DottaandPaperclip
c2daf906d9
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work and delivers its results.
> - One task can need several runs and a saved workspace.
> - A run can succeed while the task waits for its next run.
> - Chat fallback treated that success as completion and dropped useful
status.
> - Monitor runs also lost their conversation origin, and text-question
cards lost their prompt.
> - This change preserves the task outcome and exact delivery authority
across those boundaries.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A Slack task requested a repository, yielded to a scheduled
continuation, and showed only a generic completion message. The next run
could not publish through the original conversation. A later text
question showed its title and Respond button without the question
context. Workspace recovery could commit the saved monitor result
without restoring its explanation.
**Expected behavior**
The original conversation shows the accepted continuation explanation,
receives the resumed result, and displays the full question when input
is needed. A successful provider run does not claim that unfinished work
is complete. Recovery delivers saved output once without another
provider result.
**Steps to reproduce**
Start an authorized chat task, prepare a repository for a later
admission, save a monitor wait, and let that monitor resume the task.
Repeat with workspace finalization interrupted and with a free-text
question. Inspect the originating conversation and the persisted output.
Related merged work: #16806 and #16975. The open monitor and recovery
changes found during duplicate search address different status and
liveness policies.
## What Changed
- Keep committed monitor summaries visible through the shared board and
chat response resolver. Preserve interaction ownership and comment
reuse.
- Recover a saved monitor explanation after finalization, with no
repeated provider result.
- Prove monitor publication origin from the admitted wake and matching
scheduling receipt. Match company, task, agent, requester, and schedule;
reject ambiguous sources.
- Include monitor continuations in the existing publication scan and use
the canonical task binding. Keep current transport authorization.
- Suppress completion fallback for yielded results. Explain missing
final output without claiming completion.
- Include question summaries, prompts, and help text in modal-backed
cards. Keep answered text private.
- Update execution semantics, capability maps, and the bounded
reliability plan.
## Verification
- Original source fails four composed PostgreSQL regressions: monitor
origin, yielded completion, question body, and saved-summary recovery.
The shared response resolver also fails before the repair.
- Repaired focused cohort: 148 tests pass across publication, question
privacy, scheduler, and native monitor suites. These use real disposable
PostgreSQL; they do not qualify live Slack.
- Full workspace typecheck and production build pass locally. Map checks
and whitespace checks pass.
- All CI gates pass at 1701c48f17.
Greptile reports 5/5. Both review findings are resolved. The local
full-suite run remains separate.
- The added 21-admission lineage and cycle regressions pass with the
complete 11-test database suite.
- The larger live Codex/Claude qualification and deployed staging
acceptance remain in progress. This PR does not claim that milestone is
complete.
## Risks
- Incorrect lineage could disclose output to another conversation. The
resolver requires one exact receipt-backed source and the worker still
checks current delivery authority.
- Status recovery could duplicate output or compete with a question. The
source-run presentation marker, saved-comment reuse, interaction
arbitration, and replay tests protect those boundaries.
- No database migration or public task-status change is required.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository editing, terminal tests, and
browser inspection. The runtime does not expose an exact deployment
model ID or context-window size.
## 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>
15 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
External chat and email
People can talk to an assigned agent through configured external channels, bind their identity, exchange files, and inspect delivery state. Each provider has a different identity, threading, and attachment contract.
Feature ID: chat-channels.
Implementation: endpoint setup, endpoint detail, email setup.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
providers:chat-channels/providers— configure the available Slack, Discord, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, GitHub, AgentMail, and experimental iMessage Photon and Speko paths; availability still depends on gates and provider support.identity:chat-channels/identity— link the external sender to the intended authorized Paperclip identity.conversation:chat-channels/conversation— route inbound messages to the selected agent and send replies to the correct thread.attachments:chat-channels/attachments— transfer supported files with inspectable delivery and failure states.lifecycle:chat-channels/lifecycle— inspect endpoint activity, repair auth, and disable delivery when required.outbound-email:chat-channels/outbound-email— start a task-bound AgentMail conversation, reply to its exact message, and inspect deduplicated publication and provider delivery.
How to get to it (user POV)
external-thread
Message the configured bot/address from its external provider and follow the corresponding Paperclip conversation/task.
endpoint-management
Open /apps/chat/:endpointId/settings and the endpoint’s other available tabs; identity confirmation uses /chat-identity/confirm.
outbound-agentmail
Use paperclipai email inboxes --company-id <company-id>, then email send --company-id <company-id> --file <new-email.json> or email reply --company-id <company-id> --file <reply.json>. Inspect email thread <email-task-id> --company-id <company-id> and email delivery <publication-id> --company-id <company-id>. Agent mutations must provide --run-id or the active PAPERCLIP_RUN_ID.
Driving it with Playwright and provider clients
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a
test provider account/channel with permission to send messages. Gates differ:
AgentMail bypasses the chat-connectors UI gate, GitHub uses
enableGitHubReviewBots, and other chat providers use enableChatConnectors.
Setup is covered in connection setup.
external-thread
Automated: channel integration uses provider fixtures; it does not prove a live Slack, Discord, Teams, Telegram, GitHub, email, or Photon delivery.
Monitor continuation regression: database checks verify the exact originating conversation, rejected forged/mismatched receipts, one working publication, no completion for a yielded run, and saved-response recovery. In a disposable live thread, request work that needs deferred repository preparation. Verify a useful continuation explanation, automatic resumption, and the final result in that same thread. A successful provider turn alone is insufficient.
GitHub review comment regression (2026-10-19): repeated PR review requests reuse
one main App comment, including across restart and reconnect. Test a leading
request for an external bot (@greptile review) and verify it creates no wake or
acknowledgement. Stop execution before a milestone is staged, run maintenance,
and verify the existing comment reports the stop; saved requests on a blocked
task show paused state. Preserve newer progress and confirmed or uncertain replies.
Repeat terminal reconciliation with native identity and no legacy wake fields.
Check delayed acknowledgements, check-only assessments followed by formal reviews,
and combined requests with separate pre-upgrade placeholders.
Manual: For each supported provider being changed, send a unique message, verify the intended agent/company receives it, and inspect the actual external reply in the original thread. Repeat with an unlinked/unauthorized sender, duplicate inbound delivery, and one supported attachment. Record provider-specific results separately.
GitHub review prompt regression: open a PR and push twice. Each task message contains the event and commit identifiers; configuration comes from the admitted delivery snapshot and the PR description is fetched when needed. Inspect the native provider's submitted envelopes: a verified resume sends only the current batch and any changed configuration, while a fresh session receives full review instructions and task context. Change configuration between pushes and verify the queued older request retains its original snapshot. Integration fixtures cover the database and prompt contracts; they do not prove live provider delivery.
For Slack, enable Require at-mention and Allow direct messages. Send a plain DM and follow up without a mention: both should reach the agent, with top-level replies to top-level DMs. Channel messages and thread replies still require a mention when that setting is enabled. Disable direct messages and confirm a plain DM is rejected. Use a private channel for threaded conversations.
For Slack acknowledgement latency, mention the bot with and without an attachment.
Eyes should appear after authorized task/comment persistence, independently of
file preparation, subscription and agent startup. Duplicate delivery must keep
one receipt; the final reply must remove only its source message's eyes. Record
live mention-to-reaction timing separately from the PostgreSQL fixture tests and
the chat.slack.receipt transport span described in Observability.
During a top-level DM run, verify that the bot adds eyes to the source message and removes them when the final reply arrives. The pinned Slack SDK encodes a linear DM with an empty thread timestamp; receipt transport accepts that address while still validating the channel and the source message timestamp.
For an agent with two linked Slack endpoints, compare assignment preparation and tool discovery in the run trace. Endpoint checks may overlap in pairs. Confirm that both permitted tool sets remain available, then revoke one linked identity and confirm that the next preparation excludes it. The database regression uses real PostgreSQL with one connection and controlled credential resolution; it does not prove live provider latency or an end-to-end response target.
Catalog discovery rechecks live authority and current credentials without computing the unused compatibility fingerprint. Assignment snapshots and governed calls retain full revision resolution. The same regression verifies identical catalog membership, absence of digest SQL during discovery, and revocation on the next preparation. A faster component is not proof of a faster Slack reaction or final reply; measure those separately on the deployed revision.
For GitHub and Slack tool continuity, start a task from the channel, then admit a later monitor or retry run for the same task. Check that the later run can discover and call its channel tools without a new inbound message. For GitHub, also continue from a board message by the same accepted requester and complete the review in the original conversation, including when the original source is recorded only in legacy wake metadata. Revoke the linked identity and check that the next call fails. Repeat the boundary checks with another task, agent, company, and requester. The channel and provenance fixtures above cover these contracts with synthetic providers; record a live journey separately. For a long-lived task, repeat more than 100 continuations and check that tool access remains available. Fail a later GitHub run after a final answer and check that the earlier answer remains intact.
endpoint-management
Automated: channel integration covers shared endpoint/delivery behavior; live credential repair and provider ownership remain manual checks.
Manual: Inspect the bound agent and identity, recent activity, and delivery failure details. Repair a disposable credential, retry a safe message when offered, and verify exactly one external reply. Disable the endpoint and confirm new traffic is not silently processed.
