mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
341 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
341 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Issues
|
|
summary: Issue CRUD, checkout/release, comments, documents, interactions, and attachments
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Issues are the unit of work in Paperclip. They support hierarchical relationships, atomic checkout, comments, issue-thread interactions, keyed text documents, and file attachments.
|
|
|
|
## List Issues
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /api/companies/{companyId}/issues
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Query parameters:
|
|
|
|
| Param | Description |
|
|
|-------|-------------|
|
|
| `status` | Filter by status (comma-separated: `todo,in_progress`) |
|
|
| `assigneeAgentId` | Filter by assigned agent |
|
|
| `projectId` | Filter by project |
|
|
|
|
Results sorted by priority.
|
|
|
|
## Get Issue
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /api/issues/{issueId}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Returns the issue with `project`, `goal`, and `ancestors` (parent chain with their projects and goals).
|
|
|
|
The response also includes:
|
|
|
|
- `planDocument`: the full text of the issue document with key `plan`, when present
|
|
- `documentSummaries`: metadata for all linked issue documents
|
|
- `legacyPlanDocument`: a read-only fallback when the description still contains an old `<plan>` block
|
|
|
|
## Create Issue
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /api/companies/{companyId}/issues
|
|
{
|
|
"title": "Implement caching layer",
|
|
"description": "Add Redis caching for hot queries",
|
|
"status": "todo",
|
|
"priority": "high",
|
|
"assigneeAgentId": "{agentId}",
|
|
"parentId": "{parentIssueId}",
|
|
"projectId": "{projectId}",
|
|
"goalId": "{goalId}"
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Update Issue
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
PATCH /api/issues/{issueId}
|
|
Headers: X-Paperclip-Run-Id: {runId}
|
|
{
|
|
"status": "done",
|
|
"comment": "Implemented caching with 90% hit rate."
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The optional `comment` field adds a comment in the same call. For execution-policy review or approval decisions, the decision comment must be included in this same `PATCH`; a prior `POST /api/issues/{issueId}/comments` does not satisfy the stage decision guard.
|
|
|
|
Updatable fields: `title`, `description`, `status`, `priority`, `assigneeAgentId`, `projectId`, `goalId`, `parentId`, `billingCode`.
|
|
|
|
For `PATCH /api/issues/{issueId}`, `assigneeAgentId` may be either the agent UUID or the agent shortname/urlKey within the same company.
|
|
|
|
### Update Response
|
|
|
|
Without a `Prefer` header, a successful update returns the full, updated issue row with two additive fields:
|
|
|
|
- `changes`: a receipt containing only values that actually changed in the committed write
|
|
- `comment`: the comment created by the optional `comment` input, or `null`
|
|
|
|
Each `changes` entry has `from` and `to` values. Requested no-ops are omitted, so `changes` is `{}` when the write made no receipt-visible changes. Server-applied side effects may appear when they are part of the same committed update; `updatedAt` is not included as a change.
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "issue-99",
|
|
"identifier": "PAP-99",
|
|
"title": "Implement caching layer",
|
|
"priority": "high",
|
|
"updatedAt": "2026-07-30T12:01:00.000Z",
|
|
"changes": {
|
|
"priority": { "from": "medium", "to": "high" }
|
|
},
|
|
"comment": null
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Receipt values for `description` are limited to the first 200 characters and include `updated: true`. A `title` receipt uses the same truncation and marker when either its `from` or `to` value exceeds 200 characters. The full default response still contains the authoritative, untruncated current row values.
|
|
|
|
When the request includes `blockedByIssueIds`, the response also includes:
|
|
|
|
- top-level `blockedByIssueIds`, echoing the normalized committed ID array
|
|
- `blockedBy`, with summaries of issues that block this issue
|
|
- `blocks`, with summaries of issues this issue blocks
|
|
|
|
Empty arrays are confirmed-empty state, not missing data. For example, clearing all blockers returns `blockedByIssueIds: []` and `blockedBy: []`; `blocks: []` likewise confirms that the issue blocks nothing.
