## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Agents already receive selected company secrets through `env.*`
bindings at run launch, but environment injection is ambient,
long-lived, and not suitable for every secret consumer.
> - The existing binding and secret-access-event models already provide
company-scoped authorization and per-resolution audit seams.
> - Agents need an explicit way to discover only the secrets granted to
them and fetch a value on demand without exposing the wider company
catalog.
> - That capability must remain run-bound, preserve low-trust token
carve-outs, and make every value read visible in both security and
operator audit trails.
> - This pull request adds an `access.*` delivery namespace, two
run-bound agent routes, dual audit logging, documentation, and an
operator grants editor.
> - The benefit is least-privilege, revocable, auditable secret access
while preserving existing env injection behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public issue. Related work:
- Refs #9797 — existing in-sheet agent access UI that this PR extends to
distinguish env and API delivery.
- Refs #9918 — complementary searchable-agent picker improvement for the
same secrets sheet.
- Refs #9530 — related company-wide metadata catalog proposal; this PR
intentionally exposes only the authenticated run's granted aliases and
values.
**Problem / motivation:** Agents can currently consume secrets only
through process environment injection. This keeps values resident for
the run, does not support on-demand consumers, and cannot provide a
discrete operator-visible activity event for each agent-initiated read.
**Proposed solution:** Treat `company_secret_bindings` as the source of
truth for agent secret grants. Keep `env.KEY` as env delivery and add
`access.ALIAS` for API-only delivery; an env binding also implies read
access because the value is already present in the agent process. Add
run-bound list/fetch endpoints that derive scope from the authenticated
heartbeat run and never accept caller-selected overlays.
**Alternatives considered:** A company-wide agent-readable catalog was
rejected for this value path because it increases reconnaissance and
does not prove a per-secret grant. Reusing the ephemeral
environment-probe resolver was rejected because it lacks binding
enforcement. Approval-gated reads and user-scoped secrets remain
deferred beyond v1.
**Roadmap alignment:** This extends the completed **Secrets Manager with
per-agent access** roadmap capability from launch-time env injection to
explicit run-bound API delivery without duplicating a separate planned
initiative.
## What Changed
- Added `access.*` agent binding validation and a dedicated run-bound
resolver that combines `secrets:read` authorization with binding-context
enforcement.
- Added `GET /api/agents/me/secrets` for minimal granted metadata and
`POST /api/agents/me/secrets/:key/value` for on-demand value fetches
with `Cache-Control: no-store`.
- Preserved the existing denials for low-trust review agents,
task-bridge credentials, and skill-test tokens; standard long-lived
agent API keys cannot call the run-bound routes.
- Added dual audit behavior: value attempts write `secret_access_events`
and `activity_log` (`secret.value.read`), while metadata listing writes
the lighter `secret.access.listed` activity event.
- Kept env compatibility: `env.*` remains injected at launch and also
implies API read for the same bound agent; `access.*` never becomes an
environment variable.
- Added the agent-settings **Secret access** editor plus
delivery-mode/alias surfacing on the Secrets page, with focused UI tests
and tokenized layout styles.
- Updated OpenAPI, shared types, agent-facing skill documentation, and
API reference documentation.
### UI Screenshots
P3 produced and reviewed three screenshots using mock data; images are
intentionally not committed to the repository:
- `secret-access-editor.png` — agent settings grant editor.
- `secret-access-light.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in light
mode.
- `secret-access-dark.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in dark
mode.
The source attachments are retained with the implementation task and
linked in the internal handoff; the public page publisher was
unavailable in the PR-prep runtime.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/secret-delivery.test.ts
ui/src/components/AgentSecretAccessEditor.test.tsx` — 5 files, 122 tests
passed.
- Security follow-up: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` — 2 files, 73 tests passed
after active-run and version-consistency fixes.
- Final-head CI: all feature, typecheck, build, e2e, security, and
review gates pass; `General tests (server (1/3))` remains red after one
rerun because unrelated `heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` cleanup
deletes `heartbeat_runs` before referenced `activity_log` rows.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — feature-local arbitrary-value violations
fixed; command still reports five unchanged `#9627` literals outside
this PR.
- End-to-end QA passed all eight acceptance criteria: grant/list, fetch,
dual audit, env-implies-read, denial matrix, revocation, UI rendering,
and env-injection regression. Evidence:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455492
- Security review returned PASS-with-required-changes; the
implementation uses the required dedicated binding-enforcing resolver,
run-bound JWT restriction, run-derived overlays, minimal metadata, and a
resolver redaction-registration hook. Evidence:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455382
## Risks
- A compromised agent can exfiltrate any secret explicitly granted to
it; explicit company-scoped/run-scoped grants, revocation, and audit
reduce but cannot remove that inherent capability risk.
- The resolver invokes a redaction-registration hook before returning
values, but the current route has no persistent cross-request per-run
redaction registry. Paperclip-owned later comments/events therefore
cannot yet guarantee automatic scrubbing of a deliberately copied
fetched value; QA classified this as non-blocking residual hardening.
- Audit-event insertion currently fails open if the security-event
insert itself fails; the operator activity event provides partial
redundancy, but a future hardening change should define fail-closed
behavior for value delivery.
- This PR overlaps `ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx` with #9918 and may require
a straightforward rebase after that PR moves.
> 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-5.3-codex`, with reasoning, repository tool use,
terminal execution, Paperclip API access, and GitHub CLI capabilities.
Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime.
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context and tool use assisted with
the UI implementation commit.
## 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 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Connections is the subsystem that lets operators connect external
apps and govern which subjects may use those credentials
> - #9958 established the v3 schema foundation and #9981 adds the
AppDefinition catalog layer
> - The runtime still needs subject-aware authorization state, scoped
key handling, and API/OpenAPI routes so connected apps can actually be
granted and used safely
> - This pull request adds the runtime grants/authorization behavior on
top of the catalog branch, while keeping unrelated dependency and
workflow sync commits out of the stack
> - The benefit is a reviewable runtime layer that can land after the
catalog PR, then unblock the wizard and orchestrator cutover work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9958 and #9981.
Refs #9981.
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the runtime layer
for the Connections v3 stack and is rebased onto `master` after #9981
landed.
## What Changed
- Adds the connection user authorization state migration and schema
wiring.
- Adds shared runtime subject/grant types and validators.
- Adds runtime grant and scoped key behavior in the tool-access service.
- Adds runtime route coverage and registers the routes in OpenAPI.
- Replays only the Connections runtime commits on top of the catalog
branch, dropping unrelated sync/dependency history from the prior closed
runtime PR.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium: runtime grant enforcement is security-sensitive and must fail
closed for unknown key scopes.
- Migration ordering depends on the schema and catalog layers already
merged through #9958 and #9981.
- This PR is rebased and retargeted to `master` with runtime-only
commits.
> 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 Codex coding agent with repository tool use.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Connections is the subsystem that defines which external apps and
MCP-style integrations operators can browse, configure, and run
> - The v3 schema core in #9958 added stable connection identities, auth
metadata, and grant-aware contracts, but the app catalog still used the
older gallery shape
> - The product needs a richer, typed AppDefinition catalog so browsing
and setup can render provider-specific auth and configuration
requirements consistently
> - This pull request moves the Wave 1 app catalog onto generated
AppDefinition data and carries that shape through shared types, server
lookup paths, and app connection UI
> - The benefit is that follow-up runtime and wizard work can build
against one catalog contract instead of local-only mock/gallery data
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9958.
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the catalog layer
for the Connections v3 stack after the schema-core foundation in #9958.
## What Changed
- Adds generated AppDefinition data for the Wave 1 catalog and ingestion
reporting.
- Replaces the legacy tool app gallery exports with
AppDefinition-centered shared contracts, validators, and tests.
- Updates server tool-access lookup behavior to use the AppDefinition
catalog.
- Updates app connection UI surfaces and tests to consume
AppDefinition-backed catalog data.
- Documents the catalog ingestion workflow in the connector playbook.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts
packages/shared/src/app-definitions-url.test.ts
ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium: this changes the catalog contract used by shared, server, and
UI app connection surfaces.
- Catalog data quality matters because generated definitions now drive
browse/setup display.
- Follow-up runtime and wizard PRs must rebase on this branch or on
master after this lands.
> 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 Codex coding agent with repository tool use.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their governed access to external systems.
> - Connected Apps build on the existing Apps and MCP gateway substrate
so companies can configure reusable, auditable integrations.
> - The current connection record does not yet have a stable public
address, explicit ownership/auth method fields, or subject-specific
credential grants.
> - Without that schema core, later OAuth, per-user authorization, token
brokering, triggers, and connector-service phases cannot enforce tenant
and subject boundaries consistently.
> - This pull request adds the forward-compatible Connections v3 schema
core while preserving the existing connection lifecycle and directly
migrating the remote MCP transport name.
> - The benefit is a company-scoped, least-privilege foundation for
one-click integrations without bypassing Paperclip secrets, profiles,
rules, or audit controls.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public issue was found.
**Problem**
Paperclip's current app connections need a durable identity and
authorization substrate before Connected Apps can safely support
multiple setup methods, per-user credentials, provider tenants, and
managed connector services. The existing schema only models a single
connection-level credential set and uses legacy transport terminology.
**Proposed solution**
Add a stable company-scoped connection UID, explicit
ownership/auth/transport fields, a subject-aware `connection_grants`
table, and multi-key credential annotations. Backfill existing
connections and workspace grants in a reversible migration, then update
shared/server/UI contracts to the new `mcp_remote` transport name.
**Related work**
- Related foundation: #9534
- Roadmap: Connected Apps (one-click integrations)
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped connection `uid`, `ownership`, `authKind`, and
canonical transport fields across database, shared contracts,
validators, services, and UI fixtures.
- Added `connection_grants` with workspace/user subject rules, provider
tenant metadata, credential secret refs, revocation state, company
scoping, and uniqueness constraints.
- Added migration `0182_connections_v3_schema_core` to backfill stable
UIDs, rename `remote_http` to `mcp_remote`, infer auth kinds, create
default workspace grants, and support rollback coverage.
- Added multi-key credential annotations and updated gateway/access
services without changing the existing lifecycle behavior.
- Updated the connection glossary, connector playbook, and security
threat model for the new identity, grant, and relay boundaries.
- Added explicit test UIDs to direct database fixtures so the new
non-null invariant is exercised across affected server suites.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-oauth-legacy-backfill.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-policy-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-mcp-servers.test.ts
packages/db/src/connections-v3-schema-core-migration.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts --config
vitest.config.ts` — 9 files, 218 tests passed.
- Latest-head GitHub Actions: build, typecheck, general/serialized
suites, backup/worktree restore coverage, both e2e shards, canary,
policy, and security scans pass.
- Greptile: 5/5 with zero unresolved threads.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` remains red only on five pre-existing `#9627`
color literals outside this change.
## Risks
- **Migration risk:** UID backfill and default-grant creation touch
every existing connection. The migration uses company-scoped uniqueness,
deterministic legacy UIDs with ID suffixes, and seeded up/rollback
coverage.
- **Authorization risk:** Grant rows carry credential references.
Constraints enforce workspace-vs-user subject shape, company/connection
lookup indexes, one default grant per connection, and one user grant per
connection/subject. Security review is requested specifically for this
design.
- **Compatibility risk:** `remote_http` is renamed directly to
`mcp_remote`; all repository call sites and fixtures are updated in the
same change.
- **Future-phase risk:** Subject-bound token issuance, triggers, and
connector-service relay verification remain fail-closed requirements
documented for later phases; this PR does not expose those capabilities.
> 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 CLI coding agent. The runtime did not expose an exact
underlying model ID or context-window size; capabilities used include
repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, test execution,
Git/GitHub CLI operations, and structured reasoning.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The telemetry subsystem (`packages/shared/src/telemetry`) flushes
event batches to an ingest endpoint; today the client drops batches
silently on 429 / 413 / 400 / network error with no re-queue and no
retry
> - The current behaviour is uncharacterised — there are no regression
tests pinning it, so any future retry work could accidentally change the
drop semantics without a test failing
> - Before adding retry logic it is critical to lock the current
baseline as an explicit, documented contract so regressions are
immediately visible
> - Additionally, the retry/cap design needs a config surface
(`maxEventsPerBatch`, `maxBodyBytes`, `maxPendingRetryBatches`,
`backoff`) so operators can tune behaviour without forking; that surface
should be defined and defaulted before the first consumer lands, not
after
> - This pull request adds characterisation tests that pin today's
silent-drop baseline and adds an optional, additive config surface with
resolved defaults — `client.ts` is untouched so no behaviour changes
> - The benefit is that the retry work in the follow-up PR can build on
a verified baseline, safe defaults, and a pre-wired config contract
rather than specifying everything at once
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public GitHub issue. Underlying problem described below
(feature-request template).
**Problem or motivation**
The telemetry client in `packages/shared/src/telemetry/client.ts` has no
regression tests covering its error-path semantics. On 429 / 413 / 400 /
network failure the current code drains the whole queue via `splice(0)`
and discards the batch — silent drop, no retry. That behaviour is
correct for a best-effort client today, but nothing verifies it. When
retry logic lands, there is no safety net to confirm it does not
accidentally re-queue already-dropped batches. In parallel, the retry
design requires a typed config surface (`maxEventsPerBatch`,
`maxBodyBytes`, `maxPendingRetryBatches`, `backoff`) that the client and
its callers need to agree on before the first consumer is wired up.
**Proposed solution**
Two-phase additive scaffolding:
1. Lock the silent-drop baseline as pinned tests (temporary; Impl-2
replaces them when retry lands).
2. Add the config surface and defaults now so Impl-2 can consume them
immediately.
**Alternatives considered**
Writing the tests and config surface inside the retry PR — rejected
because it makes the retry diff much harder to review and loses the
regression-safety benefit of a committed baseline.
**Roadmap alignment**
Maintenance / client-correctness improvement; not a core roadmap
feature.
## What Changed
- **`client.test.ts`** — 5 new Phase-1 characterisation tests pinning
silent-drop on 429, 413, 400, and network-error. A
`stubFetchStatus(status)` helper DRYs the four drop cases. These are
temporary regression anchors: marked `TODO(impl-2): replace when retry
lands`.
- **`config.ts`** — `TELEMETRY_DEFAULTS` constant (frozen) +
`resolveCaps()` + `resolveTelemetryConfig()`. Provides a single exported
source of truth for defaults; nothing reads these yet.
- **`types.ts`** — 4 optional, additive `TelemetryConfig` fields:
`maxEventsPerBatch` (default 50), `maxBodyBytes` (default 524 288),
`maxPendingRetryBatches` (default 20), `backoff` (exp-with-jitter
shape). All optional and backward-compatible.
- **`index.ts`** — re-exports `TELEMETRY_DEFAULTS` and
`resolveTelemetryConfig` from the public package surface.
- **`client.ts`** — no changes (verified via `git diff --stat`).
## Verification
```bash
# Unit tests — 16 passed (5 new Phase-1 pins + 2 new Phase-2 config tests + 9 existing)
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/telemetry
# Type check — clean
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
# Confirm client.ts untouched (zero output expected)
git diff HEAD~1 -- packages/shared/src/telemetry/client.ts
```
All three commands verified locally before push.
## Risks
**Low risk.** `client.ts` is untouched — no behaviour change. All four
modified files are additive:
- New tests cannot regress production behaviour.
- New config fields are `optional` and their defaults match the current
implicit constants in `client.ts`, so any future reader gets identical
semantics until it overrides them.
- `resolveTelemetryConfig` replaces no existing function; it is new.
- No envelope / wire change; no new PII / crypto / sink.
The `TODO(impl-2)` markers on the Phase-1 pins make their temporary
nature explicit in code.
## Model Used
- **Provider:** Anthropic
- **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`)
- **Context window:** 200k tokens
- **Capabilities:** Tool use, code execution, agentic task completion
via Paperclip agent SDK
- **Mode:** Standard (no extended thinking)
## 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: Harold Kim <harold@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and supervise governed work.
> - Decisions capture high-value operator judgment, and the
decision-training foundation merged in #9702 freezes that evidence for
later evaluation and learning.
> - Operators still need the UI from the closed stacked PR #9718 to
intentionally capture examples and inspect the resulting dataset.
> - GitHub automatically closed#9718 when its stacked base branch was
deleted after #9702 merged, leaving the server foundation on `master`
without the corresponding UI.
> - This pull request restores the final UI and its still-required
supporting API fields directly on current `master`, while excluding the
obsolete migration and duplicated server-foundation diffs.
> - The benefit is a reviewable replacement PR that preserves the
completed decision-training workflow without replaying stale stack
history.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #9718
- Refs #9702
## What Changed
- Restored the top-level `/training` library and record inspector with
search, filters, JSONL export, notes editing, and evidence tabs.
- Restored the Decisions-row training affordance and capture drawer,
including preview, provenance, deletion, cache refresh, and approval
consistency behavior.
- Restored the shared types and focused server support needed by the UI
without reintroducing decision-training migrations or the already-merged
server foundation.
- Restored focused UI and attention-service tests from the final #9718
state.
- Credit to the authors and reviewers of #9718; this recovery
transplants their final reviewed delta after the stacked base deletion.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Training.test.tsx
ui/src/components/DecisionTrainingDrawer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 5 files, 48 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3
tests passed; confirms exact route/OpenAPI parity for the restored
preview endpoint.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — the restored files are clean; the
repository-wide command currently reports five pre-existing false
positives where comments reference GitHub issue `#9627` as if it were a
color literal.
## Risks
- Low migration risk: this PR contains no database migrations and is
based directly on current `master`.
- The main behavioral risk is cache invalidation across Decisions and
Training views; focused tests cover capture, update, deletion, row
state, and approval refresh behavior.
- The token-gate baseline remains red on unrelated `#9627` comment
references; this PR does not modify those files.
> 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-5.3-Codex, reasoning with repository/tool access and
code execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - Human approvals, issue interactions, and execution decisions already
capture high-value decision moments
> - Those moments are currently transient and cannot be reused as stable
evaluation or training examples
> - Reusable examples need a server-owned, immutable snapshot so later
comments or runs cannot leak into the recorded state
> - Human notes need to remain editable and auditable without changing
the captured state
> - This pull request adds the database model, snapshot capture service,
API, export format, and attention-feed enrichment for decision training
> - The benefit is a durable, inspectable foundation for evaluating
whether agents can reproduce good human decisions from only the context
available at decision time
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting (`server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`).
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip has no durable dataset for converting human decisions into
evaluation-ready examples. Teams need to capture pending or resolved
decisions with the exact issue context, comments, runs, and repository
evidence available at a cutoff, while preventing future context from
leaking into the example.
### Proposed solution
Store immutable, schema-versioned snapshots anchored to durable
interaction, approval, or execution-decision records; keep notes
separately editable with history; expose human-only CRUD, list, and
JSONL export APIs.
### Alternatives considered
Client-generated snapshots were rejected because they duplicate cutoff
logic and cannot reliably enforce no-leakage boundaries. Automatic
outcome backfill was deferred so captured examples remain faithful to
what was known at capture time.
### Roadmap alignment
Supports the roadmap direction of turning completed work and decision
patterns into reusable organizational knowledge.
### Additional context
The implementation records explicit commit-resolution confidence
(`exact`, `nearest_run`, `workspace`, or `none`) so downstream
evaluation can distinguish evidence quality.
## What Changed
- Added the `decision_training_examples` schema and idempotent migration
with company, issue, and source/author indexes.
- Added shared types for decision-training records, notes history, and
versioned snapshots.
- Added a single server-side snapshot capture path with inclusive
comment cutoffs, pre-cutoff run capture, durable decision payloads, and
explicit commit-resolution confidence.
- Added create, list, detail, notes-only update, delete, and JSONL
export routes with human-only write authorization and activity logging
that skips no-op note submissions.
- Added per-user `trainingExampleId` enrichment to attention items.
- Added focused embedded-Postgres tests for cutoff boundaries,
post-cutoff leakage, immutable snapshots, human-only writes, duplicate
prevention, notes history, attention enrichment, and export shape.
- Updated UI test and Storybook attention-item factories for the new
required `trainingExampleId` contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts`
— 10 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
## Risks
- The migration adds a new table and indexes only; it does not rewrite
existing rows or install resolve-time hooks.
- Snapshot JSON can grow with long comment threads and run histories; v1
intentionally favors complete, inspectable examples over aggressive
truncation.
- Commit SHA resolution is evidence-based and records `exact`,
`nearest_run`, or `none` so downstream consumers can account for
confidence.
- The API is additive, but future UI work must continue to treat the
snapshot as immutable and use notes-only updates.
> 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 using `gpt-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use, terminal
execution, and code-editing capabilities; context-window size is not
exposed by the runtime.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## 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 control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must
not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status
> - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the
action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully
attributable
> - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and
#9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow
guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together
> - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior
harder to review and land as one coherent capability
> - This pull request consolidates the remaining server,
shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current
master
> - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely
archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that
behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server
authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI.
### Problem or motivation
Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's
Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the
agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run
attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed
for safe agent-managed cleanup.
### Proposed solution
Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox
items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve
actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose
policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document
conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening.
### Alternatives considered
- Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state
belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization.
- Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because
completion signals can still require human review or a decision.
- Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this
consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed
and verified together.
### Related work
- Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658.
- Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661.
- `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization
initiative.
## What Changed
- Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus
company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage.
- Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user
targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency,
and detailed activity auditing.
- Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented
reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and
Paperclip skill.
- Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub
access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human
action.
- Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties
attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane
handling.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed.
- `node --test
.agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the
repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing
`#9627` literals outside this PR's diff.
## Risks
- Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so
authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused
route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths.
- Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation
and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or
visibility.
- The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist
and disabled modes can reduce agent access.
- This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new
migration number or modification to an already-applied migration.
> 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 using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use,
shell execution, code review, 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 (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
(`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) 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 control plane people use to organize
and govern AI-agent companies
> - Company skills are durable resources that users browse, import,
assign, and maintain over time
> - A flat skill list plus tags does not provide a stable location or
hierarchy for personal, company, project-imported, and bundled skills
> - Folder paths need to be canonical, company-scoped, safe to move, and
preserved across re-imports without changing skill IDs
> - The `/skills` UI also needs traversal, breadcrumbs, move/create
flows, and a dedicated My Skills namespace that work on desktop and
mobile
> - This pull request adds the folder data model and APIs, reserved-root
lifecycle, project import behavior, and the folder-first skills
experience
> - The benefit is a predictable filesystem-like organization model
while tags remain available for cross-cutting classification
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9619 — the reviewed folder foundation was intentionally closed and
folded into this combined feature PR.
Refs #9026 — earlier flat-folder attempt superseded by this integrated
implementation.
Refs #3281 — related skill organization proposal; this PR uses canonical
persisted folders rather than deriving groups from skill keys, and does
not add hidden-skill behavior.
**Feature request**
- **Problem:** Skills currently lack a canonical hierarchical location,
making personal skills, project imports, bundled skills, and
company-authored skills difficult to traverse and manage at scale.
- **Proposed behavior:** Add nested company-scoped folders with stable
paths, reserved My/Projects/Bundled roots, subtree queries, safe
move/create operations, and a folder-first `/skills` library UI.
- **Import behavior:** New project scans file skills under
`projects/<project-slug>`; later imports update content without
overriding a user-selected folder.
- **Alternatives considered:** Tags alone remain useful for
cross-cutting classification, but they do not provide canonical
location, nesting, reserved namespaces, or stable import placement.
- **Roadmap alignment:** Extends the completed Skills Manager and
Scheduled Routines capabilities without duplicating an active roadmap
item.
## What Changed
- Adds `folders` persistence for routine and skill folders, nested
canonical paths, parent/slug/system-key fields, migration backfills, and
reapply-safe migrations `0174`–`0175` after current master migrations.
- Adds company-scoped folder CRUD, cycle/depth/namespace validation,
reserved My/Projects/Bundled lifecycle, item moves, subtree filtering,
and folder paths on skill results.
- Preserves project-import placement: first import files into the
project folder, while re-import keeps user-owned placement and stable
skill IDs.
- Adds the `/skills` folder tree rail, tags facet, breadcrumbs,
subfolder browser, move/new-folder dialog, canonical detail location,
inline tag editing, and folder-aware Studio creation.
- Keeps bundled skills read-only even when their source metadata is
incomplete by detecting the reserved Bundled folder and hiding
selection/move actions.
- Extends routine folder UI and OpenAPI coverage, and adds regression
tests across migrations, services, routes, tree helpers, pages, and
Studio creation.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/nested-skill-folders-migration.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/folders-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/folders-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/folders/FolderControls.test.tsx
ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx
ui/src/components/folders/skill-folder-tree.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/company-skill-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-create.test.ts`
— 13 files, 192 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx
ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx` — 2 files, 20 tests
passed after preserving the existing PR's bundled-skill fixes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace packages.
- `pnpm test:run` — passed in an isolated CI-like environment with
inherited Paperclip runtime identity and static AWS credential variables
removed.
- `pnpm build` — production build passed for all workspace packages.
- Greptile iteration 2 — 5/5 confidence with zero unresolved threads on
commit `ff2d67aa71`.
- Latest-head GitHub checks — all success, neutral, or skipped; PR is
mergeable with a clean merge state.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports nine existing `#9627` comment false
positives already present on `master`; this PR introduces no new token
violation.
## Risks
- **Migration/backfill:** `0174` creates the foundation and `0175` adds
nested/reserved semantics. Both are ordered after current master
migration `0173`, are covered by numbering/safety checks, and are
designed to be reapply-safe.
- **Reserved namespaces:** My, Projects, and Bundled roots are
service-managed. Regression coverage prevents namespace squatting,
cross-company folder use, bundled writes, cycles, and excessive depth.
- **Behavioral change:** Project scans choose a project folder only on
initial creation; existing skills deliberately retain their current
folder during refresh.
- **UI scope:** The folder rail applies to the Installed library;
Catalog retains the discovery-oriented category sidebar.
> 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-5.5` in Codex CLI, medium reasoning mode; runtime did not
expose a context-window value. Used repository/file tools, terminal
execution, Git/GitHub operations, test execution, and code editing.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The control plane records a successful-run handoff when productive
work ends without a durable next-step disposition
> - That handoff state was derived only from the latest activity event,
without checking whether a corrective run or wake was currently alive
> - As a result, actively progressing issues could still show a
high-severity missing-disposition alarm and blocked-inbox row
> - The same stale required event could also remain indefinitely when a
later successful run correctly skipped recovery because another valid
continuation path already existed
> - This pull request makes the derived state liveness-aware, suppresses
attention only while the live path exists, and resolves stale required
events on valid-path skips
> - The benefit is that productive work stays calm while genuine stalls
still resurface automatically when liveness disappears
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- **Bug:** An issue whose latest successful-run handoff event is
`required` continues to report a missing disposition even while a
heartbeat run, scheduled retry, or queued/deferred/claimed wake is
actively targeting that issue.
- **Expected behavior:** The API should expose current continuation
liveness, the blocked inbox should suppress the alarm only while that
path remains live, and a later successful run that skips recovery
because a valid path exists should durably resolve the stale event.
- **Related but distinct:** #9370 changes disposition freshness at
detection time; #8748 adds an explicit policy opt-out. This PR preserves
detection/escalation policy and fixes read-time/current-liveness state.
## What Changed
- Extended `SuccessfulRunHandoffState` with `hasLiveContinuation` and
optional `liveRunId` evidence.
- Added bounded liveness hydration for required handoff states using
active heartbeat-run and wake-request signals.
- Suppressed `missing_disposition` blocked-inbox rows only while a run,
scheduled retry, or live wake targets the issue.
- Added durable `issue.successful_run_handoff_resolved` logging when
handoff detection skips because another valid continuation path owns the
next action.
- Added focused regressions for live/absent derived state, self-healing
attention suppression, valid-path skip classification, and
resolved-event logging.
- Updated UI normalization and fixtures for the shared contract without
changing rendering behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` — 56 passed
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues one
finish-handoff wake when a successful run leaves in-progress work
without a next action"` — 1 passed
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Low risk: no schema or migration changes, and detection, bounded
correction attempts, and escalation behavior are unchanged.
- Liveness lookups are limited to issues whose latest handoff state is
`required`; blocked-inbox suppression reuses rows already loaded by that
query path.
- Suppression is read-time and self-healing: when the run or wake stops,
the alarm returns on the next fetch.
> 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 using `gpt-5.4`, tool-enabled software-engineering
workflow with repository, shell, test, Git, GitHub, and Paperclip
control-plane access. Context-window size is not exposed by this
runtime.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - The inbox subsystem must let agents act for a responsible user
without silently granting access to every company user's tasks
> - Existing authorization had no inbox-specific action, target-user
scope, or per-user agent policy
> - Inbox archive data also needs company-safe ownership and replay-safe
schema changes before API mutations can rely on it
> - This pull request adds the database policy foundation and a
fail-closed `inbox:manage` authorization decision
> - The benefit is a least-privilege core for later inbox archive
endpoints, including explicit cross-user grants and low-trust denial
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server`).
### Problem or motivation
Agents need to manage inbox state for the user responsible for their
run, but the control plane lacks an inbox-specific permission model and
user-targeted grant scope. A generic mutation path would risk cross-user
access or inconsistent policy enforcement.
### Proposed solution
Add inbox archive ownership and per-user agent policies, introduce
`inbox:manage`, and evaluate responsible-user defaults,
disabled/allowlist policies, active membership, low-trust presets, and
scoped cross-user grants in one authorization decision.
### Alternatives considered
Reusing generic issue mutation permissions was rejected because it
cannot express user-targeted inbox scope. Requiring grants for all
self-user access was rejected because it would make the responsible-user
path closed by default instead of using the requested per-user policy
model.
### Roadmap alignment
`ROADMAP.md` contains no overlapping inbox archive or inbox
authorization item; this is incremental control-plane authorization
work.
### Additional context
This PR provides the authorization and schema foundation. Route and UI
behavior can build on this decision without duplicating access-control
rules.
## What Changed
- Builds on the merged migration `0172_inbox_archive_agent_policies`
(#9654) for company/user-scoped inbox archives and per-user agent policy
rows.
- Added replay-safe migration `0173_inbox_policy_agent_cleanup` with a
GIN allowlist index and GIN-backed database cleanup that removes deleted
agent IDs from policy allowlists.
- Added Drizzle schema exports for inbox agent policies and
responsible-user ownership on inbox archives.
- Added the shared `inbox:manage` permission key and `scope.userIds`
evaluation for user-targeted grants.
- Added fail-closed inbox authorization for unresolved targets, inactive
memberships, low-trust agents, disabled policies, allowlist misses, and
ungranted cross-user access.
- Added migration replay coverage and the full inbox authorization
decision matrix.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts` — 50 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- The merged `0172` migration changed inbox archive uniqueness from
agent-owned to responsible-user-owned rows; `0173` is additive (index +
cleanup trigger) and idempotent, and replay coverage verifies both
remain safe for databases that already applied an earlier form.
- `scope.userIds` uses the existing JSON grant-scope parser, so
malformed privileged grant payloads continue to fail through the shared
parsing behavior rather than a dedicated schema.
- Cross-user grants intentionally act as board-admin overrides;
responsible-user default access remains bounded by disabled and
allowlist policies.
- The authorization action is not yet wired to public mutation routes,
limiting immediate behavioral impact while establishing the contract
those routes must use.
> 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 with `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, CLI tool use,
code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration.
Context window size is not exposed by the configured adapter.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and keep assigned work moving safely.
> - The recovery subsystem decides whether a failed agent run should
retry, wait, block for configuration, or escalate to another owner.
> - Provider usage-limit failures currently arrive as generic
`adapter_failed` results, so stranded-work reconciliation can create
takeover recovery even when the provider states that capacity will reset
later.
> - Credential and model lookup failures are also configuration
problems, not evidence that another agent should take over the task.
> - This pull request classifies those failure families at recovery time
and persists the classification on the run.
> - Quota failures now schedule a monitor for the original assignee at
the parsed reset time, or after a bounded default backoff when no reset
time is available.
> - The benefit is that transient provider capacity waits no longer wake
recovery owners, while configuration failures stop with an actionable
classification.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this exact change.
**What happened?** When an assigned issue's latest run failed with a
provider usage-limit message such as "try again at 12:00 AM (UTC),"
recovery treated the run as generic `adapter_failed` work and could
create a takeover action. Missing credentials and `model_not_found`
failures followed the same generic path.
**Expected behavior:** Provider quota failures should keep the original
assignee and schedule a monitor for the reset time, without creating
recovery work or immediately waking another owner. Missing credentials
and model lookup failures should be classified as
`configuration_incomplete` and blocked with the configuration fix
recorded.
**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Assign and start an issue for an agent.
2. Record a failed heartbeat run with `errorCode: adapter_failed` and a
provider quota/reset message.
3. Run stranded assigned-issue reconciliation.
4. Observe that the old behavior routes the issue through generic
recovery instead of waiting for provider capacity.
Reproduced on `master` at `9af96461d`. This is a core recovery bug, not
adapter-specific, and applies to built-from-source deployments with
either embedded PGlite or Postgres.
Related work checked: #9288 adds adapter-side Claude provider-limit
classification; #5392 suppresses some recovery creation for quota-class
errors; #9634 is a broader recovery-routing change with overlapping
provider-quota behavior. This PR is the narrow recovery-service fix with
focused parsed-reset, fallback-backoff, zero-takeover, and
configuration-failure coverage.
## What Changed
- Added conservative recovery-time classification for provider quota,
missing-credential, and model-not-found adapter failures.
- Parsed provider reset timestamps with a default one-hour backoff when
no usable reset time is present.
- Persisted `provider_quota` or `configuration_incomplete` metadata on
the failed heartbeat run.
- Scheduled quota monitors for the active issue owner, including the
current review participant, without creating recovery actions or
enqueueing takeover wakes.
- Routed configuration failures to blocked recovery with actionable
evidence instead of a takeover.
- Added unit and embedded-database regression coverage for
parsed/fallback quota timing, zero CTO/recovery wake behavior, and
configuration classification.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/recovery/provider-failure-classification.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` — 4
files passed, 66 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
## Risks
- Recovery behavior changes for text-matched adapter failures; matching
is intentionally conservative, and unmatched failures retain the
existing generic recovery path.
- Provider reset strings do not always include a date or timezone;
parsing chooses the next future matching time and falls back to a
one-hour wait when the timestamp is unusable.
- This overlaps the provider-quota portion of broader recovery-routing
PR #9634, so only one implementation should land if both remain open.
- No schema, migration, API contract, or UI changes are included. No
documentation update is needed because this corrects internal recovery
behavior without changing operator commands or configuration.
> 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 with model `gpt-5.4`, medium reasoning, tool use, and
code execution. The runtime does not expose its configured
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
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> Paperclip already treats issue creation as a company-scoped mutation,
but retries and parallel agent heartbeats can submit the same create
more than once. Client instructions cannot provide at-most-once behavior
under concurrency, so the guard belongs in the server transaction. This
change adds an explicit company-scoped idempotency contract, a
conservative fallback for recent open same-parent titles, and run
attribution for auditability. Advisory transaction locks serialize
competing requests before lookup/insert, avoiding the race that affected
the prior attempt.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#6529.
This is a clean replacement for #6936, which was closed because it mixed
unrelated changes and its check-then-insert implementation was not
concurrency-safe. Unlike that attempt, this PR is scoped to eight files,
uses a dedicated idempotency-key table, and serializes duplicate
candidates inside the create transaction.
## What Changed
- Accept optional `idempotencyKey` and `allowDuplicate` fields on issue
creation.
- Replay the existing issue with HTTP 200 and deduplication metadata for
a repeated company/key pair.
- Deduplicate recent open issues with the same company, parent, and
normalized title for 48 hours unless `allowDuplicate: true` is supplied.
- Persist idempotency mappings in a company-scoped table and serialize
competing creates with transaction advisory locks.
- Populate `originRunId` from `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` for agent/manual
creates when the body does not provide an origin run.
- Add route integration coverage for key replay, title fallback, bypass,
closed/old recreation, company scoping, and run attribution.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 7
tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 10
tests passed after the service-contract compatibility fix.
## Risks
- The title fallback intentionally treats normalized same-parent titles
as duplicates for 48 hours; callers creating intentionally repeated
titles must send `allowDuplicate: true`.
- Advisory locks use hashed duplicate keys, so an extremely unlikely
hash collision can serialize unrelated creates but cannot merge their
lookup results.
- Deleting an issue cascades its idempotency mapping, allowing the same
key to create a replacement later.
## Model Used
- OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, Codex CLI with
repository, shell, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API tool access.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The `/pr-gardening` skill drives a bundled agent that scans a
company's issues for those linked to open GitHub PRs, then reports on
their state; it relies on the server's company-search **extract**
endpoint to pull PR references out of issue bodies
> - Two gaps surfaced during end-to-end QA of the gardening workflow:
the extract service silently ignored a per-issue match cap, so callers
could not bound how many matches came back per issue, and the skill's
candidate-discovery scripts fell over on large repos and on issues that
referenced deleted PRs
> - Left unaddressed, the gardener either truncated its scan
unpredictably or aborted outright, so it could not reliably enumerate PR
candidates
> - This pull request honors an explicit `matchesPerIssue` limit in the
extract search API and hardens the skill's candidate discovery against
missing/unavailable PRs and oversized `gh` output
> - The benefit is a PR-gardening workflow that scans deterministically
and finishes cleanly on real-world companies
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR following
the bug report template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`).
### What happened?
The company-search extract endpoint accepted a per-issue match limit but
did not apply it, returning matches capped only by the old hardcoded
constant regardless of the caller's request. Separately, the
`/pr-gardening` skill's candidate-discovery scripts crashed when a
scanned issue referenced a deleted PR (GitHub `Not Found (HTTP 404)` /
GraphQL `Could not resolve to a PullRequest`) and could exceed the
default `gh` output buffer on large result sets, aborting the whole
scan.
### Expected behavior
The extract API bounds matches per issue when a caller passes
`matchesPerIssue` (default 20, max 200), and omitting it preserves the
previous default. The gardening scripts skip PRs that are
deleted/unavailable and tolerate large `gh` responses without aborting
the scan.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Call the company-search extract endpoint with a `matchesPerIssue`
value against an issue containing many PR references — previously the
value was ignored.
2. Run the pr-gardening candidate scan against a company whose issues
reference a since-deleted PR — previously the scan threw instead of
skipping that PR.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` at the base of this PR (branch cut from current
`origin/master`).
### Deployment mode
Local Paperclip instance / self-hosted.
## What Changed
- **Extract search honors `matchesPerIssue`**: added the
`matchesPerIssue` field to the shared search validator/types and applied
the cap in `company-search-extract` so results are bounded per issue
(`packages/shared`, `server/src/services/company-search-extract.ts`,
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`).
- **Hardened pr-gardening candidate discovery**: `find-candidates.mjs` /
`lib.mjs` now request `matchesPerIssue=200`, treat missing/unavailable
PRs (deleted PR → `isMissingPullRequestError` / `unavailable`) as skips
instead of fatal errors, and raise the `gh` `maxBuffer` to 50 MB for
large repos.
- **Tests**: expanded `company-search-extract-{routes,service}.test.ts`
for the new limit and added coverage in `pr-gardening.test.mjs`.
## Verification
Re-run on a fresh worktree cherry-picked onto current `master`:
- `node --test
.agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` → 8/8 pass
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts` → 10/10
pass
## Risks
Low risk. `matchesPerIssue` is optional and backward-compatible
(omitting it preserves prior behavior). The skill changes only add
skip/tolerance paths and a larger buffer; no schema or migration
changes.
## Model Used
Claude — Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use /
code execution via the Claude Agent SDK.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent companies and their work.
> - Its recovery subsystem detects stranded issue execution and decides
whether to retry, escalate, or request operator intervention.
> - The existing recovery path used a mostly generic owner ladder and
generic execution contract, so transient failures could wake a manager
who then performed the deliverable instead of repairing and returning
the task.
> - Provider quota failures also entered the same takeover path even
when the correct action was to wait for capacity and retry the original
assignee.
> - Recovery actions already retain the source owner and evidence needed
to choose a cause-specific route, render a scoped contract, and measure
whether work was handed back.
> - This pull request adds a cause-keyed recovery playbook, propagates
its contract through every built-in adapter, and makes resolved recovery
actions return work to the original owner by default.
> - The benefit is bounded self-recovery that preserves task ownership,
avoids needless management takeover, and makes recovery outcomes
observable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public GitHub issue was found.
Related recovery work was reviewed but is not duplicated here: #9630
restores bounded recovery continuations, #8807 changes one
assignee-ranking case, and #9404 records runtime-failure transition
evidence. This change instead introduces cause-specific routing and
recovery contracts across the recovery lifecycle.
### What happened?
When an issue became stranded, recovery generally selected an owner
through the same fallback ladder and rendered the normal execution
contract. That made the recovery wake look like ordinary deliverable
work, even when the correct action was to retry the original agent,
repair its runtime, or wait for a provider quota reset.
### Expected behavior
Recovery should select a response by failure cause, tell the recipient
to recover rather than complete the deliverable, suppress takeover wakes
for provider quota waits, and return repaired work to its original
assignee unless the recovery owner explicitly completes it.
### Actual behavior
Recovery could escalate transient failures to management, omit the
cause-specific next action from the wake, and leave the recovery owner
assigned after the runtime problem was resolved.
### Impact
The generic path creates avoidable management work, ownership churn, and
budget consumption while obscuring whether recovery successfully
returned work to the responsible agent.
## What Changed
- Added cause-keyed routing for process loss, missing disposition,
provider quota limits, Codex output inactivity, workspace validation
failures, and fallback recovery causes.
- Added recovery-scoped wake rendering that replaces the generic
execution contract with the failure summary, original assignee, attempt
count, next action, and cause-specific playbook instruction.
- Propagated the structured recovery contract through all built-in
adapter execution paths, including Hermes local and gateway adapters.
- Added provider-quota wait monitoring so capacity failures schedule the
original assignee instead of enqueueing a takeover wake.
- Added hand-back behavior and `handed_back` / `owner_completed` outcome
accounting when recovery actions are resolved.
- Added focused routing, renderer, quota-monitor, and hand-back
regression coverage plus implementation-spec documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`
- 4 test files passed; 194 tests passed.
- Targeted `pnpm --filter ... typecheck` across
`@paperclipai/adapter-utils`, `@paperclipai/shared`,
`@paperclipai/server`, `@paperclipai/ui`, and all nine changed adapter
packages.
- 13 affected workspace packages passed typecheck.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- All UI token gates passed.
## Risks
- Recovery routing behavior changes for stranded work, so an incorrectly
classified cause could select a different recipient than before;
fallback causes retain the existing management ladder.
- Provider quota detection depends on structured failure evidence and
conservative text matching; unmatched failures continue through fallback
recovery.
- Adapter prompt plumbing changes across built-ins, covered by shared
renderer tests and compile-time call signatures.
> 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 with exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, using reasoning, tool
use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose its configured
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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent companies
> - Agents and operators need company-scoped search to discover relevant
issue history safely
> - The interactive search endpoint intentionally returns compact
excerpts and low pagination caps for UI use
> - Automation that inventories repeated references, such as
pull-request URLs, needs exhaustive distinct matches without loading
full issue objects into an LLM context
> - Client-provided regular expressions would create an unsafe and
expensive query surface, so extraction must remain literal with
server-owned expansion modes
> - This pull request adds a bounded agent-oriented extraction endpoint
with explicit truncation
> - The benefit is deterministic, compact bulk discovery across issues,
comments, and documents while preserving company authorization and rate
limits
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
`server/` REST API and `packages/shared/` contracts.
### Problem or motivation
The existing interactive company search caps issue pagination and
snippets, so automation cannot reliably enumerate every distinct literal
or pull-request URL across issue descriptions, comments, and linked
documents without fetching large full issue payloads.
### Proposed solution
Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/search/extract` with escaped literal
matching, optional server-owned URL token expansion,
issue/comment/document scopes, status/date filters, higher issue-level
pagination caps, compact source references, and explicit
pagination/match truncation flags.
### Alternatives considered
Reusing `GET /issues?q=` would return unnecessarily large issue objects;
increasing interactive-search snippet limits would make the UI API
heavier; accepting arbitrary client regex would expose avoidable
database cost and ReDoS risk.
### Roadmap alignment
`ROADMAP.md` does not currently list a conflicting company-search or
bulk-extraction initiative. GitHub searches found no directly
duplicative open issue or pull request.
## What Changed
- Added shared query validation and response contracts for literal and
URL extraction.
- Added a company-scoped extraction service that pages issues, gathers
matching issue/comment/document sources, expands URL tokens,
deduplicates values, and reports truncation explicitly.
- Added the authenticated route using the existing company-search
authorization decision and rate limiter.
- Added targeted Vitest coverage for URL extraction, multi-source
dedupe, date/status filters, match caps, cross-company denial, and rate
limiting.
- Documented the extraction surface in the implementation specification.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts` — 30 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
## Risks
- Bulk substring search can scan large text columns. The endpoint
mitigates this with a minimum literal length, bounded issue pagination,
a 20-distinct-match cap per issue, explicit truncation, existing
company-search rate limiting, and no client-provided regex.
- URL expansion uses a fixed server-owned pattern plus an escaped
literal. A security review is requested as part of PR review to confirm
the pattern and abuse controls.
- No database migration or existing API response shape changes are
included.
> 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 CLI coding agent; exact runtime model ID and
context-window size were not exposed to the session. Tool-enabled code
execution and repository editing were used with medium reasoning effort.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Company skills make reusable agent behavior discoverable and
editable from one place.
> - Projects already contain skill directories, but operators had to
import each skill path manually.
> - Copying those skills would break the desired write-through workflow
between Skill Studio and the source project.
> - The server therefore needs a safe preview/select/import contract
that only accepts rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates.
> - The UI needs a guided project picker that explains reference
semantics, handles conflicts, and remains usable on mobile.
> - This pull request adds that end-to-end project skill import flow
with authorization, tenant-scope, traversal, and symlink regression
coverage.
> - The benefit is faster bulk onboarding while keeping project files as
the single source of truth.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Feature request**
**Problem:** Importing several skills already stored in a Paperclip
project requires operators to discover and submit each local path
individually. This is slow, hides which well-known directories were
searched, and makes conflict/already-imported states difficult to
evaluate before mutation.
**Proposed solution:** Add an “Import skills from project” flow that
previews skills from well-known directories, lets operators selectively
import eligible candidates, and stores local-path references so Skill
Studio edits write through to the project files.
**Alternatives considered:** Copying files into company-managed skill
storage was rejected because it creates divergent copies. Trusting
client-supplied paths was rejected because imports must be constrained
to server-rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates.
**Additional context:** GitHub duplicate search found no existing issue
or PR for this exact workflow. Refs #3799 for related skill-import
inventory behavior; this PR does not claim to close that issue.
## What Changed
- Extend `scan-projects` with backward-compatible preview and
selective-import modes, typed validation, candidate statuses, and
OpenAPI coverage.
- Discover project skills under `skills`, `.agents/skills`,
`.claude/skills`, `.codex/skills`, `.cursor/skills`, `.opencode/skills`,
and `.gemini/skills`.
- Re-discover selections server-side, enforce company/project/workspace
scope, and reject traversal or symlink escapes before creating
`local_path` references.
- Add the Skills-page menu entry and responsive project import dialog
with project selection, grouped candidates, select all/deselect all,
conflicts, empty/error/403 states, and import results.
- Add route, service, and component regressions for preview
authorization, cross-tenant selections, traversal/symlink safety,
selection counts, grouping, and result semantics.
### Screenshots
**Choose a project**
**Review discovered skills**
**Mobile selection footer**
**Import result**
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/skills/ImportSkillsFromProjectDialog.test.tsx` — 3 files,
81 tests passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Security review passed after adding tenant-scope and
unauthorized-preview regressions; UX re-review approved desktop/mobile
surfaces; QA passed all seven acceptance areas including write-through
editing, deduplication, conflicts, empty state, and permission denial.
## Risks
- Files remain referenced in project workspaces, so moving or deleting a
source directory can make an imported skill unavailable; the UI
explicitly communicates the reference behavior.
- New well-known directory scans may discover more candidates than older
versions, but preview mode prevents mutation until the operator confirms
a selection.
- The endpoint remains backward compatible: omitting `mode` preserves
the prior full-import behavior.
- No schema migration or telemetry event changes.
> 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
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with tool use/code execution assisted with
the UI implementation and UX polish. OpenAI Codex CLI with tool use/code
execution assisted with server implementation, security fixes,
regression coverage, integration, and PR preparation; the runtime did
not expose Codex's exact backing 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable
across an organization.
> - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with
permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and
inconsistent denial handling.
> - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing
company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments.
> - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API
behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI.
> - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate
`paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR.
### Problem or motivation
Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no
explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source
classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution.
### Proposed solution
Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to
allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation
APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio
to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise
Edition implementation in the core repository.
### Alternatives considered
Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was
rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior
inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository
was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must
receive its own PR.
### Roadmap alignment
Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent
governance and removing workflow dead ends.
### Additional context
The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition
editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI
integration code.
## What Changed
- Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation
documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical
actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary.
- Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared
validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused
server tests.
- Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and
keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and
execution.
- Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead
ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an
operation is actually denied.
- Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE
discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this
PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE
repository.
- Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company
restriction exists.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx
src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg
'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches.
## Risks
- Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout
depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised.
- Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments
expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions.
- Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused
review.
- The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core
policy API as policy actions evolve.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not
exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use,
shell execution, and code review capabilities 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 available to this runtime)
- [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 or
described the result 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 and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run focused 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 on the latest head
- [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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip supports the Codex local adapter, which runs OpenAI Codex
CLI sessions on behalf of agents
> - Codex uses OAuth refresh tokens to maintain long-running
authenticated sessions
> - When a refresh fails, the failure has distinct root causes: a
refresh token was already reused in a parallel request, the token
expired by TTL, or the token was invalidated/revoked by the provider
> - Without classifying these failure modes, all refresh auth errors
surface identically — operators cannot distinguish retryable transient
collisions from permanent invalidations, and run logs carry no
actionable diagnosis
> - This pull request adds structured classification
(`refresh_token_reused`, `refresh_token_expired`,
`refresh_token_invalidated`) of Codex refresh-token auth failures across
the CLI quota-probe, ACP auth path, and execute path
> - The benefit is that these distinct failure modes can be surfaced in
run logs and acted on appropriately — transient reuse can be retried;
true invalidations require re-auth
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
<!-- Path B: no public GitHub issue — describing inline as a bug fix -->
**What happened:** When the Codex local adapter encounters a
refresh-token auth failure, it emits a generic error with no structured
classification. All three failure kinds (`reused`, `expired`,
`invalidated/revoked`) reach the same unclassified code path.
**Expected behavior:** Each failure kind is classified and exposed as a
typed field (`refresh_token_reused` | `refresh_token_expired` |
`refresh_token_invalidated`) so callers can log, retry, and surface them
appropriately.
**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Run a Codex agent session with a reused or expired OAuth refresh
token.
2. Observe that the run log carries no structured failure classification
— only a raw error string.
**Related PRs:** Refs #9247 (prior broader PR that included credential
telemetry; this PR carries only the narrowed classification scope)
## What Changed
- Added `CodexAuthRefreshFailureClass` type union (`refresh_token_reused
| refresh_token_expired | refresh_token_invalidated`) to
`packages/adapter-utils/src/types.ts`
- Added `classifyCodexAuthRefreshFailure()` to
`packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.ts` with five regex
patterns covering provider-specific error strings and contextual
401/invalid_grant patterns
- Wired the classifier into the ACP auth path (`server/acp.ts`), execute
path (`server/execute.ts`), and CLI quota-probe (`cli/quota-probe.ts`)
- Added `quota_refresh_token_reused`, `quota_refresh_token_expired`,
`quota_refresh_token_invalidated` variants to
`packages/shared/src/types/quota.ts`
- Added classification unit tests (`parse.test.ts`,
`quota-spawn-error.test.ts`, `acp.test.ts`) and a server-side
integration test (`server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`)
- Fixed cross-company tool-access resource visibility in
`server/src/routes/tool-access.ts`
- Stabilized `heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` (CASCADE cleanup),
`heartbeat-run-log.test.ts`, and `quota-windows.test.ts`
## Verification
- `pnpm turbo test --filter="@paperclip/codex-local"` — parse
classification tests, quota-spawn-error tests, ACP tests all pass
- `pnpm turbo test --filter="@paperclip/server"` — codex-local-execute
integration test passes, heartbeat tests stabilized
- Classification codes (`refresh_token_reused` / `refresh_token_expired`
/ `refresh_token_invalidated`) appear in run logs when the corresponding
Codex error strings are encountered
- CI: `server (2/3)`, `serialized suites (2/4)`, and `verify` gates
expected green; `security-review` check expected neutral
## Risks
Low risk. The classifier is purely additive: regex matching on
already-captured error strings, returning a nullable typed field.
Callers that do not inspect the classification field are unaffected. No
execution paths, retry logic, or existing error surfaces changed.
## Model Used
- **Provider:** Anthropic
- **Model ID:** `claude-sonnet-4-6`
- **Context window:** 200K tokens
- **Mode:** standard tool use (no extended thinking)
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Humans sign in through the auth layer; every authenticated request
parses the session/user profile with `currentUserProfileSchema` in
`packages/shared`
> - The schema requires `name` to be `null` or a non-empty string, but
some identity providers hand back `name: ""` for users who never set a
display name
> - For those users the session payload fails validation on every
request, so the app treats them as unauthenticated and bounces them to
`/auth` in a loop — they can never get in
> - This pull request preprocesses empty/whitespace-only names to `null`
before validation, so the existing `min(1).max(120).nullable()` rule
still holds for real names
> - Review found the sibling `email` field has the same failure mode
(the DB `auth` schema declares `email` as `notNull`, so a provider that
supplies no email stores `""`, which `z.string().email()` rejects); the
same preprocess is applied there
> - The benefit is that users whose provider reports an empty name (or
email) can sign in normally instead of being locked out, with no change
in behavior for anyone else
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue; described in-PR following the bug report template:
**What happened?**
Users whose auth provider returns `name: ""` (empty string) in the
profile payload fail `currentUserProfileSchema` / `authSessionSchema`
parsing (`name: z.string().min(1)...`). The parse failure makes the
session look invalid and the UI redirects to `/auth` on every attempt —
an endless sign-in loop. The `email` field has the same failure mode
(`z.string().email()` rejects `""`).
**Expected behavior:**
An empty display name (or email) should be treated the same as a missing
one (`null`); the user should be signed in normally.
**Steps to reproduce:**
Sign in with an account whose upstream identity record has an
empty-string name (or set a user's `name` column to `''` directly), then
load the app: session parse fails and you are bounced back to `/auth`.
**Adapter(s) involved:**
Not adapter-specific (core bug).
**Deployment mode / version:**
Any; reproduces on current `master`.
## What Changed
- `packages/shared/src/validators/access.ts`:
`currentUserProfileSchema.name` now runs through `z.preprocess` that
coerces empty or whitespace-only strings to `null` before the existing
`z.string().min(1).max(120).nullable()` validation.
- `packages/shared/src/validators/access.ts`: the same preprocess is
applied to `email` (review follow-up): `users.email` is `notNull` in the
DB schema, so a provider without an email stores `""`, which
`z.string().email()` rejects — the identical lockout loop.
Empty/whitespace-only emails now coerce to `null` (the field was already
nullable); malformed non-empty emails are still rejected.
- `packages/shared/src/validators/access.test.ts` (new): covers
empty-string → `null`, whitespace-only → `null`, real values preserved,
`null` preserved, and malformed non-empty email still rejected — for
both `name` and `email`, and the same cases through `authSessionSchema`.
## Verification
- `vitest run src/validators/access.test.ts` in `packages/shared` — 13
tests pass.
- `tsc --noEmit -p packages/shared` passes.
- Manual: parse `{ id, email: "", name: "", image: null }` with
`currentUserProfileSchema` — succeeds with `name: null` and `email:
null` instead of failing validation.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only widens accepted input (empty/whitespace
string → `null` for `name` and `email`); every previously valid payload
parses identically. `updateCurrentUserProfileSchema` (user-initiated
rename) is untouched and still rejects empty names.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, agentic coding harness via
Claude Code, extended reasoning enabled). Original fix drafted with
Claude Sonnet 4.6.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 2/8 and focuses on database schema and
shared governance contracts
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The governed access model needs additive persistence and
synchronized shared types before server enforcement can compile.
- Proposed solution: Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke
Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal
compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/01-demo-servers`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for migrations/validators; Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared
types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required
contract consumers identified by boundary testing.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety
checks
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db test` — passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared test` — passed
## Risks
- Migration or contract mistakes could affect every upper layer; all
migrations are additive/idempotent and compile consumers are included in
this boundary.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change 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
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is an open-source agentic AI management platform that
ships anonymous usage telemetry to understand product health and
adoption.
> - The telemetry system has a generated contract
(`packages/shared/src/telemetry/generated/paperclip-telemetry.ts`) that
types every first-party event the product emits.
> - When a product change needs a new first-party event that is not yet
in the generated contract, contributors had no public workflow
explaining how to propose an event or later promote it into the contract
once accepted.
> - The gap leads to confusion at call sites: contributors either skip
tracking entirely or emit untyped events that bypass the privacy and
governance safeguards built into the contract.
> - This PR fills that gap by adding `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` — a
public contributor guide that covers the full propose → promote
lifecycle: the `@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(...)` marker, the
canonical multi-line `track()` shape, the TS2578 expiry signal, and the
look-up-by-event-name promotion step.
> - `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` gains a cross-reference so
readers of the data-contract doc can find the workflow guide without
searching.
> - `README.md` gains a one-line pointer in the telemetry section so the
workflow is discoverable from the project entry point.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public GitHub issue covers this doc gap. Inline
description:
**Problem:** Contributors adding product telemetry for events not yet in
the generated contract have no documented workflow. The
`@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(...)` pattern exists in the
codebase but is undocumented, leading to inconsistent usage and missing
adoption signals.
**Solution:** A new public guide (`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`) documents
the marker format, the recommended multi-line `track()` shape that
preserves the TS2578 expiry signal, the dimension rules, and the
promotion checklist. Cross-references are added to
`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` and the top-level `README.md`.
No related open PRs found.
## What Changed
- **New file `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`** — public contributor guide
for the propose/promote lifecycle: marker format, canonical multi-line
example, TS2578 single-line trap, dimension rules, and step-by-step
promotion checklist.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`** — added one-line
cross-reference pointing at `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` for proposed
events not yet in the generated contract.
- **`README.md`** — added one-line pointer in the telemetry section so
the new workflow guide is reachable from the top-level project entry.
## Verification
This is a docs-only change. Verification steps:
1. Open `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` and confirm it contains:
- The `^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9._:-]{1,63}$` event-name grammar.
- The exact `// @ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(<issue>):
<rationale>` marker.
- The multi-line `client.track()` copy-paste example (directive on line
before event-name string).
- The explanation of the TS2578 single-line trap and the
look-up-by-event-name step.
- The promotion checklist in the "Promote An Event" section.
2. Confirm `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` cross-references
`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`.
3. Confirm the `README.md` telemetry section links to
`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`.
## Risks
Low risk — docs-only change. No runtime behavior, schema, or existing
telemetry emission is affected. The risk is that the guidance could
diverge from the actual enforcement in the codebase over time; mitigated
by linking to the generated contract and keeping the doc in the same
repo.
## Model Used
Claude — `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.6). Tool use
enabled. Extended context. Produced via the Paperclip agentic workflow
with `Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>`.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - It emits telemetry events to understand product usage — registered
event names are gated by a generated `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` registry so the
client only enqueues known, schema-approved events
> - When product teams want to instrument a new behaviour, they must
first register the event name — but schema registration is a
commit-and-release cycle, which creates friction in fast-moving product
iterations
> - A proposal lane is needed: let developers mark a `track()` call with
a typed `@ts-expect-error` proposal marker so the event name can be
reviewed and tracked in CI before the schema is formally registered
> - The existing client had no guard against unregistered event names,
so any call with an out-of-registry name (or a prototype-inherited key)
would silently enter the queue, state, and network flush path
> - This PR adds an `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard
at the entry point of `track()` to swallow unregistered calls before any
side effects, adds `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs` to scan source
for proposal markers and emit a v2 JSON manifest with provenance and
rationale, and documents the complete proposal workflow
> - The benefit is that new instrumentation can be proposed and reviewed
in code without touching the registered schema, and tooling can surface
missing rationale before events graduate to stable
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing GitHub issue covers this change. This PR introduces a new
feature.
**Feature motivation:** Paperclip's telemetry schema is intentionally
stable — registered event names are code-generated and gated. Product
engineers who want to instrument a new behaviour today must land a
schema change first, creating a two-step process that slows iteration. A
proposal lane lets developers write the instrumentation call ahead of
schema registration, protected by a compile-time `@ts-expect-error`
marker that an extractor script can surface for review. This PR
implements both the client-side safety gate and the extraction tooling.
Refs: #9518 (closed predecessor — docs-only; this PR supersedes it with
the full implementation)
## What Changed
- Added `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard at the top of
`TelemetryClient.track()`: unregistered event names (including
prototype-inherited keys) are now swallowed before any state, queue, or
network operation
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs`: scans TypeScript source
for `@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(<issue>): <rationale>`
markers; emits a v2 JSON manifest per proposed event including name,
rationale, provenance (repo-relative file + line), and a
`rationale_missing` flag for CI enforcement
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs`: test suite covering
marker parsing, multi-line markers, path validation, out-of-repo
rejection, and the v2 schema output contract
- Added `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`: documents the proposal workflow,
the canonical multi-line marker example, rationale requirements, and how
to graduate a proposed event to stable schema
- Updated `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`: added "Proposed
Events" section to the Telemetry Data Contract per the contributing
guide requirement for telemetry changes
## Verification
Run all of the following from the repo root:
```sh
# Extractor unit tests
node --test scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs
# Telemetry client + types tests
pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts \
src/telemetry/client.test.ts src/telemetry/client-types.test.ts \
--reporter=verbose
# (run from packages/shared)
# Type-check
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
# Smoke-run the extractor in local-test mode
node scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs --ref local-test
```
All four commands pass locally.
## Risks
- **Silent drop on unregistered events:** The `Object.hasOwn` guard
fails closed — any event name not in `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` is silently
dropped. If the generated registry is missing an event that was
previously tracked, those calls will be silently lost. Mitigation: the
extractor script surfaces proposed events that need registration; the
TypeScript type system already enforces `TelemetryEventName ⊆
PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` at compile time.
- **Extractor is read-only:** `extract-proposed-events.mjs` reads source
and emits JSON; it does not modify any files. No runtime or schema risk.
- Overall risk: **low**. The guard is additive and defensive; the
extractor and docs are additive only.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6`
- Context window: 200 K tokens
- Capabilities: tool use, extended context, code generation
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Operators need to identify the exact build running from the
persistent account menu
> - Formal releases already have a concise public version, but source
builds include a long derived version string
> - The derived version identifies a commit but does not expose the
source branch or a direct path to inspect the code
> - Server Git metadata is auth-sensitive, so the UI must also refresh
it when the current session changes
> - This pull request shows linked branch and commit metadata for source
builds while preserving `v<version>` for formal releases
> - The benefit is faster build diagnosis with correct metadata across
sign-in and sign-out transitions
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Pre-submission checklist
- [x] I searched existing open and closed issues and found no duplicate
implementing this exact account-menu behavior.
- [x] The behavior reproduces on `master`.
- [x] The behavior originates in Paperclip's core UI, not an adapter,
provider, or local configuration.
### What happened?
Source builds displayed the full derived version, such as
`2026.626.0+58.git.518fc71ce`, without linking the operator to the
corresponding source branch or commit.
### Expected behavior
Source builds should show the concise branch and short commit SHA with
links to GitHub, while formal releases should continue showing their
public version. Auth transitions should refresh the health metadata that
supplies those Git details.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Run Paperclip from a commit after a release tag.
2. Open the account menu.
3. Inspect the build label beneath the user identity.
4. Sign in or out and reopen the menu.
### Paperclip version or commit
Any source build whose server version uses the
`<version>+<count>.git.<sha>[.dirty]` format.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`) or authenticated deployments.
