## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is
still productive, stalled, or ready for review.
> - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but
there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review
permissions.
> - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so
recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable
work.
> - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service
layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration
surfaces, and docs.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip`
`master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest
migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`.
> - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves
Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making
stalled work easier to route.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task:
[PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275).
## Problem or motivation
Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped
work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task
ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and
see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain
limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link
approvals, or submit approval comments.
## Proposed solution
Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation
guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and
documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under
explicit boundaries.
## Alternatives considered
Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep
stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment
harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable
scoped-review issue for stalled task trees.
## Roadmap alignment
This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task
execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not
duplicate an existing planned core item.
## What Changed
- Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators,
CRUD API, and service support.
- Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation
enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate
guidance.
- Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks,
viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting.
- Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and
implementation semantics.
- Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked
cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog
migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to
`0104_issue_watchdogs`.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with
a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind
constant.
- Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes,
scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility,
settings, and new issue dialog behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
- Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB
schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task
configuration.
- Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting
and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and
production agents.
- The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` /
duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local
migration number should not get duplicate-object failures.
- CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest
review-fix push.
> 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-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact
runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool
use and local command execution were enabled.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add
screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the
work.
- [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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta