## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Skills are how operators give agents reusable, reviewable operating
instructions without baking every integration into core runtime code.
> - Finance setup is a sensitive workflow because account onboarding,
incorporation, cards, spend controls, and data sharing can all create
real-world effects.
> - Ramp publishes an agent-facing setup skill and playbooks, but
Paperclip needs a curated wrapper that makes those instructions
subordinate to Paperclip governance.
> - This pull request adds an optional Ramp catalog skill that fetches
Ramp's live entrypoint while preserving Paperclip approval gates.
> - The benefit is that companies can opt into Ramp setup assistance
while reviewers can see the source model, allowed hosts, and fail-closed
safety rules in one shipped catalog entry.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this optional catalog skill.
Feature request context:
- **Problem / motivation:** Paperclip companies need a safe, installable
way for agents to follow Ramp's public agent setup flow without giving
those fetched instructions authority over financial, legal, credential,
or spend decisions.
- **Proposed solution:** Ship a markdown-only optional
`paperclipai:optional:finance:ramp` skill that points agents at Ramp's
live get-started skill, documents the thin-wrapper source model,
allowlists the Ramp host, and requires Paperclip approval for financial,
incorporation, credential, connector, third-party tool, and
money-movement actions.
- **Alternatives considered:** Vendoring a snapshot would reduce runtime
source drift but would stale quickly as Ramp updates its own onboarding
flow. The wrapper instead fetches fresh instructions while explicitly
failing closed on unclear provenance and keeping fetched instructions
subordinate to Paperclip instructions.
- **Roadmap alignment:** This fits the completed Skills Manager roadmap
area by adding a focused optional catalog skill rather than expanding
core workflow code.
## What Changed
- Added a markdown-only optional Ramp skill under the finance catalog.
- Documented the source model for live Ramp instructions, the allowed
host, provenance handling, community/unclear playbook approval
requirements, and safety rules.
- Added mandatory Paperclip approval gates for Ramp account setup,
incorporation/legal filings, CLI installers, connector/auth flows,
third-party browser/MCP/CLI tooling, financial data sharing, Agent
Cards, spend controls, and money movement.
- Updated the Skills Store guide to document thin fetch-and-follow
wrappers for curated optional skills.
- Regenerated the shipped skills catalog manifest.
- Added catalog tests for the Ramp entry, approval-gate wording,
mixed-provenance handling, and avoiding remote-fetch execution hard-stop
patterns.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog build:manifest`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test --
src/shipped-catalog.test.ts` — 1 file, 8 tests passed.
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Ramp-hosted instructions can change after install. The wrapper
mitigates this by keeping fetched content subordinate to Paperclip
instructions, limiting the source host, failing closed on unclear
provenance, and requiring scoped approvals before governed actions.
- The skill is markdown-only and optional, so it does not add executable
package code or install by default.
- The generated catalog manifest changes hashes for the shipped catalog
entry; catalog validation passed after regeneration.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with repository file access,
shell execution, GitHub CLI/tooling, and medium-reasoning mode.
## 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
- [ ] 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