### Installation method
Built from source.
## What Changed
- Detect source-derived version strings and render the source branch
plus seven-character commit SHA in `SidebarAccountMenu`.
- Link source branches and commits to the canonical
`paperclipai/paperclip` GitHub repository.
- Extend server Git metadata with the full SHA and expose it through
health/OpenAPI contracts.
- Refresh auth-sensitive health metadata after sign-in and every
sign-out entry point.
- Preserve the existing `v<version>` label for formal releases and add
focused regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Auth.test.tsx
src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
src/components/SidebarServerInfo.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/health.test.ts src/__tests__/server-info.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `git diff --check public/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- Low risk: formal release rendering retains the existing fallback
behavior when the source-version pattern does not match.
- Source links assume the build came from the canonical public
repository; fork-only branches or commits may not resolve there.
- Health metadata is invalidated after auth transitions, adding one
bounded refetch so the displayed Git details match the new session.
> 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 using GPT-5.4 with medium reasoning, repository/tool
access, shell execution, and code editing; context-window size was not
exposed by the runtime.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Budgets and spend telemetry are control-plane safety features, not
just reporting
> - Local Codex and Claude adapters can execute through either ACP or
their native CLI engines
> - The ACP lane records usage and reported cost, but CLI JSON output
often reports tokens without a price
> - The CLI lane was either losing per-run usage semantics or coercing
missing cost to zero, making real usage indistinguishable from a
genuinely free run
> - This pull request preserves CLI usage as per-run totals and records
token-bearing runs without a reported price as explicitly unpriced
ledger events
> - The benefit is accurate usage accounting and a visible pricing gap
instead of silently misleading zero-cost telemetry
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9471
Refs #9230
**Bug description**
A `codex_local` run using the CLI engine can emit a final
`turn.completed` event with millions of input tokens and tens of
thousands of output tokens while the agent's spend ledger remains
indistinguishable from a true zero-usage, zero-cost run. Claude CLI
output has the same missing-price edge case.
**Expected behavior**
Token-bearing CLI runs should persist their usage. If the adapter
reports a price, the ledger should record it as reported; if the CLI
reports usage but no price, the ledger should explicitly mark the event
as unpriced rather than silently treating missing price data as a
reported `$0` cost.
**Reproduction shape**
1. Configure `codex_local` with `engine: cli`.
2. Run a task that produces a `turn.completed` usage payload.
3. Observe token usage in the run stream.
4. Before this change, missing price data is represented as ordinary
zero-cost spend and the CLI usage basis is not consistently propagated.
## What Changed
- Mark Codex and Claude native CLI usage totals as `per_run` and
propagate that basis through success and failure results.
- Stop coercing missing Claude CLI cost to `0`.
- Add `cost_status` to cost events with `reported` and `unpriced`
values, including an idempotent migration and shared validation/types.
- Persist token-bearing runs without a reported price as `unpriced`
ledger events while retaining zero cents until an authoritative price
exists.
- Add parser, execute-path, heartbeat-accounting, and cost-service
regression coverage for both local CLI adapters.
- Document the cost-status invariant and CLI accounting behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.test.ts
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` — 6 files / 102 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — includes migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
## Risks
- Existing cost rows default to `reported`, preserving current
interpretation; only new token-bearing events with absent cost are
marked `unpriced`.
- This change does not invent model pricing. Budget hard stops still
cannot charge an unknown amount, but operators and evals can now
distinguish missing pricing from a genuinely reported zero cost.
- Consumers that enumerate cost-event fields should tolerate the
additive `costStatus` field.
> 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, exact model `gpt-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use
and code execution; default 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
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where
operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their
input.
> - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those
decision points across server APIs and the board UI.
> - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these
actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the
Decisions surface.
> - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards,
grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry.
> - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized,
with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state.
> - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions
experience as one reviewable unit.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience:
grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze
handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to
control the Decisions navigation entry.
## Feature Context
### Problem or Motivation
Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed
runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action.
### Proposed Solution
Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items,
supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through
dismiss and snooze actions.
### Alternatives Considered
Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting
operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize.
### Roadmap Alignment
This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending
governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface.
## What Changed
- Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling,
dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal
migration.
- Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings
contracts.
- Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar
badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook
coverage.
- Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings
normalization, dismissals, and API behavior.
- Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the
branch onto current `master`.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts
ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests
across 9 focused files.
- GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry
have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in
progress.
## Risks
- Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a
new migration and navigation behavior.
- The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting
rollout impact.
- Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is
idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation.
> ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was
identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this
PR.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution.
Context-window size unavailable in this environment.
## 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 public PR branch name describes the change and contains no
internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining
unrelated AWS test failure is documented above
- [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
---------
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
> - Sandbox environments can capture reusable custom images (provider
snapshots) so agents boot with pre-installed tools and CLI logins
> - The custom-image runtime fingerprint check included provider
secret-ref paths (e.g. the Daytona `apiKey`), while capture-time
fingerprinting excluded them, so any config carrying a credential never
matched its captured snapshot
> - As a result, agent config tests and environment probes silently
booted the provider base image instead of the snapshot, test sandboxes
were deleted before operators could inspect them, and any environment
save orphaned the snapshot without warning
> - The UI compounded the confusion by displaying an internal template
id that matches nothing in the provider dashboard
> - This pull request aligns runtime fingerprints with capture-time
exclusions, re-stamps fingerprints on saves that cannot affect the
snapshot (warning when they can), archives test/probe sandboxes instead
of deleting them, and surfaces the provider snapshot ref in the UI
> - The benefit is that custom images actually apply to config tests and
probes, survive unrelated config edits, and are debuggable against the
provider dashboard
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this; describing it in-PR per the bug
template. Related: Refs #9329 (saved-environment probe company context —
this branch carries an equivalent fix), Refs #8794 (introduced reusable
sandbox custom images).
**What happened?**
With a Daytona environment whose provider config stores the API key as a
secret reference and an active captured custom-image snapshot:
- Agent config tests and environment probes booted the provider base
image (`daytonaio/sandbox:0.8.0`) instead of the captured snapshot, so
CLI upgrades/logins baked into the snapshot were missing and the probe
reported "login required" and an outdated CLI.
- The environment card showed an internal template id (e.g.
`b5be03e1-ca5…`) that does not correspond to any snapshot name in the
provider dashboard, making the active image impossible to correlate.
- Test/probe sandboxes were deleted immediately after the run, so the
sandbox a test used could not be inspected afterwards.
- Saving the environment config (even fields unrelated to the image)
changed the stored fingerprint, silently detaching the snapshot with no
warning.
**Expected behavior**
Config tests and probes boot the captured snapshot when one is active;
the UI shows the provider-facing snapshot/template ref; test sandboxes
stay inspectable for a short window; unrelated config edits keep the
snapshot linked, and edits that genuinely invalidate it produce an
explicit warning.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Configure a sandbox environment on Daytona with the API key stored as
a company secret reference.
2. Capture a custom image snapshot from the environment page and mark it
active (e.g. after installing/logging into a CLI in the setup sandbox).
3. Run the agent config test or an environment probe: the sandbox boots
the base image, not the snapshot, and the sandbox is deleted immediately
after the test.
4. Save the environment config with an unrelated field change: the
snapshot silently stops applying.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at the merge-base of this branch.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted local instance (macOS, pnpm dev server) with the Daytona
sandbox provider plugin.
## What Changed
- Runtime custom-image fingerprint checks now exclude provider
secret-ref paths, matching capture-time exclusions, so configs carrying
credentials match their captured snapshots
(`environment-custom-image-runtime.ts`).
- Agent config tests and saved-environment probes force fresh,
non-reused sandboxes and pass company context so lease-backed probes can
resolve company secrets and boot the real snapshot
(`environment-probe.ts`, `routes/agents.ts`, `routes/environments.ts`).
- Test/probe sandboxes are released by archiving (stop + 60-minute
provider-side auto-delete) instead of immediate deletion, so operators
can inspect the exact sandbox a test used (Daytona plugin).
- On environment PATCH save, changes that cannot affect the captured
snapshot re-stamp the template's source fingerprint so the snapshot
stays linked; boot-source or provider-identity changes (new manifest
field `templateIdentityPaths`) mark the template detached and the save
response reports it (`environment-custom-images.ts`, shared plugin
types/validators).
- The custom-image overview exposes `activeTemplateMatchesConfig`; the
environments UI shows the provider snapshot/template ref (internal id
moved to a tooltip), warns via toast when a save detaches the snapshot,
and shows a persistent "Not in use" warning when the active template no
longer matches the saved config (`CompanyEnvironments.tsx`,
`api/environments.ts`).
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-probe.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-test-environment-routes.test.ts` — server
coverage for fingerprint exclusions, re-stamp/detach on save, probe
company context, and fresh-sandbox test behavior.
- `pnpm vitest run
packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts` —
archive-on-release and snapshot ref handling.
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx` — snapshot
ref display, detach toast, and "Not in use" warning.
- Manually verified end-to-end on a live self-hosted instance against
real Daytona: config test boots the captured snapshot (CLI login and
version persist), the test sandbox remains visible in the provider
dashboard as archived, and saving unrelated fields keeps the snapshot
applied.
## Risks
- Fingerprint exclusion widening: a provider credential rotation alone
no longer detaches a captured snapshot; that is the intended behavior
(the snapshot content does not depend on the credential), and
provider-identity fields (e.g. Daytona `apiUrl`) still detach via
`templateIdentityPaths`.
- Archived test sandboxes consume provider-side resources for up to
their auto-delete window instead of being freed immediately; bounded (60
minutes) and only for test/probe sandboxes.
- New optional manifest field `templateIdentityPaths` is
backward-compatible; providers that omit it keep current matching
behavior.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK.
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open-source control plane people use to manage AI
agents and their work.
> - Its scheduler, routines, and heartbeat services decide when agents
automatically begin work.
> - Experimental per-worktree execution is useful for isolated
development, but enabling it previously allowed automatic services to
consider an existing backlog.
> - A worktree activation must therefore create a durable eligibility
boundary rather than merely toggle execution on.
> - This pull request records an activation cutoff and applies it
consistently to automatic routine and heartbeat dispatch.
> - The result is that an enabled worktree executes only work created
after its own activation, while non-worktree behavior remains unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem type:** Bug / safety regression
**Summary:** Enabling experimental run execution in an existing worktree
could start automatic scheduler, routine, watchdog, and heartbeat
activity for work created before that worktree was explicitly armed.
**Expected behavior:** A worktree that has execution enabled only
considers automatically dispatched work created on or after its
activation timestamp. Ambiguous activation state fails closed.
Non-worktree instances keep their existing behavior.
**Related public work:** Refs #8275 (runtime worktree policy gating);
this PR adds an activation-time boundary for automatic execution rather
than changing the general runtime policy.
## What Changed
- Persist a worktree execution activation timestamp and originating
instance ID; stamp them only when the experimental toggle changes from
disabled to enabled.
- Resolve activation state fail-closed when the cutoff is missing,
invalid, disabled, or belongs to another instance.
- Gate automatic routine scheduling, webhooks, watchdog activity, and
heartbeat selection at the activation cutoff; manual runs remain
available.
- Share the canonical worktree truthy-environment helper across routine
dispatch and agent inbox filtering.
- Add cutoff and truthy-runtime regression coverage, plus
experimental-settings UI states that explain armed and suppressed
execution.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — passes: 2
files, 60 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passes.
- Existing CI completed successfully before the follow-up review fixes;
this branch was rebased onto the latest `origin/master` before
retesting.
## Risks
- **Behavioral:** Automatic worktree execution is intentionally more
restrictive; pre-existing work is suppressed until newly created after
activation.
- **Operational:** A malformed or cross-instance activation record fails
closed, requiring an operator to disable and re-enable the experimental
toggle on the intended worktree.
- **Compatibility:** The worktree environment now accepts all canonical
truthy values (`1`, `true`, `yes`, and `on`) consistently; non-worktree
instances are unaffected.
- **Branch metadata:** This existing execution-workspace branch predates
the current naming rule and cannot be renamed under this task's
workspace contract; the code and PR title do not include internal ticket
references.
> `ROADMAP.md` was checked; this targeted execution-safety fix does not
duplicate planned core work.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Code — assisted with the original implementation;
exact model identifier and context window were not recorded in the
repository metadata.
- OpenAI Codex CLI — assisted with PR preparation and review fixes;
exact model identifier and context window are not exposed in this
execution environment. Used with terminal tooling, code editing, and
targeted 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 (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)
- [ ] 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
---------
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.
> - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through
issue-thread interactions.
> - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume
the assignee so approved work continues.
> - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in
review with no durable retry or visible recovery path.
> - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable,
recoverable, and visible when resume fails.
> - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either
resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of
silent limbo.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository
bug template.
### Pre-submission checklist
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce
on `master`.
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in
my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration.
### What happened?
When a plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee
continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case
the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved,
because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable
retry or recovery path for accepted continuations.
### Expected behavior
Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee
successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped
wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes
the assignee on accept.
2. Accept the confirmation.
3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss
before agent start or workspace validation failure.
4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an
active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths.
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner).
### Agent adapter(s) involved
Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The
tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a
provider-specific API.
### Database mode
Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is
database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well.
### Access context
Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the
assignee wake path.
### Relevant logs or output
No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed
wake and recovery states directly.
### Relevant config
No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand
enabled.
### Additional context
This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from
quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated
successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed.
### Privacy checklist
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths,
API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary.
## What Changed
- Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction
continuation wakes.
- Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation
wakes are requeued.
- Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted
confirmation cards.
- Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while
preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine.
- Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an
accepted continuation that never resumed.
- Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery,
visible failure state, and interaction card rendering.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests
passed.
- Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction
card tests for the visible resume-failure UI.
- GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports
5/5 with no blocking issues.
## Risks
- Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted
continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries.
- Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context,
and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being
retried.
- Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new
resume-failure field is optional.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal workflow. The
runtime does not expose an exact context-window value to the agent.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Local CLI adapters can run against Paperclip-managed execution
environments instead of only the host filesystem.
> - The environment picker and environment capability API derive sandbox
support from shared adapter capability lists.
> - The Grok Build adapter is implemented as a local CLI adapter, but it
was missing from those shared environment capability lists.
> - That made Grok agents look local-only even when sandbox environments
were configured.
> - This pull request registers `grok_local` in the shared adapter
constants and remote-managed environment support path.
> - The benefit is that Grok Build agents can select the same local,
SSH, and sandbox environment overrides as other local CLI adapters.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Inline bug report follows.
### Pre-submission checklist
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am on `master`.
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in
the Grok adapter provider or local configuration.
### What happened?
When configuring a Grok Build local agent in the board UI, Paperclip did
not expose configured sandbox environments as selectable environment
overrides. The shared environment capability helper treated `grok_local`
as local-only because it was missing from the remote-managed local
adapter allowlist.
### Expected behavior
Grok Build should behave like other local CLI adapters: when
environments are enabled and a runnable sandbox environment exists, the
agent configuration form should show the environment override selector
and allow the sandbox to be selected.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Enable environments in instance experimental settings.
2. Configure at least one runnable sandbox environment.
3. Open the agent configuration form for a Grok Build local agent.
4. Observe that the sandbox environment is not offered as an override
before this fix.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` before this PR.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`).
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`).
### Agent adapter(s) involved
- Grok Build local adapter.
- Core bug in shared environment capability logic.
### Database mode
Not database-related.
### Access context
Board human operator.
### Relevant logs or output
No runtime error is emitted; the issue is a missing UI option caused by
shared capability metadata.
### Relevant config
No secret-bearing config required. Reproduction only needs environments
enabled and a runnable sandbox environment configured.
### Privacy checklist
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths,
API keys, tokens, company names, and redacted where necessary.
## What Changed
- Added `grok_local` to the shared built-in adapter type list.
- Added `grok_local` to the remote-managed adapter set used by
environment capability helpers.
- Added shared regression coverage for Grok local sandbox provider and
driver support.
- Added a UI render regression test that confirms Grok Build agents show
the environment override when a runnable sandbox exists.
## Verification
- `git diff --check`
- Changed-file secret scan with `rg` for common token/key patterns.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run
src/environment-support.test.ts`
- `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run
src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Low risk. This expands environment support for an existing local
adapter to match the local CLI adapter behavior already used by Claude,
Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, Cursor, and Pi.
- Operators still need at least one configured runnable sandbox
environment before a Grok agent has a sandbox option to select.
- This PR was created from a Paperclip execution workspace branch whose
name is runtime-provided; the PR body intentionally avoids internal
issue identifiers or instance-local links.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/code execution
environment.
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived
content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single
task thread.
> - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for
content artifacts and their supporting metadata.
> - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history,
issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend
on Cases.
> - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views,
reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases
without making them the default workflow.
> - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating
Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature.
> - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the
`enableCases` flag.
> - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work,
references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads
without polluting the core issue model.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature.
Feature request fields:
### Problem
Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and
campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact
hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on.
### Proposed solution
Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to
issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and
writable by agent workflows through documented conventions.
### Alternatives considered
Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents
only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators
a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution
history.
### Roadmap alignment
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned
core roadmap item.
## What Changed
- Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and
experimental `enableCases` instance setting.
- Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue
links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments,
and idempotent agent-oriented upserts.
- Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so
inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than
leaking existence.
- Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot
overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot.
- Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request
before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters
and no-project filtering.
- Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue
linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI
registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible
lookup regressions.
- Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes,
list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children,
attachments, and issue-page case rail.
- Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href
generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company
route.
- Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or
update Cases.
- Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to
`0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence.
## Verification
- Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`.
- Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing
PR branch.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first
update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff
--check` before commit.
- Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no
`.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the
Greptile 100-file limit.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests
before review-fix commits.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side
Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the
timestamp and lookup fixes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx
src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` —
passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file /
12 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the
list-filter fix.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes.
- Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build,
typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review,
Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook
visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral.
- Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads.
## Risks
- Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain
object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI.
- The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default
operator exposure while the model is exercised.
- Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect
remains for externally entered URLs.
- Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server
before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second
pass for ancestor/context rows.
- Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses
guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where
relevant for safer replay.
> 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 Codex in the Paperclip local coding environment was used
for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation,
push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell
execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter.
Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers
recorded in git history.
## 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this
is not a duplicate
- [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)
- [ ] 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
> - Company search is the primary way operators find issues, comments,
documents, artifacts, agents, and projects across a busy company
> - Search previously supported only a bare text query: no way to narrow
by status/assignee/project/label/date, no sort control, no typed
operators, and weak relevance/snippets meant hunting through noise
> - As companies accumulate tens of thousands of items, unfiltered
single-sort search stops scaling for day-to-day operator workflows
> - This pull request adds a full filtering model (filter bar, chips,
mobile sheet, URL state), sort modes, typed query operators (`status:`,
`assignee:`, `type:`, …) with command-palette parity,
relevance/snippet/deep-link improvements, zero-results recovery, and the
supporting shared validators, backend service work, and DB indexes
> - The benefit is that operators can go from a vague query to the exact
item in a couple of keystrokes, on desktop and mobile, with shareable
filtered-search URLs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing public GitHub issue; describing the underlying feature
request inline (per feature_request template):
- **Problem:** Company search accepted only a plain text query. Users
could not filter results by status, assignee, project, label, or
recency; could not change result ordering; and got no guidance when
filters emptied the result set.
- **Desired solution:** Structured search filters (UI controls + typed
query operators + URL parameters), selectable sort modes, better
relevance and snippets with exact deep links, and parity between the
search page and the command palette.
- **Alternatives considered:** Client-side filtering of unfiltered
results (does not scale past the fetch limit); a separate "advanced
search" page (splits the surface and duplicates state handling).
Related (not duplicate) PRs found while searching: #4848 (issue search
query planning), #8235 (search rate limiting).
## What Changed
- **Shared contract:** new search filter/sort/count/zero-results types
and validators in `packages/shared` (`validators/search.ts`, types
index).
- **Backend:** `server/src/services/company-search.ts` supports issue
filters, sort modes, per-filter option counts, snippets, artifact
visibility, and zero-results loosen suggestions; single-statement match
replaces per-scope scans and predicates are trigram-index compatible
(~3.7s → ~350ms on a live 14.8k-hit corpus).
- **DB:** migration `0142_company_search_sort_indexes.sql` adds the
supporting indexes.
- **Search page (`ui/src/pages/Search.tsx`):** filter bar, removable
chips, mobile filter sheet with result-count preview, sort menu, URL
round-tripping, zero-results recovery UI.
- **Query operators (`ui/src/lib/search-query-parser.ts`):** typed
operators parsed into filters, operator autocomplete, filter pills.
- **Command palette:** operator-aware parsing and full-search handoff.
- **Stale-operator fix (latest commit):** typed operator filters are no
longer folded into persistent URL-filter state, so deleting a token
(e.g. removing `status:blocked` from the input) actually removes the
filter from subsequent requests; filter-control edits materialize
control state and strip typed tokens so a removed chip cannot resurrect
from the input.
## Verification
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Search.test.tsx` — 19 tests
including two new red→green regressions for the stale-operator paths
(both fail on the previous commit, pass now).
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/CommandPalette.test.tsx` and
`cd server && npx vitest run
src/services/company-search-service.test.ts` — operator parity and
backend filter/sort/count coverage.
- `cd ui && npx tsc --noEmit` — clean.
- Manual: open `/search`, type `auth status:blocked`, confirm the status
filter applies; delete `status:blocked`, confirm results are unfiltered
again; drive the same filters from the filter bar/chips/mobile sheet and
confirm the URL round-trips (reload/back/forward preserves state).
