mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
e1010e7678
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Mine inbox page reads one snapshot: `GET
/api/companies/:companyId/inbox/mine`.
> - This read is slow. It takes 280–570 ms on a dev instance and 1.9–3.2
s on staging.
> - The response has only the total `paperclip_api` Server-Timing value.
We cannot see which phase is slow.
> - Issue detail already reports per-phase Server-Timing
(`issue-read-timing.ts`). The Mine snapshot does not.
> - This pull request adds per-phase Server-Timing to the Mine snapshot,
including each lookup inside the issue list.
> - The benefit is that DevTools on any instance shows the slow phase
directly. A follow-up PR uses it to prove a query rewrite.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The Server-Timing header of `GET /api/companies/:companyId/inbox/mine`.
**Subsystem affected**
Server API: issues routes and the issue list service.
**Current behavior**
The header has only `paperclip_api;dur=…`. Slow access checks, issue
lists, parent context, failed-run reads and list enrichment lookups all
look the same.
**Proposed behavior**
The header also has `paperclip_inbox` (total) and one `inbox_<phase>`
entry for each phase that ran.
**Reason and benefit**
We need phase evidence from staging and production to rank the slow
parts. No telemetry is sent; this is a response header only.
## What Changed
- Added `server/src/services/inbox-mine-timing.ts`. It times closed,
content-free phases and formats a Server-Timing value. It emits no spans
and no telemetry events.
- `issueService.list` accepts an optional third argument, `{ timePhase
}`. It wraps the list's own reads: `query`, `labels`, `active_runs`,
`user_stats`, `read_stats`, `last_activity`, `archives`, `blocked_by`,
`live_descendants`, `attention`. Callers that do not pass it are
unchanged.
- The Mine route reports `inbox_access`, `inbox_issues`,
`inbox_parents`, `inbox_failures`, `inbox_failure_context` and
`inbox_issues_<list phase>`. The existing middleware merges these with
`paperclip_api`.
- The index-projection list no longer awaits a `Promise.all` of
already-empty attention maps. The result is the same.
- `inbox-mine-routes.test.ts` asserts that all phases are present with a
valid duration.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/inbox-mine-routes.test.ts` — 6/6 pass, including the new
header assertion.
- `tsc --noEmit -p server` — no errors in the changed files.
- `pnpm verify --explain` selects 2,417 of 3,204 test files for this
change, because `services/issues.ts` is imported almost everywhere. I
did not repeat that full suite locally (AGENTS.md §7); required CI
supplies it.
- Manual: open the Mine inbox, then DevTools → Network → `inbox/mine` →
Timing. The phases show under Server Timing.
## Risks
- Low risk. The header adds about 13 short entries. Phase names are
fixed strings and contain no task data.
- `timePhase` is optional, so other `svc.list` callers do not change.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with
tool use (shell, file edits). Standard context window; extended thinking
not used.
## 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>