For publication failures, reject one operation with a provider 403 and verify that its failure remains visible while unrelated tools and publications continue. Repeat with an authentication failure: the endpoint must require attention and stop provider traffic, while the connection's enabled setting remains unchanged. Reconcile persistent receivers and restart the service; authentication failures must remain stopped while transient disconnections can still recover. The PostgreSQL suite uses controlled provider failures for these cases; live provider credential repair remains a separate acceptance check.
GitHub connections in attention or revoked state show a repair notice above the settings. Reconnect GitHub → Reconnect saved App checks the same App with stored credentials and repairs delivery. Replace App credentials is the fallback, with the saved App ID, a link to its GitHub settings, and PEM upload or paste instructions. The production management Storybook's 04 Recovery group covers these views, pending/failure/success, mobile, and light theme with simulated provider responses. Verify actual credential validity and restored delivery separately against GitHub; a Storybook success does not establish live recovery.
For GitHub, submit a disposable PR and verify the summary heading uses the bot's display name and the check remains Paperclip Review. For two separate bots on one PR, verify their App-scoped checks and comments remain independent.
For GitHub publication recovery, interrupt a response after GitHub accepts a write and verify one summary, finding, and App-scoped check. Retry the same tool call and verify it returns the saved receipt. Include text longer than 500 characters and coverage with more than 50 entries. Change only the text suffix or final coverage entry and verify rejection without another write. Remove the durable publication and verify that a retry cannot dispatch a new write. Leave a transient failure queued, restart the instance, and verify publication resumes at its saved deadline without another inbound message. Revoked access and permanent rejections must stop retries. These recipes are separate from live provider proof.
Configure optional project and workspace defaults at the connection and destination levels. Start a new conversation and inspect its task workspace. Verify that inheritance, an explicit selection, and clearing a default remain distinct. Changing defaults must not move an existing conversation or interrupt its run.
For experimental Speko, enable chat connectors, choose an agent during setup, and verify the provider credentials. On an assigned task, use Talk to agent to open browser voice controls. Check microphone denial, mute, end/restart, navigation during a call, and access revocation. Inspect transcripts and the connection's call history. Callback preferences, incoming phone configuration, and incoming-call approval are separate settings and authorization journeys. The voice components and fixture tests cover presentation; they do not establish live answer retrieval or telephone playback. Those provider outcomes remain explicit release gates.
outbound-agentmail
Automated: Email channel integration uses controlled providers to test durable child tasks/intents, deduplication, reply binding, attachments, delivery, revocation, budgets, run authority, and company boundaries. No dedicated end-to-end CLI email test was identified; these fixtures do not establish actual recipient delivery.
Manual: Use a disposable parent task, authorized AgentMail inbox, and recipient you own. Put endpointId, a stable UUID idempotencyKey, text, parentIssueId, to, and subject in the new-message JSON; supply eligible attachmentIds only if needed. Send, inspect the child conversation/publication, and verify actual received mail. Repeat the identical request/key and confirm one child and provider send; changed content with that key must conflict. Reply with endpointId, conversationId, exact replyToMessageId, text, and a fresh stable idempotencyKey; inspect the actual recipients and received reply. Replies must reject caller-supplied recipient/subject/parent overrides. Test wrong inbox/task/company/run, a canceled task, revoked access/credentials, and an inaccessible attachment. Inspect uncertain provider outcomes before using the administrative resolution path.
Sources: Email CLI, request schema, email routes, and email authority/publication.
Gotchas
-
New outbound email requires a parent task. A reply binds to its stored conversation/message and cannot replace recipients or subject; a queued 202 is not a delivered message.
-
Visibility flags do not pause existing delivery. Disable the disposable endpoint itself to test stopped traffic.
-
One provider’s passing fixture does not qualify another provider or live delivery.
-
An accepted send request does not prove the recipient received the message or file.
-
Use steering and questions for their channel-specific interaction checks.
Storybook verification
attachments
Capability ID: chat-channels/attachments.
Scope: ui Storybook: Mount TaskChatBubble attachments and ChatEndpointDetail provider-specific consent/upload/delivery failure and unknown-outcome states. Local email attachment dialog remains a prototype. Production: Transfer a disposable supported file through each affected provider; verify recipient delivery, read scope, duplicate/replay handling and failure/unknown state without treating notification as file-upload proof. Sources: Source: TaskChatBubble.tsx, ChatEndpointDetail.tsx, chatEndpoints.ts, chat-channels.ts. Tests: TaskChatBubble.test.tsx, task-chat-attachments.test.ts, chat-channels.integration.test.ts, issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
Documentation scope: Chat and email channel setup
Shared recipes name provider checks; each provider transport/thread/identity/file-size/type combination needs separate live evidence and deeper instructions.