- Full end-to-end QA pass (9/9 acceptance checks) against the wireframes
on desktop (1280px) and mobile (390px) with a live API and browser
automation.
## Risks
- Additive migration (indexes only, no data rewrites) — safe to roll
forward; index creation cost is paid once at migrate time.
- Search request shape gains optional parameters only; old clients keep
working.
- Behavioral shift: filter-control edits now strip typed operator tokens
from the query text (their values persist as filter state) — deliberate,
so removed filters stay removed.
- Ranking changes alter result ordering for existing queries; covered by
service tests and the QA pass.
> 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
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, extended thinking + tool
use) — stale-operator-filter fix, regression tests, PR preparation.
- GPT-5 Codex (`codex_local` adapter) and Claude Opus 4.6
(`claude-opus-4-6`) — earlier implementation phases (backend contract,
filter UI, operators, ranking) under agent orchestration.
## 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
— pre-existing branch name retained to avoid closing/reopening the PR
- [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 (no
user-facing docs affected)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending re-run on latest commit)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending re-review of the stale-filter fix)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
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.
> - Execution workspaces are the bridge between Paperclip's control
plane and a local agent's checked-out repository state.
> - When a workspace is restored after a failed or interrupted run, the
recorded branch can disagree with the branch currently checked out on
disk.
> - A clean branch mismatch can be reconciled safely, but a dirty
mismatch needs a lossless path that does not discard uncommitted agent
work.
> - This pull request adds a quarantine-and-restore path that saves
dirty work to a rescue branch, restores the recorded branch, and exposes
the repair from the board UI and run page.
> - The benefit is that operators can recover wedged execution
workspaces without losing work or moving another live branch
unexpectedly.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this workspace-recovery failure, so
this PR includes the bug report inline.
**What happened**
A git worktree-backed execution workspace could become wedged when
Paperclip expected one branch but found a different checked-out branch
with dirty tracked or untracked files. The existing safe repair path
refused the restore, leaving the source task blocked with no lossless
one-click recovery path.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip should preserve dirty work before restoring the recorded
workspace branch. If another live workspace claims the checked-out
branch, or an attached runtime service is active, the repair should
refuse with clear operator-facing evidence instead of risking work loss
or file contention.
**Steps to reproduce**
Create a git worktree execution workspace whose persisted branch name
differs from the checked-out branch, add dirty tracked or untracked
files in that worktree, then trigger workspace validation or use the
branch reconcile endpoint. Before this change, the dirty mismatch
remained blocked because Paperclip had no quarantine restore mode.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Observed on the pre-fix workspace-recovery implementation. Verified on
this PR head after rebasing onto current `master`.
**Deployment mode**
Local trusted development/worktree deployments using git worktree
execution workspaces and optional workspace runtime services.
## What Changed
- Added dirty-worktree quarantine repair that creates a rescue branch,
commits dirty tracked and untracked files there, restores the recorded
branch, writes audit comments/activity, and preserves the live foreign
branch ref.
- Added `quarantine_restore` branch reconcile API support,
recovery-action resolution, source-task wake behavior, execution-review
preservation, claimant refusal, runtime-service refusal, and coverage
for the non-transactional git ordering.
- Added board UI controls for the repair action in the recovery card
plus a compact failed-run workspace recovery surface that uses the same
reconcile handlers.
- Hardened Greptile follow-up cases by best-effort restoring the
recorded branch after a mid-sequence rescue commit failure and by
refusing quarantine restore while attached runtime services are active.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts -t
"quarantine_restore"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
-t "workspace dirty quarantine branch repair"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts -t
"repairs clean unrecorded branch drift|adopts unrecorded forward branch
drift"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Earlier PR verification covered the route, service, heartbeat, UI
component, and run-page recovery surfaces; Cutter posted public preview
screenshots for the repair popover and run-page panel at
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9297#issuecomment-4926934211.
- GitHub PR checks are green on
`dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`.
- Greptile is 5/5 with zero annotations and no unresolved review threads
on `dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`.
## Risks
- Moderate risk because the change intentionally runs git commands
against local worktrees; the implementation refuses dirty repair when
another claimant or active runtime service is detected and records
rescue refs for auditability.
- Compatibility / release-note callout for self-hosted operators:
existing instances that left `enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward`
unset now get automatic forward branch reconciliation during heartbeat
workspace recovery. Operators who want the previous advisory-only
behavior can set `experimental.enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` to
`false`; dirty quarantine repair can likewise be disabled with
`experimental.enableWorkspaceDirtyQuarantineRepair: false`.
- If the git rescue succeeds but a later database write fails, the
worktree may already be restored while the recovery action remains open;
this ordering is documented in code because git side effects cannot
participate in the database transaction.
- UI risk is limited to the workspace recovery surfaces and covered by
component tests plus the existing Cutter visual preview.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, and local test execution. Earlier preserved commits on
this branch also show Claude Code / Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in their
commit metadata.
## 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] Branch naming exception documented: this PR preserves the existing
worktree branch requested for publication while keeping the PR title and
body public-facing
- [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 board UI keeps issue, agent, activity, and run state fresh
through polling across several pages and sidebar surfaces
> - When multiple components or browser tabs poll the same company data
at the same time, the API can receive bursts of duplicate issue-list
requests
> - Those duplicate requests increase database and server load without
returning meaningfully different data
> - This pull request adds server-side compression/coalescing plus
client-side visibility-aware and cross-tab shared polling
> - The benefit is lower request volume during normal board usage while
preserving fresh UI data for active users
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No exact public GitHub issue was found for this request.
Problem:
- The board can issue redundant polling requests for the same issue-list
data from multiple UI surfaces and tabs.
- In busy operator sessions, those bursts can trigger request-storm
behavior and unnecessary issue-list load.
- Expected behavior is to reuse identical in-flight work server-side and
reduce hidden-tab or duplicate-tab polling client-side while preserving
normal refresh behavior.
Related public context found during duplicate search:
- #8206 covers a different board UI 404-storm scope.
- #5165 covers separate issue-list behavior around page-size truncation.
## What Changed
- Added API compression middleware foundation and a company/created-at
index for heartbeat run access.
- Added server-side issue-list request storm detection and identical
in-flight request coalescing.
- Added UI fetch metadata, visibility-aware polling, and request
deduplication for issue/activity/client calls.
- Added cross-tab shared polling primitives and wired them into the
sidebar, inbox, dashboard, issue, project, routine, and agent surfaces.
- Resolved the latest `master` migration collision by keeping upstream
`0140_built_in_managed_resources.sql` and renumbering this branch's
heartbeat-run index migration to
`0141_heartbeat_runs_company_created_at_index.sql`; the SQL uses `CREATE
INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` for idempotency.
- Stabilized server heartbeat cleanup tests exposed by the PR check
matrix.
- Fixed the Greptile compression follow-up by weakening strong ETags on
encoded JSON responses and bypassing compression for streamed/download
responses.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — passed after resolving the latest
`master` conflict in `IssuesList.tsx` and updating the 200-result cap
expectations.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after the UI conflict resolution.
- `jq -e '.entries | length as $n | (map(.idx) | unique | length == $n)
and (map(.tag) | unique | length == $n)'
packages/db/src/migrations/meta/_journal.json` — passed after
renumbering the migration to `0141`.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts` -
passed after the compression follow-up.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts` - passed
after the compression follow-up.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed after the
compression follow-up.
- Greptile Review for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b` -
passed after the latest conflict/migration fix; all Greptile review
threads are resolved.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts
ui/src/api/client.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts
ui/src/lib/polling.test.ts ui/src/lib/cross-tab-poll.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/api/client.test.ts` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-worktree-suppression.test.ts` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` —
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- GitHub PR checks for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b`:
all GitHub Actions/status checks passed; Greptile, Superagent, Socket,
Snyk, build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized
server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, and commitperclip review are
green; Storybook visual regression and security-review were
skipped/neutral by policy.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Medium risk: issue-list coalescing changes request timing and cache
semantics for a hot API path.
- Medium risk: cross-tab polling uses browser coordination primitives,
so older or unusual browser environments need fallback behavior to stay
correct.
- Low migration risk: the new index migration is ordered after current
`master` and uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS`.
> 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 coding agent, GPT-5-based model, tool-enabled with
shell/git execution. Exact hosted deployment identifier and
context-window size were not surfaced in the agent runtime.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators need first-party agent capabilities for repeatable company
work, not just manually created one-off agents.
> - Built-in agents need to behave like normal company-scoped agents
while preserving approval gates, permissions, budgets, and audit trails.
> - Reflection and coaching work also needs bundled instructions, skill
content, and a routine so the feature can be installed and reset
predictably.
> - The API, database, UI, portability, and tests all need to agree on
the built-in lifecycle from not provisioned through setup, approval,
ready, paused, and reset.
> - This pull request adds built-in agent provisioning and the
Reflection Coach bundle end-to-end.
> - The benefit is a safer first-party path for Paperclip-managed agents
without bypassing the same governance model used for operator-created
agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this exact built-in agent and
Reflection Coach bundle work.
Problem/motivation:
- Paperclip did not have a first-party built-in agent lifecycle for
product-owned agents.
- Bundled agent resources such as default instructions, skills, and
routines needed managed ownership and reset semantics.
- Approval-gated companies needed built-in setup to preserve requested
adapter, budget, manager, and permission state through board approval.
- The board UI needed clear built-in badges, setup affordances,
readiness state, and bundle status without exposing secrets.
Proposed solution:
- Add a company-scoped built-in agent registry,
provisioning/reset/reconcile/status APIs, and Reflection Coach bundled
resources.
- Track bundled managed resources in the database with idempotent
migration behavior.
- Reuse existing agent approval, authorization, budget, and activity-log
paths instead of creating a bypass.
- Add UI setup, badges, gates, bundle panels, and route coverage for
built-in agents.
Duplicate search:
- Searched GitHub PRs for `built-in agents Reflection Coach
repo:paperclipai/paperclip`; only this PR was returned.
- Searched GitHub issues for the same query; no public issues were
returned.
## What Changed
- Added built-in agent definitions, lifecycle state derivation,
provisioning, reset, reconcile, status, and routine-control routes.
- Added the `built_in_managed_resources` migration and schema exports
for bundled instructions, skill, and routine ownership.
- Added the Reflection Coach built-in bundle with default instructions,
skill catalog content, routine template, default permissions, and
managed-resource drift handling.
- Added approval-aware provisioning behavior that preserves requested
adapter config, budgets, manager assignment, and built-in permissions
through hire approval.
- Added authorization and mutation gates for built-in agent and skill
changes, including consented Reflection Coach change paths.
- Added UI surfaces for built-in agent setup, roster/detail badges,
readiness gates, bundle status, routine controls, and route filtering.
- Added company import/export and validator coverage for built-in
managed resources and low-trust/red-team presets.
- Addressed Greptile follow-ups for pending approval reconciliation,
consent-gate error propagation, config-read authorization fallback,
approval-path manager preservation, and non-model adapter provisioning.
## Verification
Local verification:
- `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed with all gates clean.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 4
tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/components/BuiltInAgentGate.test.tsx
ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx
ui/src/components/BuiltInBundlePanel.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 64 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts
src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` passed: 3 files, 91 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after the rebase; `pnpm --filter ui
typecheck` passed after the final UI review fix.
Remote verification on latest head
`1c61f693a4ec881d739022b0e75a8ca8bf8c2cd8`:
- Merge state: `CLEAN`.
- Greptile: `5/5`, zero unresolved Greptile threads.
- PR check rollup: all checks successful, neutral, or skipped as
expected.
- Passing gates include Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, all server
shards, all workspace shards, all serialized server suites, e2e, Canary
Dry Run, policy, review, verify, Socket, Superagent, and Snyk.
## Risks
- This adds a new managed-resource table and migration; the migration
uses idempotent create/add/index guards and passed migration safety
checks.
- Built-in agent provisioning touches approval and authorization paths;
tests cover pending approval preservation, stale retry rejection,
consent gates, and config-read fallback behavior.
- Reflection Coach creates managed instructions, skill, and routine
resources; drift/reset behavior is covered by service tests and redacted
API responses.
- Non-model adapter setup now provisions a `needs_setup` built-in row
before command/endpoint fields are complete; this matches the server
lifecycle and is covered by the setup modal regression test.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5. Exact hosted model ID,
context-window size, and reasoning-mode labels are not exposed in this
runtime; tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI/API access, and local
code editing 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 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but
iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run
inspection.
> - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files,
saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an
agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work.
> - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run
templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention
metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work.
> - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved
inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while
preserving the existing design system and token rules.
> - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end:
database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden
harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests.
> - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable
outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal
task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary:
- Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one
place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation,
run output, and manual prompt history.
- Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs,
reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output
inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware
editing.
- Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who
create, fork, import, and tune skills.
- Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public
PR branch name follows contributor policy.
- Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill
Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this
feature.
## What Changed
- Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs,
test run retention, and reusable run templates.
- Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers,
frontmatter utilities, and status handling.
- Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs,
templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue
execution, and run-detail hydration.
- Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent
routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work.
- Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter
editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete
flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane
behavior.
- Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing
logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration
safety.
- Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff
from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed.
## Verification
- [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- [x] `pnpm check:token-gates`
- [x] `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts
ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5
files, 132 tests passed
- [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head
- [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head
## Risks
- Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema,
server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface.
- Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR
includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups.
- The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where
applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft
migration numbers should still be checked carefully.
- The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`;
the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation.
> 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 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool
use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip
coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body
were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree.
## 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 manages AI agents that each have an associated execution
environment (local, Kubernetes, etc.)
> - Instance administrators can create and delete environments;
currently the DELETE endpoint has no protection against deleting managed
or in-use environments
> - Deleting the managed local environment or the instance-default
environment would break all agents using those environments with no path
to recovery
> - The endpoint also suffered a TOCTOU race: a check-then-delete
pattern allowed the managed-local or default guard to pass if the
environment's role changed between the read and the delete
> - This pull request adds a blast-radius read endpoint so admins can
preview impact, hard-blocks the dangerous deletes atomically, cleans up
all dependent references after a valid delete, and fixes a concurrent
creation race in ensureLocalEnvironment
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#9251
## What Changed
- **New endpoint** `GET /api/environments/:id/delete-blast-radius`
(instance-admin gated): returns reference counts (agent defaults,
workspace selections, issue selections, project selections, secret
bindings, active leases, active setup sessions) and blocking reasons —
no config, env-var values, or secret data returned.
- **Atomic delete guard** `environmentService.removeIfDeletable(id)`:
performs the DELETE with an inline `WHERE driver != 'local' AND NOT
EXISTS (instanceSettings where defaultEnvironmentId = id)` predicate,
eliminating the TOCTOU race between the app-level check and the DB
write.
- **Route hardening**: `DELETE /environments/:id` now calls
`getDeleteBlastRadius` first (app-level check + logging), then calls
`removeIfDeletable` (atomic guard). If the atomic guard returns null the
route fetches a fresh blast-radius snapshot and rejects with a 409
Conflict carrying `deleteBlockedReasons`.
- **Reference cleanup on valid delete**: after a successful delete, the
route clears environment selections on all company execution workspaces,
issues, and projects; syncs env-var secret bindings to `{}` (removing
bindings for the deleted environment); syncs config secret refs to `[]`
for the environment target; and removes the SSH private-key secret if
one was stored.
- **Race fix in `ensureLocalEnvironment`**: the insert-or-nothing path
now catches a `environments_name_idx` unique-constraint violation and
falls through to the existing SELECT, treating the name conflict as
idempotent.
- **Shared types**: `EnvironmentDeleteBlastRadius` and
`EnvironmentDeleteBlockedReason` exported from `@paperclipai/shared`.
- **OpenAPI**: registers the new blast-radius endpoint; updates the
delete-environment response schema to document 403/404/409.
- **Tests**: 56 existing environment-route and service tests continue to
pass; new service-level regression tests assert the atomic guard rejects
`local`-driver environments and instance-default environments and
succeeds for deletable ones.
## Verification
```
corepack pnpm exec vitest run \
server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts \
server/src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts
# 56 tests, all passing
corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
node scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs
cd server && ../node_modules/.bin/tsc --noEmit
```
## Risks
- **Blast-radius endpoint auth**: guarded by
`assertCanAccessInstanceEnvironments`, the same gate as the existing
environment-list and delete routes. Non-admin callers receive 401/403
before any data is returned.
- **Atomic guard may reject a delete that the app-level check passed**:
this is intentional — it means the environment became protected between
the read and the write. The caller receives a fresh blast-radius
snapshot explaining why.
- **Secret cleanup ordering**: cleanup runs after the atomic DELETE
succeeds, in parallel across companies. If cleanup partially fails the
environment row is already gone; partial-cleanup state is recoverable by
re-running the sync operations. Risk: low — these are idempotent
upsert/sync operations.
- **ensureLocalEnvironment race fix**: swapping a unique-constraint
error for an idempotent SELECT adds one extra query on the conflict
path. This path is rare (only fires during concurrent boot) and is
significantly safer than the previous behavior.
- **No migration**: all changes are application-level; no schema changes
required.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model: claude-sonnet-4-6 (Claude Sonnet 4.6)
- Context window: 200k tokens
- Mode: agentic tool use via Paperclip agent system (Claude Code)
## 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. `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
- [ ] 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: Priya Raman <priya.raman@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Harold Kim <harold.kim@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The shared telemetry package (`packages/shared/src/telemetry`)
defines the public contract for first-party telemetry events — event
names, dimension shapes, and now retention windows
> - A new telemetry event, `codex.credential_health`, carries
credential-observability fields (enums, booleans, counts, coarse
buckets) — no token material and no PII
> - The retention window for this event and its class was undocumented
at the contract level, leaving data-infra and reviewers without a
discoverable source of truth
> - This pull request adds `retention.ts` as the canonical
retention-contract surface, assigns `codex.credential_health` to the
`operational_enum_count` class (90-day window), exports the contract
from the shared package, and updates the README
> - The benefit is that the retention window is discoverable from the
event definition rather than being implicit pipeline knowledge, and the
no-token/no-PII note is locked in a contract test rather than relying on
prose
## Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline description
follows the [feature request
template](.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml):
### Problem or motivation
`packages/shared/src/telemetry/` applies a 90-day retention window to
`codex.credential_health` events at the pipeline level, but this policy
is not stated anywhere in the shared telemetry contract. Without a
discoverable retention declaration, reviewers and data-infra must read
pipeline configuration to understand retention behaviour — there is no
contract-level source of truth. The `codex.credential_health` event
carries only enums, booleans, counts, and coarse buckets — no token
material and no PII.
### Proposed solution
Add a `retention.ts` module to the shared telemetry package that defines
the `operational_enum_count` retention class (90-day window) and maps
`codex.credential_health` to it. Export the contract from the package
index and add a focused contract test. Update the README with a
Retention section and a pointer in the Public Sources table. This is
additive documentation only — no runtime paths change.
### Alternatives considered
Keep retention implicit in pipeline configuration only. Rejected: this
leaves no discoverable, versioned contract for reviewers or data-infra,
and means every consumer must read pipeline config to understand
retention semantics. A schema-level declaration is the correct long-term
home.
### Roadmap alignment
Aligns with the telemetry contract hardening track — making implicit
operational knowledge explicit and testable at the shared-package level.
## What Changed
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/retention.ts`** (new): defines
`RETENTION_DAYS` (class → days) and `EVENT_RETENTION_CLASS` (event name
→ class). `operational_enum_count` is the only class: 90-day window for
enum/count/bucket events with no token material or PII.
`codex.credential_health` is the first entry. The `string` key type is
intentional to accommodate cross-system events (e.g. the Codex CLI) not
yet promoted to the first-party `PaperclipEventName` schema.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/retention.test.ts`** (new): three
focused assertions — `operational_enum_count` is 90 days,
`codex.credential_health` is assigned that class, and the resolved
window is 90 days.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/index.ts`**: exports
`RETENTION_DAYS`, `EVENT_RETENTION_CLASS`, and `RetentionClass` from the
shared package.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`**: adds `retention.ts` to
the Public Sources table and a new Retention section with a class
reference table and guidance for future assignments.
## Verification
- `git diff --check` passes (no whitespace errors)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run
src/telemetry/retention.test.ts src/telemetry/readme-contract.test.ts` —
runs the new contract tests and the existing readme-contract test
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — confirms the new
exports compile cleanly
- CI gates green
## Risks
Low risk. This is a documentation-only addition:
- No new telemetry event, dimension, emitter, or schema change
- No runtime code paths changed
- The new file is tree-shaken away in any consumer that doesn't import
from it
- `satisfies Record<string, number>` on `RETENTION_DAYS` ensures the
type stays correct as new classes are added
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) — Anthropic, 200k context
window, tool use enabled, no extended thinking mode. Used for code
authoring and PR composition.
## 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: Harold Kim <harold.kim@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Harold Kim <harold-kim@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Adapter packages are the bridge between the control plane and local
agent harnesses such as Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI.
> - ACP support was concentrated in a separate `acpx_local` adapter,
which made ACP feel like a separate agent choice instead of an execution
capability of the harness adapters.
> - Claude, Codex, and Gemini now have ACP-capable harnesses, so the
native adapter should own ACP selection, fallback, config, transcript
parsing, and environment diagnostics.
> - The standalone ACPX adapter still needs a compatibility path for
existing rows, but it should not be offered as an active adapter for new
agents.
> - This pull request moves the shared ACP runtime into
`@paperclipai/acpx-engine`, wires Claude/Codex/Gemini local adapters to
prefer ACP when prerequisites are available, and retires `acpx_local` to
a tombstone.
