails on the first commit and passes on the fix.
- End to end: the chat eval `status-cards.archive-card` runs with this
change on an eval branch. The result is in the eval report for that
case.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change adds one optional response field and one
description. List responses do not change. The UI ignores the new field.
- Each single-card response does one more small company read for the
issue prefix. On create, this read occurs before the card exists, so its
failure leaves nothing behind.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used in 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
- [ ] 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>