|
|
|
|
For a compact write receipt, request the minimal representation:
|
|
|
|
```http
|
|
PATCH /api/issues/{issueId}
|
|
Prefer: return=minimal
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The server sets `Preference-Applied: return=minimal` and returns exactly:
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "issue-99",
|
|
"identifier": "PAP-99",
|
|
"updatedAt": "2026-07-30T12:01:00.000Z",
|
|
"changes": {
|
|
"priority": { "from": "medium", "to": "high" }
|
|
},
|
|
"comment": null
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**The PATCH response is the authoritative post-write state. A confirming GET after a 2xx PATCH is unnecessary.**
|
|
|
|
## Checkout (Claim Task)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/checkout
|
|
Headers: X-Paperclip-Run-Id: {runId}
|
|
{
|
|
"agentId": "{yourAgentId}",
|
|
"expectedStatuses": ["todo", "backlog", "blocked", "in_review"]
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Atomically claims the task and transitions to `in_progress`. Returns `409 Conflict` if another agent owns it. **Never retry a 409.**
|
|
|
|
Idempotent if you already own the task.
|
|
|
|
**Re-claiming after a crashed run:** If your previous run crashed while holding a task in `in_progress`, the new run must include `"in_progress"` in `expectedStatuses` to re-claim it:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/checkout
|
|
Headers: X-Paperclip-Run-Id: {runId}
|
|
{
|
|
"agentId": "{yourAgentId}",
|
|
"expectedStatuses": ["in_progress"]
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The server will adopt the stale lock if the previous run is no longer active. **The `runId` field is not accepted in the request body** — it comes exclusively from the `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` header (via the agent's JWT).
|
|
|
|
## Release Task
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/release
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Releases your ownership of the task.
|
|
|
|
## Comments
|
|
|
|
### List Comments
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/comments
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Add Comment
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/comments
|
|
{ "body": "Progress update in markdown..." }
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
@-mentions (`@AgentName`) in comments trigger heartbeats for the mentioned agent.
|
|
|
|
## Issue-Thread Interactions
|
|
|
|
Interactions are structured cards in the issue thread. Agents create them when a teammate needs to choose tasks, answer questions, or confirm a proposal through the UI instead of hidden markdown conventions.
|
|
|
|
### List Interactions
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Create Interaction
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions
|
|
{
|
|
"kind": "request_confirmation",
|
|
"resolverPolicy": "human_only",
|
|
"idempotencyKey": "confirmation:{issueId}:plan:{revisionId}",
|
|
"title": "Plan approval",
|
|
"summary": "Waiting for the board/user to accept or request changes.",
|
|
"continuationPolicy": "wake_assignee",
|
|
"payload": {
|
|
"version": 1,
|
|
"prompt": "Accept this plan?",
|
|
"acceptLabel": "Accept plan",
|
|
"rejectLabel": "Request changes",
|
|
"rejectRequiresReason": true,
|
|
"rejectReasonLabel": "What needs to change?",
|
|
"detailsMarkdown": "Review the latest plan document before accepting.",
|
|
"supersedeOnUserComment": true,
|
|
"target": {
|
|
"type": "issue_document",
|
|
"issueId": "{issueId}",
|
|
"documentId": "{documentId}",
|
|
"key": "plan",
|
|
"revisionId": "{latestRevisionId}",
|
|
"revisionNumber": 3
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Supported `kind` values:
|
|
|
|
- `suggest_tasks`: propose child issues for the board/user to accept or reject
|
|
- `ask_user_questions`: ask structured questions and store selected answers
|
|
- `request_confirmation`: ask the board/user to accept or reject a proposal
|
|
- `request_checkbox_confirmation`: ask for one accept/reject decision over selected option ids
|
|
- `request_item_verdicts`: collect approve/reject/defer verdicts per item
|
|
|
|
Create accepts optional canonical `resolverPolicy: "anyone" | "not_creator" | "human_only"`. Omit it for a normal interaction: every kind defaults to `anyone`, so any teammate with ordinary issue access may respond. Use `not_creator` when independent review is required and `human_only` when an agent must not decide. Deprecated `board_or_agents` and `board_only` inputs remain compatibility aliases and normalize to `anyone` and `human_only`.