> - The benefit is one adapter per harness, richer ACP transcripts by
default where possible, and a migration path for existing Claude/Codex
ACPX agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Closes#5932 — the broken default `acpx_local` Claude path is replaced
by native `claude_local` ACP support, existing Claude/Codex ACPX rows
migrate to native adapters, and new agents no longer choose the
standalone ACPX adapter.
Refs #4893 — original merged ACPX local adapter runtime that this PR
replaces with native per-harness ACP engines.
Refs #6590 — prior ACPX-Claude seamlessness work folded into the new
native Claude ACP path.
Refs #197 — related open generic ACP/Kiro adapter work; this PR does not
close it because Kiro/custom generic ACP remains a separate adapter
decision.
Refs #7018 — related Kimi-specific `acpx_local` shell failure; this PR
retires the built-in standalone adapter but does not add a native Kimi
adapter.
Refs #8864 — related ACPX prompt/API guidance PR; this PR moves runtime
guidance into the shared/native ACP engine path instead of the old
standalone adapter.
Refs #8881 — related `acpx_local` POSIX shell failure from the old
`acpx` pin; this PR updates ACP dependencies but does not claim
custom/OMP ACP support as a first-class native adapter.
Refs #8964 — related open `acpx_local` stderr cleanup PR; this PR makes
the old runtime path obsolete for new agents but keeps it as a
non-closing reference.
Problem description:
- The standalone `acpx_local` adapter duplicates Claude/Codex agent
choices that already have first-class local adapters.
- ACP should be an execution engine capability of each harness adapter
when the underlying harness supports ACP.
- Existing `acpx_local` agents should either migrate to native harness
adapters or fail with an explicit retirement message instead of silently
falling back to the process adapter.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/acpx-engine` as the shared ACP execution,
session-codec, CLI formatter, and UI parser package.
- Wired `claude_local`, `codex_local`, and `gemini_local` to auto-select
ACP by default when prerequisites pass, with `engine=cli` opt-out and
`engine=acp` strict mode.
- Added ACP config schema/UI fields, environment checks, session-codec
preservation, transcript parsing, and adapter capability metadata for
the native adapters.
- Retired `acpx_local` to a server tombstone, removed its
UI/package/runtime image surface, and added a migration for existing
Claude/Codex ACPX agents.
- Updated package manifests, lockfile, release tooling, docs, Kubernetes
sandbox defaults, and tests.
## Verification
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/acpx-engine typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-gemini-local typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/acpx-engine exec vitest run`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local exec vitest
run src/server/acp.test.ts src/server/execute.acp-fallback.test.ts
src/ui/build-config.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local exec vitest
run src/server/acp.test.ts src/ui/build-config.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-gemini-local exec vitest
run src/server/acp.test.ts src/ui/build-config.test.ts
src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps &&
corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/adapter-session-codecs.test.ts
src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/adapters/metadata.test.ts
src/adapters/adapter-display-registry.test.ts
src/components/AgentConfigForm.test.ts
src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx
src/components/transcript/RunTranscriptView.test.tsx`
- `node --test scripts/bootstrap-npm-package.test.mjs
scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs
scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs`
Note: the server typecheck script calls `pnpm` internally; this dev
shell exposes pnpm through Corepack only, so I ran the two script steps
manually with `corepack pnpm`.
## Risks
- Migration changes existing `acpx_local` Claude/Codex agents to native
adapter types and clears old ACPX task sessions/runtime state.
- Custom ACP commands remain on the retired tombstone and will need a
separate future adapter/plugin path.
- ACP auto-selection depends on local Node and ACP server command
prerequisites; remote and unsupported environments fall back to CLI
unless `engine=acp` is explicit.
- `@paperclipai/acpx-engine` is a new public package and needs npm
trusted-publishing bootstrap before release automation can publish it.
> 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 via Codex coding agent. Exact hosted model build and
context-window size are not exposed in this runtime. Tool use included
shell execution, repository editing, GitHub CLI operations, and local
test/typecheck 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 (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>
Adds company skill fork precheck metadata, fork result/reassignment contracts, selected-agent reassignment during fork creation, and targeted server/shared test coverage.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The work timeline helps operators understand when agent and user
activity actually happened across a project.
> - The timeline view needs clearer interaction context so activity is
easier to inspect and reason about.
> - The existing story coverage did not fully exercise the denser
activity states needed to review this UI safely.
> - This pull request expands the work timeline data shape, service
behavior, UI rendering, tests, and Storybook story so the activity
timeline is easier to verify.
> - The benefit is a more inspectable timeline for project activity,
backed by targeted server and UI coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue found, so this PR describes the feature inline
following the feature request template.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and `ui/`.
**Problem or motivation**
Project operators need a clearer timeline view that shows when work
activity happened, how much agent time is represented inside the
selected window, and enough realistic activity states for safe visual
review. Sparse mock data and unbounded summary calculations make it
harder to trust the timeline when inspecting historical or capped
windows.
**Proposed solution**
Enrich the work timeline activity data returned by the service, render
clearer top-level timeline summary stats, clamp duration calculations to
the returned window, prorate token totals for partially visible spans,
and add Storybook/test coverage with realistic timeline activity data.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping the existing sparse timeline story was considered, but it would
leave dense activity layouts and selected-window summary behavior
under-reviewed. Counting full span usage for partially visible spans was
also considered, but it makes historical windows report activity outside
the displayed range.
**Roadmap alignment**
Searched `ROADMAP.md` for timeline/activity references and found no
conflicting planned core work.
**Additional context**
This PR does not include migrations and does not commit generated design
screenshots or images.
## What Changed
- Extended shared work timeline activity types and server timeline
service behavior.
- Updated the timeline page and work timeline chart for richer activity
rendering.
- Clamped timeline runtime summary calculations to the returned window
and prorated summary token usage for clipped spans.
- Added and updated targeted server/UI tests for timeline activity
behavior.
- Added Storybook timeline mock coverage and Storybook preview setup
needed by the story.
## Verification
- `git rebase origin/master` completed cleanly after fetching
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/work-timeline-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/timeline/WorkTimelineChart.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Timeline.test.tsx` — latest run: 3 files passed, 28 tests
passed.
- Greptile review completed at 5/5 with no unresolved Greptile threads
after fixes.
- GitHub checks completed green on the latest head SHA; Storybook visual
regression was skipped by the workflow.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` currently fails locally on existing
`origin/master` violations in `ui/src/components/ActivityCharts.tsx` and
`ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.tsx`; this PR does not modify
those files.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The change affects the work timeline service
response shape and timeline UI rendering, so regressions would likely
show up as missing/incorrect timeline activity display. Targeted service
and UI tests cover the changed behavior. No migrations are included.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex running GPT-5 as a tool-enabled coding agent with local
shell and GitHub CLI access. Exact runtime model ID/context-window size
was not exposed by the environment.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents run in heartbeat runs orchestrated by the server; run
lifecycle, retry scheduling, and the dashboard's run-activity metrics
are the subsystems involved
> - A spike in "failed" tasks traced to three causes: server restarts
killing in-flight runs and mislabeling them as failures, deterministic
workspace-validation loops when a worktree's branch diverged, and
provider quota/usage-limit errors being classified as generic transient
failures (putting agents into error state and polluting metrics)
> - Killed-then-recovered runs and quota waits are not product failures,
so both the runtime behavior and the reporting needed to distinguish
them
> - This pull request drains runs gracefully on shutdown with idempotent
restart retries, self-heals workspace branch mismatches, adds a
quota-aware failure class with reset-time retry, separates recovered
restart kills from true failures on the dashboard, and documents restart
hygiene for operators
> - The benefit is fewer spurious failures, automatic recovery instead
of manual repair, and dashboard metrics that reflect real failure rates
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists; describing the bug inline per the
bug-report template:
**What happened?**
In-flight heartbeat runs are marked `failed` when the server restarts,
even though a retry later succeeds. Worktrees whose checked-out branch
diverges from the issue branch fail workspace validation on every
subsequent run with no recovery path. Provider quota/usage-limit
responses are treated as generic transient upstream errors, putting
agents into an error state and retrying before the quota window resets.
The dashboard counts all of these as true failures, inflating failure
metrics.
**Expected behavior**
Graceful shutdown should interrupt (not fail) running runs and chain
exactly one recovery retry. Workspace validation should repair
recoverable branch mismatches automatically. Quota errors should get
their own error class with the retry scheduled at the provider reset
time and the agent left idle. The dashboard should report recovered
restart kills separately from true failures.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a heartbeat run, then restart the server (SIGTERM) while it is
in flight — the run lands as `failed` with a process-loss error code
even when its retry succeeds
2. Check out an issue whose worktree branch has diverged (e.g. after a
force-moved branch) — every subsequent run fails
`workspace_validation_failed` deterministically
3. Drive an agent into a provider usage-limit window — the run fails as
a generic transient upstream error and the agent enters an error state
instead of idling until the reset time
**Paperclip version or commit**
master (base c07e650cd)
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted dev plane (Linux, node server + embedded Postgres)
## What Changed
- Graceful shutdown (SIGTERM hook) now marks in-flight runs
`interrupted` instead of `failed` and enqueues an idempotent
process-loss retry (pre-insert existence check on `retryOfRunId`
prevents duplicates; bursts chain exactly one retry per interrupted run)
- Run-liveness classification routes `interrupted` to `needs_followup`
rather than `failed`
- Workspace validation self-heals branch mismatch / missing-branch
states instead of failing deterministically on every run
- New `provider_quota` error class: session/usage-limit responses
schedule the retry at the provider reset time and leave the agent idle
(not errored); fixes a case where a quota-terminated run with subtype
`success` was misclassified as failed; HTTP 529 remains transient
- Dashboard run-activity query separates recovered restart kills from
true failures via a recursive CTE over `retry_of_run_id` (ancestors of a
succeeded retry count as recovered), adds a per-day failed-by-error-code
breakdown, and binds the window start as a timestamptz string
- Activity charts UI: amber "Recovered" segment with legend and per-day
error-code tooltip; success-rate chart counts recovered runs as
successes
- New ops runbook: `docs/deploy/dev-plane-restart-hygiene.md`
## Verification
- Greptile follow-up fixes on `992705edd`: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` (209
tests); `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`; `git diff
--check`
- Post-rebase CI fixes: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts`; `pnpm exec
vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` (227 tests);
`pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `npm test` server suites covering the changes:
`heartbeat-process-recovery`, `heartbeat-stop-metadata`,
`heartbeat-retry-scheduling` (95 tests), quota parse +
execute/retry-scheduling suites (100 tests), workspace self-heal suites
(200 tests), dashboard run-activity tests (3 tests) — all green,
typecheck exit 0
- Dashboard CTE cross-checked against a real development database: two
restart-burst days moved from 17 to 8 and 19 to 6 true failures once
recovered kills were separated, matching manual retry-chain inspection
- Screenshot verification of the real ActivityCharts component
(recovered segment + tooltip) during QA
## Risks
- Behavioral shift: runs killed by a restart no longer surface as
`failed`; anyone consuming raw run statuses will see `interrupted` (new
status value) — dashboards/queries in this repo were updated accordingly
- Retry chaining on repeated restarts is bounded (one chained retry per
interruption) but a pathological restart loop still delays work rather
than failing it; the runbook covers operator hygiene for that case
- Dashboard query adds a recursive CTE; cost is bounded by the
day-window row count and was verified against production-sized data
- No schema migrations; low migration risk
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — claude-fable-5 via Claude Code / Paperclip agent
harness, extended thinking with tool use; implementation commits also
produced with Codex CLI (GPT-5 class) agents under the same harness
## 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)
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board sidebar is the primary navigation surface for operators
scanning companies, projects, tasks, agents, and related control-plane
tools.
> - Goals still has a route and product surface, but keeping the
top-level sidebar link always visible makes it part of the default
navigation whether or not that surface is ready for every operator.
> - Instance experimental settings already provide a controlled place to
expose optional UI surfaces while they are being evaluated.
> - This pull request adds a dedicated experimental setting for
restoring the Goals sidebar link.
> - The benefit is a quieter default sidebar with an explicit escape
hatch for operators who still need the Goals entry point.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this internal task, so the feature
request is described inline.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, and `packages/shared`.
**Problem or motivation**
The Goals route remains available, but the top-level Goals sidebar entry
makes that surface part of the default operator navigation. While the
goals surface is still being evaluated, operators need a quieter default
sidebar without losing an escape hatch for teams that still rely on the
link.
**Proposed solution**
Add a boolean instance experimental setting, `enableGoalsSidebarLink`,
default it to `false`, and render the Goals sidebar link only when the
setting is enabled. Expose the toggle in Instance Experimental Settings
so operators can restore the link without changing routes or rebuilding
the app.
**Alternatives considered**
- Remove the Goals route entirely: rejected because this task only asks
to hide the sidebar entry point and preserve access for teams evaluating
goals.
- Keep the sidebar link always visible: rejected because it does not
provide the requested quieter default navigation.
- Hard-code a local UI flag: rejected because instance experimental
settings already provide the expected operator-controlled pattern.
**Roadmap alignment**
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; no overlapping goals/sidebar/experimental roadmap
entry was found.
**Additional context**
The `/goals` route is preserved. This PR only gates the sidebar
navigation item.
## What Changed
- Added `enableGoalsSidebarLink` to the shared instance experimental
settings type and validator, defaulting to `false`.
- Normalized the new setting in the server instance settings service.
- Hid the Goals sidebar nav item unless the new setting is enabled.
- Added a Goals Sidebar Link toggle to the Instance Experimental
Settings page.
- Updated shared, server, sidebar, and settings page tests for the new
setting.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/instance.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- `git merge-tree --write-tree HEAD origin/master`
- Searched for duplicate/related PRs by title and
`enableGoalsSidebarLink`; none found.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md` for overlapping goals/sidebar/experimental
entries; none found.
## Risks
Low risk. The main behavior shift is that operators who depended on the
sidebar Goals link need to enable the new experimental toggle. The
`/goals` route itself is not removed.
> 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 Paperclip CodexCoder session with repository
tool access and command execution. Exact API model identifier and
context window were not exposed by the Paperclip harness.
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is an open-source app that lets teams run AI agents for
work tasks; each agent session uses an execution workspace — a git
checkout — to track the agent's active code state.
> - Every execution workspace has an expected target branch
(`PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_BRANCH`). The workspace git HEAD should always
point to that branch so agents commit in the right place.
> - When workspace git HEAD diverges from the expected branch — for
example after a harness branch-name fix or an accidental `checkout -b`
during a CI-retrigger — the discrepancy must be corrected before agents
can continue safely.
> - Operators (board users) need a controlled, audited path to reconcile
a workspace's live branch back to the expected target, with an override
escape-hatch for cases where the normal forward path is blocked.
> - This pull request adds a board-only `POST
/api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` service operation and
route that validates safety preconditions, resolves matching
recovery-action fingerprints, posts source-issue audit comments, and
records the reconciliation outcome.
> - The benefit is that operators can correct branch divergence through
the API with a full audit trail, instead of via raw database edits.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Context below follows the
feature-request template format.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — REST API & orchestration services; packages/shared — request
validation.
**Problem or motivation**
Execution workspaces have an expected branch record that must match the
checked-out worktree branch. When the live git branch and stored branch
record drift apart, operators currently lack a first-class, audited API
to reconcile the record. The fallback is manual database repair or
workspace replacement, both of which are risky and hard to audit.
**Proposed solution**
Add a board-only execution workspace branch reconciliation operation.
`forward` mode re-inspects the server-side git state and only updates
the branch record when the stored branch is an ancestor of the
checked-out branch. `override` mode is a break-glass path that requires
board access and an operator reason. Both modes require a clean, idle
workspace, write audit details, post a source-issue audit comment, and
resolve the matching workspace-validation recovery action.
**Alternatives considered**
Manual database edit (no durable audit trail and easy to mistype),
recreating the workspace (heavier operational disruption), or trusting
client-supplied ancestry evidence (unsafe because the server must verify
the git state itself).
**Roadmap alignment**
This is incremental hardening for execution-workspace recovery and
operator controls. It does not duplicate a public roadmap item.
**Additional context**
The endpoint is intended for operator recovery, not normal agent control
flow, so the generated OpenAPI metadata and runtime route both classify
it as board-only.
## What Changed
- Added `reconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranchSchema` discriminated-union
validator (`forward` with optional reason, `override` requiring a
non-empty reason string) to
`packages/shared/src/validators/execution-workspace.ts`
- Exported `ReconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranch` type and the new schema
from the shared package index
- Added board-only reconcile-branch service operation in the execution
workspaces service: safety checks, recovery-action fingerprint
resolution, source-issue audit comment, and outcome recording
- Added clean-worktree and stopped-runtime-service preconditions before
branch-record mutation.
- Marked the reconcile route as board-only in OpenAPI generated auth
metadata.
- Added `POST /api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` route
wired to the new service operation with board-permission gate
- Extended `execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts` and
`execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` to cover: safety-check rejection,
override-reason validation, audit-comment posting, and recovery-action
fingerprint resolution (2 files / 19 tests)
## Verification
```sh
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
```
## Risks
- **Board-only gate:** the operation is gated behind the board
permission; no agent can trigger it without operator authorization.
- **Override requires reason:** the `override` mode requires a non-empty
reason string so every bypass is audited.
- **Idempotent recovery-action resolution:** re-running with the same
fingerprint is safe; duplicate resolution is a no-op.
- **No execution-state mutation:** the route records a reconciliation
intent and updates the branch record; it does not restart the workspace
or modify running agent state.
- Overall risk: **low**.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Claude Sonnet 4.6)
- Context window: 200 K tokens
- Capabilities: tool use, code execution, multi-turn context
Follow-up safety commit:
- Provider: OpenAI
- Model ID: `codex` / GPT-5 with tool use and code 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 (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
(`feat/execution-workspace-branch-reconciliation-route`) 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The issue/task orchestration subsystem tracks parent–child and
blocker–dependent relationships, forming a directed acyclic (in
intention) subtree below each root issue
> - Agents and operators have no lightweight way to inspect the
dependency and wake state across an entire issue subtree — they must
walk the tree issue-by-issue, making multiple round-trips with full
object fetches
> - A bounded, read-only subtree diagnostic endpoint lets callers
understand the health of an entire work tree (which nodes are blocked,
which are cycling, which have pending wakes) from a single authenticated
request
> - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/subtree`, a
depth/node/per-node capped traversal that reuses the blocker and wake
projection helpers from the companion blocker and wake diagnostics
endpoints (see Refs #9114, #9133)
> - The benefit is that platform operators, monitoring, and coaching
tooling can surface \"why is this subtree stalled?\" across all nodes
without database access or unbounded graph walks, using only data the
caller already has read permission for
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9114 (companion blocker diagnostics endpoint — blocker projection
helpers reused here)
Refs #9133 (companion wake diagnostics endpoint — wake projection
helpers reused here)
## What Changed
- **New route** `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/subtree` in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts`: returns a bounded subtree traversal
rooted at `:id`, with depth/node/per-node caps and explicit truncation
flags
- **Cycle-safe traversal**: visited-node set prevents infinite loops on
any accidental cycle in the ancestry graph
- **Per-node authorization**: each subtree node is individually filtered
through `assertIssueReadAllowed`; unauthorized nodes are omitted from
the response and do not influence aggregate counts
- **Blocker and wake reuse**: per-node blocker rows and wake events are
projected through the same helpers as #9114 and #9133 — raw wake
payloads, raw errors, activity details, and trigger detail fields are
stripped
- **Low-trust filtering**: the `mention-scoped` low-trust path redacts
node/blocker identifiers for unauthorized actors, consistent with #9133
- **Truncation reporting**: response includes `depthTruncated`,
`nodeTruncated`, and per-node `blockersTruncated`/`wakesTruncated` flags
when caps are hit
- **Shared types** in `@paperclipai/shared`:
`IssueSubtreeDiagnosticsResponse` and supporting node/blocker/wake types
exported from the shared package
- **OpenAPI tag registration** for the new route
- **API reference docs** in
`skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md`
- **Test coverage**
(`server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts`,
embedded Postgres): happy path, quiet singleton (no children/blockers),
node cap truncation, mention-scoped low-trust filtering, cross-company
denial
## Verification
```bash
# Subtree diagnostics tests only
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts
# Full diagnostics suite (blocker + wake + subtree)
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-subtree-diagnostics-routes.test.ts
# Type-check shared and server packages
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
# Whitespace / diff check
git diff --check
```
All commands passed locally (5 subtree tests, 17 total across the three
diagnostics test files).
