## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize,
govern, and understand AI-agent work
> - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and
execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run
> - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents,
routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow
connecting those systems
> - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary
governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned
destinations for that output
> - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress,
failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators
already work
> - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent,
orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting
> - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains
company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this feature.
**Problem**
Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by
reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify
decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth
watching.
**Proposed capability**
Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for
projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent,
governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards.
**Expected behavior**
- Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable.
- Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and
deduplicates active requests.
- Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot
revision.
- Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft
progress from project and workspace views.
- The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by
default.
## What Changed
- Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts,
validators, API paths, and service tests.
- Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions,
requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity
logging.
- Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment
wakeups, and orchestration integration.
- Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost
runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine.
- Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states,
live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace
integrations.
- Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded
server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts
packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts
ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx
ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts
ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts
ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed
- `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test
was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`,
and passed when those host credentials were removed
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with
inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment
references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff
## Risks
- Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent
migrations and migration safety checks.
- Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can
produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent
configuration entry points.
- Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol;
final persisted revisions remain the source of truth.
- The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is
paused with no background token spend by default.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code
execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier
branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The execution workspace subsystem powers project and workspace views
by listing runtime state, branch metadata, issue links, and status
summaries.
> - The existing workspace views relied on broad list data that can grow
expensive as a company accumulates many workspaces and linked issues.
> - That makes the Workspaces page and project workspace cards slower
than necessary because the UI does not always need the full workspace
detail payload up front.
> - This pull request adds a bounded overview contract for workspace
listings and moves the relevant UI surfaces to that cheaper path.
> - The benefit is faster workspace loading while preserving detail
fetches for pages that actually need full workspace data.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline bug report follows
the repository bug template.
### What happened?
Workspace index-style screens can load too much execution workspace
detail before the user asks for it. Several UI surfaces used fuller
workspace data paths for summary displays, which can make workspace
loading slower as workspace history grows.
### Expected behavior
Overview screens should request a bounded summary payload, while detail
screens should keep using the full workspace detail endpoint.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Run Paperclip from source with enough execution workspace history to
make workspace lists non-trivial.
2. Open the Workspaces page or a project workspace summary card.
3. Observe that summary UI needs only bounded workspace metadata but can
depend on broader workspace payloads.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` at the time this branch was prepared.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`)
## What Changed
- Added shared types, validators, and path constants for bounded
execution workspace overviews.
- Added server service and route support for overview queries with
bounded linked issue/runtime metadata.
- Updated workspace overview UI API calls, query keys, breadcrumbs,
quicklooks, close dialogs, project summaries, and detail links to
consume the cheaper overview shape where appropriate.
- Added regression coverage for the new server route/service behavior
and the UI overview consumers.
- Registered the new workspace overview route in the generated OpenAPI
spec.
- Kept overview totals aligned with the project join and preserved
project slug links in workspace headers.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts
ui/src/api/execution-workspaces.test.ts
ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Workspaces.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 1 --shard-count 4`
## Risks
Low to medium risk. The change introduces a new overview contract across
shared/server/ui layers, so the main risk is a mismatch between summary
and detail payload expectations. The added route/service/UI tests cover
the intended split, and full detail pages continue using the detail
path.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with repository tool use and
local command execution. Exact served model identifier and context
window were not exposed in this session.
## 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>
Dotta