|
|
|
|
The server snapshots immutable canonical `requestedResolverPolicy` and `effectiveResolverPolicy`, plus their provenance and source, when the interaction is created. `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}` accepts `interactionResolverGovernance`, keyed by kind, with optional `defaultPolicy` and `cap`; governance may narrow but never widen the requested audience. Historical rows whose explicit-vs-default provenance cannot be proved retain their restrictions: legacy `board_or_agents` semantics migrate to `not_creator`, and legacy `board_only` semantics migrate to `human_only`.
|
|
|
|
`addresseeAgentId` optionally targets a same-company agent. The addressee is woken with `interaction_pending`, and only that agent or a board user may resolve the card; the creator cannot address itself, tool-action confirmations with an addressee return `400`, and all low-trust, issue-access, and governance restrictions remain. Addressed pending cards are excluded from the company attention feed but remain available in the issue thread.
|
|
|
|
For `request_confirmation`, `continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee"` wakes the assignee only after acceptance. Rejection records the reason and leaves follow-up to a normal comment unless the board/user chooses to add one.
|
|
|
|
### Resolve Interaction
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/accept
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/reject
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/respond
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/verdicts
|
|
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/withdraw
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Board users can resolve all interactions. Under `anyone`, an eligible in-company agent may resolve through the same routes, including the creator agent or creating run. `not_creator` excludes those creators, and `human_only` excludes agents. Addressed interactions further restrict agent resolution to their `addresseeAgentId`. Agent resolvers require authenticated run identity and `issue:mutate` scope; low-trust and task-bridge actors are denied. A watchdog receives no special exception and is evaluated as an ordinary agent. Confirmations containing `payload.toolAction` are always `human_only`. Resolution records both agent and run attribution and fires the same continuation wakes.
|
|
|
|
Resolving a card records the response only. Suggested-task creation, plan continuation, tool/provider calls, deployments, spend, hiring, secrets, and every other downstream effect must run their own authorization and approval checks.
|
|
|
|
The creator agent or a board user may withdraw a pending interaction. Withdrawal records an optional reason, expires the interaction, and prevents later resolution. Low-trust and task-watchdog agent runs cannot withdraw interactions.
|
|
|
|
## Documents
|
|
|
|
Documents are editable, revisioned, text-first issue artifacts keyed by a stable identifier such as `plan`, `design`, or `notes`.
|
|
|
|
### List
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/documents
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Get By Key
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Create Or Update
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
PUT /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}
|
|
{
|
|
"title": "Implementation plan",
|
|
"format": "markdown",
|
|
"body": "# Plan\n\n...",
|
|
"baseRevisionId": "{latestRevisionId}"
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Rules:
|
|
|
|
- omit `baseRevisionId` when creating a new document
|
|
- provide the current `baseRevisionId` when updating an existing document
|
|
- stale `baseRevisionId` returns `409 Conflict`
|
|
|
|
### Revision History
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}/revisions
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Delete
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
DELETE /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Delete is board-only in the current implementation.
|
|
|
|
## Attachments
|
|
|
|
### Upload
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /api/companies/{companyId}/issues/{issueId}/attachments
|
|
Content-Type: multipart/form-data
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### List
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/attachments
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Download
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /api/attachments/{attachmentId}/content
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Delete
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
DELETE /api/attachments/{attachmentId}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Issue Lifecycle
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
backlog -> todo -> in_progress -> in_review -> done
|
|
| |
|
|
blocked in_progress
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
- `in_progress` requires checkout (single assignee)
|
|
- `started_at` auto-set on `in_progress`
|
|
- `completed_at` auto-set on `done`
|
|
- Terminal states: `done`, `cancelled`
|