## Risks
- **No schema or migration changes** — read-only projection over
existing relations; no DDL risk
- **Bounded traversal** — depth, node count, and per-node blocker/wake
caps prevent unbounded graph walks; truncation is reported explicitly in
the response
- **Auth boundary** — root issue read is company-scoped and checked
before the subtree is built; each subtree node is individually
authorized; cross-company access is denied at `assertCompanyAccess`
- **No raw payloads** — raw wake payload, raw error, activity details,
and trigger detail fields are stripped from all nodes, consistent with
the companion endpoints
- Low overall risk; the endpoint is additive and read-only
## Model Used
- **Provider:** Anthropic
- **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`)
- **Tool use:** yes (file reads, edits, bash execution, Paperclip API
calls)
- **Reasoning mode:** standard (no extended thinking)
## 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/issue lifecycle subsystem tracks when agents wake up, are
suppressed, or are deferred, recording each wake request in
`agent_wakeup_requests` and each defer/suppression event in
`activity_log`
> - When an agent appears stuck or doesn't resume after a dependency
resolves, there is currently no read-only API surface to inspect its
wake history — operators must query the database directly
> - Making wake history queryable via a first-class endpoint lets
operators, support, and monitoring tools diagnose "why didn't this agent
wake up?" without database access
> - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/wakes`,
returning a bounded 14-day/50-row projection of wake requests and
defer/suppression activity events, with a deterministic `diagnosis`
field and a `likelyReason` inference — including a Case-B inference ("no
wake enqueued because a visible blocker is not done") that reuses the
blocker readiness data from the companion blocker diagnostics endpoint
(see Refs #9114)
> - The benefit is that platform operators can answer "why is this agent
not waking up?" from a safe, read-only HTTP endpoint rather than needing
direct database access, and CI/monitoring can assert expected wake
behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9114 (companion blocker diagnostics endpoint, already merged —
this PR extends the same diagnostic surface to wake/activity history)
## What Changed
- **New route** `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/wakes` in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts`: returns a bounded (14-day window, 50-row
cap) projection of `agent_wakeup_requests` rows and wake-relevant
`activity_log` rows (defer/suppression events)
- **Sanitized projection**: raw `payload`, `details`, `error`, and
`triggerDetail` fields are stripped; unknown free-form `source`,
`reason`, and `status` values are projected to `"other"` to prevent
schema bleed
- **Deterministic `diagnosis` and `likelyReason` fields**: includes
Case-B inference ("no wake enqueued — visible blocker not done") that
calls the existing blocker-readiness helper from Slice 1 (#9114) so the
wake surface can explain missing wakes caused by outstanding blockers
- **Auth**: `assertCompanyAccess` + `assertIssueReadAllowed`;
cross-company requests are denied; Case-B blocker inference filters by
caller trust level so hidden (low-trust) blockers are mentioned but not
identified
- **Types in `@paperclipai/shared`**: `IssueWakeDiagnosticsResponse`,
`WakeEvent`, `ActivityEvent` exported from the shared package
- **OpenAPI tag registration** for the new route
- **Skill reference docs** in
`skills/paperclip/references/api-reference.md` documenting the endpoint
contract
- **Test coverage**
(`server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts`, embedded
Postgres): happy path, empty/null diagnosis, Case-B inference, low-trust
hidden blocker, cross-company denial, raw blob minimization, cap
behaviour, combined blocker+wake test run
## Verification
```bash
# Wake diagnostics tests only
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts
# Wake + blocker diagnostics together (integration)
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-wake-diagnostics-routes.test.ts
# Type-check shared and server packages
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
# Whitespace / diff check
git diff --check
```
All commands passed locally.
## Risks
- **No schema or migration changes** — this is a read-only projection
over existing tables; no DDL risk.
- **Bounded queries** — 14-day window + 50-row cap limit per call; no
unbounded scans.
- **Auth boundary** — cross-company access is denied at
`assertCompanyAccess`; Case-B inference uses the same per-node trust
filtering as the blocker endpoint so low-trust blockers are acknowledged
but not identified.
- Low overall risk; the endpoint is additive and read-only.
## Model Used
- **Provider:** Anthropic
- **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`)
- **Tool use:** yes (file reads, edits, bash execution, Paperclip API
calls)
- **Reasoning mode:** standard (no extended thinking)
## 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
> - Agents block each other with `blockedByIssueIds` relationships to
express dependencies
> - Users and tooling have no lightweight way to inspect *why* an issue
is blocked or whether its blockers are themselves ready to resolve
> - A read-only diagnostic endpoint over the existing blocker graph lets
callers understand dependency chains without requiring a full issue-tree
traversal
> - This pull request adds `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` —
a bounded, read-only projection over each blocker's readiness state
> - The benefit is that callers can surface blocking-chain diagnosis
(e.g. "waiting on N blockers, M of which are themselves blocked") from a
single authenticated request, using only data they already have read
permission for
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Feature description:
**Subsystem affected:** `server/` — REST API & orchestration services;
`packages/shared` — types, constants, validators, API paths
**Problem or motivation**
There is no API endpoint to inspect *why* an issue is blocked or to get
a per-blocker readiness summary. Clients must walk the issue graph
manually or fetch full issue objects, which requires multiple
round-trips and is expensive.
**Proposed solution**
A single `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` endpoint returns a
bounded projection: root issue summary, an ordered blocker list with
per-blocker `readiness` state, and a top-level `diagnosis` field
summarizing overall blocking status. Authorization mediation omits
blockers the caller cannot read, so `diagnosis` only reflects visible
data.
**Alternatives considered**
A general graph-walk query (too broad/expensive for a targeted
diagnostic call); enriching the existing `GET /api/issues/:id` response
(too coupled to the main response shape and adds weight for callers that
do not need blocker detail).
**Roadmap alignment**
Read-only observability surface over existing data; no database schema
changes. This aligns with tooling that helps users understand dependency
state without mutating anything.
## What Changed
- Added `GET /api/issues/:id/diagnostics/blockers` route to the server
- Returns per-blocker `readiness` state and a top-level `diagnosis`
field summarizing overall blocking status
- Enforces `issue:read` authorization per-blocker: unauthorized blockers
are omitted and do not influence `diagnosis` or `readiness` values
- Added shared TypeScript response types in `@paperclipai/shared`
- Added route-level tests using embedded Postgres
- Added API documentation in the `paperclip` skill
## Verification
```sh
./node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-diagnostics-routes.test.ts
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
```
All three commands pass locally.
## Risks
- Read-only endpoint over existing relations — no writes, no schema or
migration changes — low risk
- Authorization mediation intentionally omits unauthorized blockers from
both the list and from `diagnosis`/`readiness`; callers with partial
access will see a narrower picture than the full blocker graph
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`)
- Context window: 200k tokens
- Mode: Tool use, code generation, extended reasoning
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents run in git worktrees tied to a workspace branch; when the
actual branch diverges from the expected one (e.g. a parent feature
branch was renamed), Paperclip currently has no structured field to
report *why* the branch is incoherent or whether it can be
auto-reconciled
> - The workspace-incoherence fingerprint already captures SHA
mismatches, but there is no evidence field distinguishing "actual branch
is a descendant of expected" (safe to fast-forward) from "branches have
diverged" (needs human review) or "SHAs are unavailable" (unknown)
> - Operators and future recovery flows need a typed verdict to make
decisions without re-running git commands themselves
> - This pull request adds `ancestryVerdict` and `plainLanguageReason`
evidence fields computed via `git merge-base --is-ancestor`, and
scaffolds the off-by-default `enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward`
instance setting with no runtime behavior yet
> - The benefit is that future recovery logic can branch on a typed
verdict rather than parsing prose, while the fingerprint v1 payload
stays stable
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue pre-exists for this diagnostic addition.
**Problem or motivation**
When Paperclip detects that an agent's actual workspace branch differs
from the recorded expected branch, the current fingerprint carries only
raw SHAs. There is no typed field indicating whether the actual branch
is a descendant of the expected one (safe reconcile path) vs. a true
divergence (requires human intervention) vs. an indeterminate state
(missing SHAs or git errors). Downstream recovery logic cannot branch
safely without re-running git.
**Proposed solution**
Add `ancestryVerdict` and `plainLanguageReason` to the workspace
incoherence evidence type; compute via `git merge-base --is-ancestor`;
scaffold a feature-flag for future forward-reconcile behavior
(`enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward`, off by default, not yet read
by any runtime path).
**Alternatives considered**
Encoding the verdict in the existing fingerprint string was rejected
because the fingerprint is a stable identity hash, not a mutable
evidence bag. Changing it would break monitors keyed on the string.
**Roadmap alignment**
Supports future workspace auto-reconcile work; ROADMAP.md has no
conflicting entry for this diagnostic layer.
## What Changed
- `packages/shared/src/types/heartbeat.ts` adds `ancestryVerdict` and
`plainLanguageReason` fields to `WorkspaceIncoherenceEvidence`
- `packages/shared/src/types/instance.ts` adds
`enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` boolean (off by default)
- `packages/shared/src/validators/instance.ts` exports the new flag from
the settings validator
- `server/src/services/workspace-runtime.ts` computes `ancestryVerdict`
via `git merge-base --is-ancestor`; falls back to `unknown` on missing
SHAs or command errors; excludes verdict fields from fingerprint v1
computation
- `server/src/services/instance-settings.ts` wires the new setting
through to the settings service
- Tests updated in `workspace-runtime.test.ts`,
`instance-settings-service.test.ts`, `instance-settings-routes.test.ts`,
and `instance.test.ts` (104 tests total)
## Verification
```bash
pnpm exec vitest run \
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts \
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts \
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts \
packages/shared/src/validators/instance.test.ts
# 104 tests pass
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
# both exit 0
```
Manual: trigger a workspace incoherence event and confirm the evidence
object carries `ancestryVerdict` and `plainLanguageReason`; confirm the
fingerprint string stays `workspace_incoherence:v1:sha256:...`.
## Risks
**Low risk.** Purely additive. Fingerprint v1 payload is unchanged. The
new flag has no runtime effect in this PR. `git merge-base
--is-ancestor` exits non-zero for both "not an ancestor" and "command
error"; both are handled and collapsed to typed values with a prose
reason.
## Model Used
Provider: Anthropic, model: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`),
200k context, tool use 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 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
- [ ] 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board UI is the main daily navigation surface for agents,
projects, and their related resources.
> - Operators need a lightweight way to keep frequently used agents and
projects close without changing company-wide ordering or ownership.
> - Resource memberships already model per-user relationships to
projects and agents, so they are the right place to store user-specific
starred state.
> - This pull request extends that membership contract with a starred
timestamp and exposes star controls in list/detail views.
> - The sidebar then uses those starred memberships to show compact,
user-specific shortcuts.
> - The benefit is faster navigation without introducing a separate
favorites system or leaking preferences across users.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists.
Feature request:
## Problem or motivation
Users cannot pin frequently used agents or projects into the main
sidebar. Returning to important resources requires scanning full
project/agent lists or navigating through detail pages, which adds
friction to repeated daily workflows.
## Proposed solution
Store a per-user `starred_at` timestamp on agent and project
memberships, expose API actions to set or clear that state, add star
toggle controls to list/detail pages, and render starred projects and
agents as compact sidebar shortcuts.
## Alternatives considered
A separate favorites table would work, but it would duplicate membership
scoping and require another resource relationship model. Keeping starred
state on memberships preserves existing company/user boundaries and
avoids a second source of truth.
## Roadmap alignment
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; no overlapping planned core work for starred
resource/sidebar navigation was found.
## Additional context
The affected subsystems are `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`,
and `ui/`. The migration is idempotent with `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so
environments that saw an earlier local migration name can still apply
the final ordered migration safely.
## What Changed
- Added idempotent migration `0133_resource_membership_stars` for
`starred_at` columns and lookup indexes on agent/project memberships.
- Extended shared resource membership types and validators with starred
metadata and actions.
- Updated server resource membership services/routes to read and mutate
starred resource state.
- Added reusable star toggle UI and resource membership hook support for
starred state.
- Added starred projects and agents sidebar rendering, plus star
controls on list and detail pages.
- Added focused shared, server, and UI coverage for starred membership
behavior and sidebar rendering.
## Verification
- Rebased and force-with-lease pushed current PR head
`a086fc965391c9e50a51b5b83b5b44a797b2a6f4` onto current
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`; `gh pr view` reports `MERGEABLE` with no
merge conflicts. GitHub checks are green for this fresh head.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` passed after the
rebase: 8 files, 143 tests.
- Greptile re-review is 5/5; the remaining screenshot thread was
resolved as non-blocking because this task explicitly requested no
screenshots/images in the PR.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx` passed after the
mobile pending-spinner fix.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 68
tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed
db/shared/server, then failed in pre-existing UI code outside this PR:
`src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.tsx` missing `@xterm/*` type declarations
and `previous` possibly null.
- Checked that the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md` and found no overlapping planned core work for
starred resource/sidebar navigation.
- Searched existing GitHub PRs for duplicate starred-resource/sidebar
work and found none.
## Risks
- Migration touches membership tables. The SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` for
columns and indexes so environments that saw an earlier local migration
name can still apply this safely.
- Sidebar ordering and visibility changes could affect users who rely on
the previous flat sidebar layout.
- Starred state is per-user membership metadata; code paths must
continue preserving company/user scoping around memberships.
> 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 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with shell/GitHub access.
Context window not disclosed by the runtime.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pipeline health reports give operators early warnings when a
workflow step cannot run cleanly.
> - Failed stage automation is surfaced as an `automation_failed` health
warning for the affected item.
> - A single item can have repeated failed automation rows for the same
stage, especially after retries or repeated failed attempts.
> - Rendering every matching row creates duplicate warnings that make
the pipeline look noisier than it is.
> - This pull request deduplicates failed automation warnings by the
item/stage pair before adding them to the health report.
> - The benefit is that repeated failures for the same item in the same
stage produce one actionable warning, while distinct items still remain
visible.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8866
Bug: pipeline health could emit duplicate `automation_failed` warnings
when the input contained repeated failed automation rows for the same
live item and stage. Reviewers should expect one warning per
`stageId:caseId` pair, not one warning per backing execution row.
## What Changed
- Deduplicated failed automation warnings with per-stage case tracking
in `computePipelineHealth`, avoiding collision-prone composite string
keys before pushing `automation_failed` warnings.
- Added shared Vitest coverage for a single automation failure,
duplicate same-stage same-item dedupe, separate warnings for different
item IDs in the same stage, the same item ID in different stages, and
colon-delimited ID collision cases.
- Kept pipeline route behavior unchanged; this PR only changes shared
warning rendering and direct shared tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest packages/shared/src/pipeline-health.test.ts`
- 1 test file passed
- 5 tests passed
- PR #9090 remote checks on `bbbb2d4627f5be17ca210dedb9edb91edd047df8`
- All Paperclip CI/status checks passed
- Greptile Confidence Score: 5/5, 0 comments added, 0 unresolved
Greptile threads
No route test changed because this PR does not change the route's
failed-automation query or normalization behavior.
## Risks
Low risk. The change only suppresses duplicate `automation_failed`
warnings when both `stageId` and `caseId` match. Distinct items in the
same stage still produce separate warnings.
> 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 coding agent in the Paperclip local adapter
environment; exact model snapshot and context-window metadata were not
exposed in the runtime. Tool use and code 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 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When you swap an agent's adapter (e.g. from one LLM provider to
another), the server merges the incoming PATCH body with stored config —
keys listed in \`ADAPTER_AGNOSTIC_KEYS\` are preserved regardless of
which adapter is active
> - That constant was defined independently in two places:
\`server/src/agents.ts\` (used by the adapter-swap route) and
\`ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.ts\` (used by the UI patch builder)
> - PR #8975 fixed the bug where \`paperclipSkillSync.desiredSkills\`
was dropped on adapter swap by adding it to the server-side constant,
but the UI-side copy was not updated in the same PR — creating ongoing
drift risk
> - This pull request hoists \`ADAPTER_AGNOSTIC_KEYS\` into
\`packages/shared\` so both consumers import the same constant
> - The benefit is a single source of truth: any future key addition is
made in one place and both the server route and the UI patch builder
pick it up automatically, with a drift guard to catch any accidental
re-duplication
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8975 — follow-up deduplication: #8975 fixed the runtime bug but
left the constant duplicated across server and UI. This PR closes that
gap.
## What Changed
- Added \`ADAPTER_AGNOSTIC_KEYS\` constant and \`AdapterAgnosticKey\`
type to \`packages/shared/src/adapter-agnostic-keys.ts\`
- Updated \`server/src/agents.ts\` to import the shared constant,
removing the local copy
- Updated \`ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.ts\` to import the shared
constant, removing the local copy
- Added \`packages/shared/src/adapter-agnostic-keys.test.ts\`: drift
guard asserting the expected key set and both consumer import sites
## Verification
\`\`\`bash
pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/adapter-agnostic-keys.test.ts
ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-instructions-routes.test.ts
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck
\`\`\`
All 15 tests pass across the three files; all three packages typecheck
clean.
## Risks
Low risk — behavior-preserving refactor. The key set is unchanged; only
the import source changes. The drift guard will fail loudly if someone
accidentally re-introduces a local copy or modifies one without updating
the other.
> 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
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (\`claude-sonnet-4-6\`)
- Context: standard context window, tool use enabled
- Reasoning: standard mode (no extended thinking)
## 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)
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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.
> - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other
environment-bound secrets.
> - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not
model values that should differ by human operator.
> - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing
whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value.
> - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped
runtime checks deterministic and auditable.
> - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user
values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime
resolution gates.
> - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user
provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required
user secrets or active definitions are unavailable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #224
Refs #6057
This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core
secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It
is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime
secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the
responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time.
Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as
#1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full
user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here.
## What Changed
- Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values,
keeping stored values out of access metadata.
- Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to
pick them alongside existing secret refs.
- Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve
against the human responsible for the run.
- Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter
dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are
inactive.
- Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access.
- Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user
attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be
resolved.
- Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures
surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures.
- Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes.
- Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered
incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`,
`0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127`
migrations.
- Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR
contains code/docs/tests only.
## Verification
- PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`.
- PASS: `git diff --check`
- PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg
'^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true`
produced no files.
- PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130`
with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`,
`0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`,
`0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`.
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests)
- PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final
Greptile cleanup fixes)
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests
after the final rebase CI fix)
- PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery,
project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors,
watchdog, and stale queue paths.
- PASS: GitHub checks are green on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck +
Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e,
Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review.
- PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5,
and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated
threads.
## Risks
- Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible
user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs
before adapter dispatch.
- `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without
values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind
explicitly.
- External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically
provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side
access for non-local vaults.
- The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release
validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge.
- The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream
migrations; the branch migrations use guarded
column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older
draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects.
> 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 (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter
with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal
reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## 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.
> - Environment sandboxes already support custom image creation and
refresh through a temporary SSH setup session.
> - The existing workflow makes operators copy an SSH command into an
external terminal before they can install packages or make image
changes.
> - That extra context switch is slower, easier to get wrong, and less
integrated with the setup session Paperclip already tracks.
> - This pull request adds an embedded browser SSH terminal for custom
image setup, so operators can start working in the target sandbox
directly from the environment configuration flow.
> - The implementation uses short-lived websocket attachment tokens,
session-lifetime SSH host-key pinning, and server-managed terminal
cleanup so the feature fits the existing setup-session boundary.
> - The benefit is a smoother custom image creation and refresh
experience without asking users to leave Paperclip for routine sandbox
setup work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `server/` custom image setup APIs and websocket handling,
`ui/` environment configuration UI, and shared custom image contracts.
### Problem or motivation
Custom image creation and refresh require an operator to open a separate
SSH client, paste the command shown by Paperclip, perform setup work,
then return to the browser to finish the image flow. This is functional
but awkward for a setup process that already starts and tracks a
temporary sandbox session.
### Proposed solution
Embed an SSH terminal in the custom image setup UI. When a setup session
exposes an SSH payload, Paperclip should open a browser terminal backed
by a server-side websocket session, let the operator run setup commands
in-place, and then close the terminal when setup is finished, cancelled,
expired, or disconnected.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep the existing copy/paste SSH command workflow. This remains a
fallback, but it does not streamline the common path.
- Put SSH credentials directly into websocket URLs. This was avoided so
terminal authentication can happen in an explicit first websocket auth
frame rather than in logged URLs.
- Trust the SSH host blindly for every reconnect. This PR instead pins
the observed host-key fingerprint for the setup-session lifetime.
### Roadmap alignment
This fits the roadmap theme of making agent workspaces usable in more
remote and sandboxed environments while preserving Paperclip's
control-plane model.
### Additional context
Public GitHub search did not find a duplicate issue or PR for `custom
image terminal ssh` in `paperclipai/paperclip`.
## What Changed
- Added server-side terminal session tracking for custom image setup
sessions, including connect-token issuance, websocket attachment,
expiry, resize, input, and shutdown handling.
- Added an embedded browser terminal to the custom image creation and
refresh flow when a setup session provides SSH connection details.
- Moved terminal token authentication out of the websocket URL and into
the first websocket JSON auth frame.
- Added SSH host-key SHA-256 pinning for each terminal session and
documented the provider convention for username-embedded SSH
credentials.
- Updated the custom image environment API and UI so the setup terminal
can open, reconnect, show status, authenticate, resize, and remain
active for the setup-session lifetime once attached.
- Kept custom image setup routes company-scoped and closed active
terminal sessions on setup finish/cancel.
- Added focused unit/integration/UI coverage for token expiry,
setup-session expiry, websocket close paths, host-key pinning, and
terminal session lifecycle behavior.
- Removed the generated lockfile delta from the PR; CI owns temporary
lockfile regeneration for manifest-changing PRs.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-image-terminal-ws.test.ts
server/src/services/environment-custom-image-terminal-sessions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts
packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx`
- 6 test files passed
- 58 tests passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `git diff --check`
- Local sensitive-content scan over the PR diff using patterns for API
keys, private keys, private hostnames, local paths, token fields, and
credential-like strings.
- Findings were limited to removed URL-token code and synthetic test
placeholders such as `ssh-token-secret` and
`terminal-token-terminal-token-123456`.
- No real credentials, private hostnames, local filesystem paths, or
instance-local links were found.
- Remote PR checks were green after the implementation commit, including
Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server
suites, e2e, verify, Socket, Snyk, Superagent, and Greptile 5/5.
- Post-merge PR hardening on July 3, 2026: merged `origin/master` at
`47448721e` into the branch, resolved the `CompanyEnvironments.tsx`
import conflict, reran focused tests, server/UI typechecks, server/UI
builds, `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`, and `git diff --check`, scanned
the final diff for sensitive content, pushed `4b43558cc`, and confirmed
all remote checks plus Greptile 5/5 were green.
- PR metadata correction on July 3, 2026: changed the title/body framing
from bug-fix language to feature-request language. No source files
changed for this metadata-only update.
## Risks
- Moderate surface area because this adds websocket routing,
setup-session runtime state, package dependencies, and a new custom
image UI path.
- New websocket attachments still require valid short-lived tokens;
established terminal sessions remain bounded by setup-session expiry,
explicit finish/cancel, client close, or server shutdown.
- The terminal-session store is in-memory, so active terminal websocket
tokens and host-key pins do not survive server restarts.
- SSH host-key verification uses session-lifetime TOFU pinning because
the current provider payload does not expose a trusted host-key
fingerprint.
- The external SSH command remains important as a fallback if a browser,
proxy, or network environment cannot sustain the websocket terminal.
> 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 coding agent with shell/tool execution. Context
window size was not exposed in this runtime.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A core part of that experience is watching active agent runs without
dropping into raw logs first
> - Local and sandbox-backed adapters already record useful run output,
progress, and tool activity
> - But active issue threads could sit visually stale while the agent
was syncing workspaces, tailing sandbox output, or emitting incremental
tool-call updates
> - Operators need timely, human-readable progress while preserving the
raw transcript underneath
> - This pull request streams sandbox run-log progress into runtime
status, keeps visible issue threads refreshed, and folds repeated ACPX
tool updates into stable transcript cards
> - The benefit is that long-running agent work becomes easier to
supervise without changing the task/comment control-plane model
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this exact change.
Problem/motivation:
- During long-running sandboxed agent work, the issue UI can appear idle
even though the agent is actively syncing, running tools, or producing
incremental output.
- Operators need realtime feedback at the issue-thread layer, not only
after opening raw logs or waiting for the final heartbeat result.
- Related public context: #1808 previously added live-run status dots to
Projects; #4362 touches heartbeat wakeup behavior but is not a duplicate
of this runtime/UI feedback change.
## What Changed
- Added sandbox run-log streaming support and defaulted sandbox-capable
local adapters into the richer live-feedback path.
- Surfaced environment/sandbox sync progress through heartbeat runtime
status with bounded, redacted snippets.
- Added live issue-thread cache patching so visible active runs update
as progress events arrive.
- Folded repeated ACPX `tool_call` updates into one transcript card
instead of stacking duplicate cards.
- Updated adapter docs and added focused regression coverage for sandbox
log streaming, runtime status, ACPX parsing, live updates, transcript
rendering, and issue chat messages.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/heartbeat-run-runtime-status.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-state.test.ts
ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts
server/src/services/heartbeat-run-runtime-status.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-state.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts
ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts
ui/src/components/transcript/RunTranscriptView.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx`
- GitHub PR workflow on head `8397953e7b41ccd42e5d9457ee7e4dfb996e4ec5`:
`verify`, build, typecheck/release-registry, e2e, general shards,
serialized server shards, and canary dry run passed.
- Greptile Review on head `8397953e7b41ccd42e5d9457ee7e4dfb996e4ec5`:
Confidence Score 5/5, no unresolved review threads.
## Risks
- Live issue-thread cache patching could miss an edge case for a route
shape not covered by tests.
- Surfacing active-run snippets needs continued care around redaction;
this PR keeps snippets bounded and adds redaction-focused coverage.
- More frequent active-run UI refreshes could expose performance issues
on very large issue threads, though updates are scoped to visible
run/query caches.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex, operating as a tool-enabled coding agent with
shell, git, and repository-editing capabilities. Context window size is
not exposed in this runtime.
## 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>
Adds the public telemetry data contract README, links it from contributor docs, and adds a focused README contract test for generated helper names.
Verification:
- git diff --check origin/master..HEAD
- pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/telemetry/readme-contract.test.ts
- PR CI green
- Greptile 5/5
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators need to *see* how work actually flowed across their agents
over time — who was invoked, what they worked on, and how work was
delegated between them
> - The dashboard shows point-in-time state but nothing reconstructs the
temporal, cross-actor picture of heartbeat runs and delegations
> - A read-only company work-timeline endpoint was landed first (server
aggregation over runs/issues/activity); it had no frontend
> - This pull request adds the Gantt-style **Work Timeline** page that
renders that endpoint, plus the small additive server contract change it
needs (shared DTOs + a task title on each span)
> - The benefit is a single dense view — actor rows, concurrency lanes,
delegation connectors, zoom and a mini-map — that makes agent activity
legible without an N+1 fetch storm from the client
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue. Problem, in-PR:
- **Gap:** the company work-timeline aggregation endpoint has no UI.
There is no way to visually inspect how heartbeat runs unfolded over
time or how work was delegated between agents.
- **Solution:** a dashboard-adjacent Gantt-style page at
`/:companyPrefix/timeline`, linked from the sidebar's "Work" section,
rendering runs as bars on per-actor rows with delegation connectors,
kickoff chips, zoom, a lens filter, and a mini-map.
- Built with React + custom inline SVG (no chart dependency; consistent
with the existing Tailwind/Radix stack).
## What Changed
- **Frontend Gantt page** (`ui/src/pages/Timeline.tsx`,
`ui/src/components/timeline/WorkTimelineChart.tsx`): actor rows
(agents/system only — humans never get a row), overlapping runs packed
into concurrency sub-lanes, bars = heartbeat runs with a left colour tab
for issue identity, truncated task title + timing/status on hover,
click-through to the task.
- **Human activity markers & human rows** for kickoff/delegation
involving people, without giving humans their own run lane.
- **Kickoff avatar chips** at each bar's leading edge; straight
agent→agent delegation connectors (dashed for
retries/changes-requested); in-progress runs extend to a dashed "now"
line and fade out.
- **Zoom** (hour/day/week, auto-fit), full-window **mini-map** with a
draggable brush, **lens filter** (Everyone / per-user, server-side), and
colour **by task / by status**.
- **Pure layout/transform module** (`ui/src/lib/timeline/layout.ts`) —
packing, kickoff derivation, connector resolution, scales — unit-tested
in isolation.
- **Server contract (additive):** moved the `WorkTimeline*` DTOs into
`@paperclipai/shared` so the aggregation service and the UI consume one
contract; added `issueTitle` to each span so the tooltip shows the task
title with no N+1 client fetch.
- Sidebar link, query keys, API client (`ui/src/api/workTimeline.ts`),
and a Storybook story with fixtures.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` ✅
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` ✅ · `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/ui typecheck` ✅
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/timeline/layout.test.ts
src/components/timeline/WorkTimelineChart.test.tsx` ✅ (15/15)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/work-timeline-service.test.ts` ✅ (5/5) — the DTO move +
`issueTitle` are additive; existing service tests use `objectContaining`
and still pass.
- Rendered `WorkTimelineChart` headless against a real slice of company
activity via a Storybook story; manual browser QA of the live page
passed on the feature branch.
## Risks
- **Low risk.** The change is UI-only plus an additive server DTO
refactor (types relocated to `@paperclipai/shared`, one new optional
field). No schema/migration changes, no change to endpoint behaviour
beyond the extra `issueTitle` field. The page is behind its own route
and does not alter existing views.
## Model Used
- Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), via Claude Code with extended
thinking and tool use.
## 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 (only the merged endpoint PR #8875 is related; no duplicates)
- [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 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 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: 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 inbox is where operators quickly scan which issues are active,
blocked, or waiting for attention
> - A blocked parent can still have active descendant work, but the
inbox previously depended on only loaded rows to infer that state
> - That made collapsed or partially loaded issue trees look more stuck
than they really were
> - This pull request carries live descendant summary data through the
issue list API and inbox UI
> - The benefit is a more accurate blocked-inbox signal, so operators
can distinguish truly stalled work from blocked parents that still have
live child activity
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this exact inbox descendant-status
polish.
Feature request fields:
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, plugin/MCP API surfaces,
and `ui/` inbox rendering.
**Problem or motivation**
Inbox rows need to show when blocked or collapsed parents still have
live descendant work, even when the live child row is not loaded in the
current client tree. Without a server-provided descendant summary, a
parent can look stalled even though active work continues below it.
**Proposed solution**
Expose an optional live descendant count on issue list results, request
it from inbox views, and use it to render covered blocked status and
live-below indicators. Keep the field opt-in so other issue list callers
keep their existing payload shape and query cost.
**Alternatives considered**
Relying only on client-loaded subtree state was ruled out because it
misses collapsed or unloaded descendants. Always returning the count was
also avoided because most list callers do not need this extra summary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is scoped operator-visibility polish for the existing inbox. It
does not duplicate a named `ROADMAP.md` milestone.
**Additional context**
The recursive summary query is guarded against parent cycles, and the UI
still falls back to loaded subtree live counts when server summary data
is absent or stale.
## What Changed
- Added optional `includeLiveDescendantSummary` support to issue list
contracts, SDK surfaces, MCP tools, routes, services, and tests.
- Added `liveDescendantCount` to issue list results when requested.
- Updated inbox and blocked-inbox queries to request live descendant
summaries.
- Updated inbox row status rendering so blocked parents with live
descendants show covered blocker treatment without duplicating the
live-below chip.
- Hardened live descendant summary traversal against parent cycles and
preserved the loaded-subtree fallback path for blocked inbox rows.
- Added focused tests for the API parameter, service behavior, helper
logic, cycle handling, and inbox UI query/rendering behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/inbox-live-descendants.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueColumns.test.tsx
ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Rebased cleanly onto current upstream `master` before pushing.
- Confirmed the branch diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows/*` changes.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The new descendant count is opt-in on list
requests, but it adds query work when the inbox asks for it. The
recursive traversal now tracks visited ancestors to avoid cycle
failures. The UI uses the server count as a supplement to existing
loaded-tree state, so stale or absent counts fall back to the prior
behavior.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled with local shell and git
access. Reasoning mode and context window are managed by the
Paperclip/Codex runtime.
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Environments are now managed as instance-level runtime resources
rather than per-company rows
> - The custom environment image setup tables were introduced with their
own `company_id` columns and route query parameters
> - That split made one saved environment image state depend on an extra
company context even though the environment itself is the durable owner
> - It also made saved-environment probes harder because applying the
active custom image template could require a company context when no
secret-backed config needed one
> - This pull request scopes custom image templates and setup sessions
directly to the saved environment
> - The benefit is that reusable environment images follow the same
instance-scoped model as environments while secret resolution still uses
company context only when secrets require it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public GitHub issue was found.
Bug report:
### What happened?
saved environment custom-image routes and persistence required a
`companyId` even though environments are instance-scoped, and saved
sandbox probes did not opt into active custom-image template application
unless a company context was present.
### Expected behavior
custom-image templates and setup sessions should be owned by the saved
environment, and saved sandbox probes should apply the active template
while still requiring a company context only for secret-backed runtime
config.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Configure an instance-scoped sandbox environment with custom-image
setup support.
2. Start or inspect a custom-image session or template for that saved
environment.
3. Probe the saved environment without a custom-image-specific
`companyId` query parameter.
### Paperclip version or commit
current `master` after the environment custom-image template migration.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (pnpm dev) or authenticated local Paperclip instance.
### Installation method
Built from source (pnpm dev / pnpm build).
### Agent adapter(s) involved
Not adapter-specific (core bug).
### Database mode
Embedded PGlite/Postgres dev database.
### Access context
Board human operator.
### Privacy checklist
No logs, secrets, tokens, private URLs, or local machine paths are
included.
Duplicate search performed:
- `gh search prs "environment custom image companyId
repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --state open --limit 20`
- `gh search prs "custom image environment scoped
repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --state open --limit 20`
- `gh search issues "environment custom image
repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --state open --limit 20`
The returned results were unrelated adapter, Docker, auth, or
stale-workspace items.
## What Changed
- Removed redundant `company_id` columns from environment custom-image
templates and setup sessions.
- Added migration `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped` to
collapse duplicate active rows per environment before dropping the old
company-scoped indexes/columns.
- Updated custom-image services, route handlers, shared validators, and
UI API/query keys to use environment-scoped custom-image state.
- Kept runtime secret resolution company-aware only when secret refs or
bindings require a company context.
- Made saved sandbox environment probes opt into active custom-image
template application.
- Updated DB, shared, server, and UI tests for the new
environment-scoped contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts
packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` before rebasing onto latest `master`; after the rebase
only the migration number changed, and the migration check plus focused
suite, typecheck, and build were rerun.
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Migration safety: the migration supersedes duplicate active templates
per environment and fails duplicate active setup sessions before adding
environment-only unique indexes. Operators with duplicate historical
active rows should review which active template is kept.
- Behavior shift: plugin custom-image setup calls now receive
`companyId: "instance"` when no secret binding determines a concrete
company context.
- Secret-backed configs still require an explicit or uniquely inferable
company context; environments with secret bindings spread across
multiple companies continue to fail fast.
> 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 via the `codex_local` adapter, GPT-5-based coding model
with tool-enabled repository inspection, editing, testing, git, and
GitHub CLI access. Exact context-window metadata was not exposed by the
runtime.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Task/issue threads render each comment as a chat bubble; the author
determines whether it shows as a left-aligned agent bubble (name + icon)
or a right-aligned "Board" bubble
> - Comments posted by an agent from a local execution environment are
written with a non-human author id (`local-board`/system), so they were
mis-rendered as blue "Board" bubbles instead of being attributed to the
authoring agent
> - This misattribution is confusing (it looks like the human board said
something an agent actually said) and it can drive false
wake/reconciliation behavior on the affected threads
> - This pull request adds server-side attribution derivation (lossless
run-id join first, then an explicit run-log post marker), persists the
derived agent so the read path stops re-scanning run logs, and stops the
client from labeling agent-derived comments "Board"
> - The benefit is agent comments render as the correct agent, genuine
human board comments are never reattributed, and reads get cheaper after
a one-time persistence
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
<!-- No public GitHub issue — describing the problem in-PR (bug report
shape). -->
**What happened?**
In a task/issue comment thread, comments authored by an agent from a
local execution environment are stored with a non-human author id
(`local-board`/system). The UI renders these as right-aligned blue
"Board" bubbles, implying a human board member authored them. The
mislabeling is also a wake/reconciliation hazard: an agent comment that
reads as "Board" can look like human board input.
**Expected behavior**
Such comments should render as the authoring agent (left-aligned bubble
with agent name + icon). Genuine human/board comments must continue to
render as "Board" and must never be reattributed to an agent.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Have an agent post a comment on an issue from a local execution
environment (author id `local-board`).
2. Open the issue comment thread in the UI.
3. Observe the agent's comment rendered as a right-aligned blue "Board"
bubble instead of the authoring agent.
**Root cause**
The read path did not resolve the authoring agent for these comments,
and the client fell back to a "Board" label for the `local-board`
author.
## What Changed
- **Server derivation (`server/src/services/issues.ts`):**
- Resolve the authoring agent from the comment's run id first
(`createdByRunId`/`derivedCreatedByRunId` → `heartbeatRuns.agentId`) —
lossless when present.
- Second tier `run_log_comment_post`: read the run log lazily (only for
still-unresolved comments) to match the explicit `comment id:` post
marker.
- **Guard:** never reattribute a comment whose author maps to a genuine
user profile. Only the non-human sentinel (`local-board`, which is
itself a `user` row) and authors absent from the `user` table are
eligible.
- Pure timing-overlap tiers are intentionally **not** used (Option A) —
an agent comment and a human board comment posted during the same run
are indistinguishable rows, so any timing guess risks mislabeling a real
human comment.
- **Persistence
(`packages/db/src/migrations/0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution.sql`,
`packages/db/src/schema/issue_comments.ts`):** add stored `derived_*`
attribution columns and write the resolved agent back with a single bulk
`UPDATE ... FROM (VALUES ...)`, so reads stop recomputing from run logs.
Migration is additive (new nullable columns) with a batched, idempotent
backfill of the lossless run-id tier over historical rows.
- **Types (`packages/shared/src/types/issue.ts`):** expose the persisted
attribution fields and the `IssueCommentDerivedAuthorSource` union.
- **Client (`ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts`):** the message
builder already prefers a resolved agent id (`authorAgentId ??
runAgentId ?? derivedAuthorAgentId`), so once the server persists the
derived agent the bubble renders as the agent automatically — no client
code change needed. Adds a regression guard confirming a genuine board
comment with no derived agent is still rendered as "Board".
- **Tests:** derivation + message-building tests, including assertions
that genuine board/user comments are **not** reattributed.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run issues-service` — 94 tests pass: run-id
resolution, no-attribution on timing overlap alone (Option A), multi-run
ambiguity, same-agent multi-run, and the genuine-user guard. Exercises
the real persistence path (bulk UPDATE) against the test DB.
- `cd ui && npx vitest run issue-chat-messages` — 27 tests pass; client
no longer labels agent-derived comments "Board", and a genuine board
comment with no derived agent is not re-labeled.
- `cd server && npm run typecheck` — passes (exit 0).
- Manual: on a thread containing old agent-authored comments, the blue
"Board" bubbles render as the authoring agent; a genuine board comment
on the same thread still renders as "Board".
## Risks
- **Mis-reattributing a genuine board comment made during an agent run**
→ mitigated by the human-profile guard (only `local-board`/system
authors are eligible) and by dropping pure timing tiers (Option A): only
the lossless run-id join and the explicit run-log post marker attribute
history.
- **Backfill volume / run-log reads** → the migration backfill is
batched (5000 rows/loop) and results are persisted so reads stop
recomputing; the read-path persistence is a single bulk UPDATE rather
than per-comment round-trips. Migration adds only nullable columns (no
destructive change).
- The persistence/backfill has **not** been run against any production
database as part of opening this PR.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, via Claude Code
with tool use.
## 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 — related open
PRs (#6006 narrow attribution run scan, #4729 attribution roll-up, #7014
reaped-run attribution) address different attribution paths; none fix
the `local-board` "Board" bubble rendering this PR targets. Supersedes
#8832 (same change; branch renamed to drop an internal ticket id per
CONTRIBUTING → Branch Naming)
- [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 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issue-thread interactions are how agents ask users or the board for
decisions and structured input
> - Product telemetry needs to understand when those interactions
resolve without exposing private interaction content
> - Resolution currently happens through several service paths, so
telemetry needs to be emitted consistently from the terminal transitions
> - The interaction service should describe the resolved interaction,
while the telemetry backend owns unknown-value normalization for
dimensions
> - This pull request emits `interaction.resolved` after successful
database writes and removes redundant client-side normalization from the
service
> - The benefit is aggregate-safe telemetry for interaction completion
behavior without leaking raw IDs, answer text, rejection reasons, or
document content
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this internal telemetry follow-up.
Feature context:
- Problem/motivation: Paperclip needs aggregate product telemetry for
issue-thread interaction resolution outcomes while preserving privacy
boundaries around user answers and internal identifiers.
- Proposed solution: Emit `interaction.resolved` once from terminal
interaction resolution paths, passing runtime dimensions through the
shared telemetry helper while preserving aggregate-safe counts and
ID/free-text omission.
- Alternatives considered: Normalizing interaction dimensions in the
interaction service duplicated telemetry backend responsibility and made
unknown-value handling inconsistent across telemetry clients.
- Roadmap alignment: This is a focused telemetry instrumentation
follow-up that builds on the generated telemetry event types from #8818.
## What Changed
- Wires `interaction.resolved` telemetry into terminal issue-thread
interaction resolution paths after successful database writes.
- Passes raw interaction kind, status, continuation policy, resolution
reason, target type, and creator agent role values to the shared
telemetry helper instead of maintaining service-local allowlists.
- Preserves resolver classification, target `none` derivation for
non-confirmation interactions, non-negative aggregate counts, raw ID
omission, and free-text omission.
- Logs telemetry failures without blocking interaction resolution.
- Adds service-level tests for accepted, rejected, answered,
stale-target expiry, superseded-comment expiry, and raw creator-role
pass-through payloads.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-telemetry.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/shared-telemetry-events.test.ts`
- `pnpm typecheck`
- GitHub PR checks on the latest head commit are green, including
`verify`, build, e2e, general tests, serialized server suites, security
scans, and Greptile Review.
- Security code review completed before this branch update.
## Risks
- Low operational risk: telemetry is emitted after successful
persistence and telemetry failures are logged without blocking the
user-visible interaction flow.
- Main behavioral risk is duplicate or missing telemetry from a
resolution path; the focused tests cover the terminal resolution
variants.
- Telemetry dimension normalization now depends on the shared telemetry
backend path instead of the interaction service, so backend
normalization must remain the source of truth for unknown or empty
dimension values.
- The existing PR branch name contains an internal task id because this
update continues an already-open PR branch instead of opening a
replacement PR.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent, API-based coding environment with
shell, repository, and GitHub CLI tool use. Context window size was not
reported by the runtime.
## 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)
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Telemetry is part of the control plane's operational visibility and
needs stable event contracts.
> - The shared telemetry client accepted first-party event names through
a broad string surface, which weakened compile-time guarantees.
> - Plugin telemetry still needs a dynamic path because plugin-defined
events cannot be enumerated in the core generated type module.
> - This pull request vendors generated Paperclip telemetry event and
dimension types, closes the first-party event-name union, and keeps
plugin telemetry on an explicit dynamic method.
> - Review feedback clarified that backend normalization should remain
the source of truth, so telemetry helpers now preserve raw categorical
values while keeping generated per-event type hints.
> - The benefit is stricter first-party telemetry typing without hiding
backend normalization signals or changing batching, flushing, schema
versioning, sinks, or endpoints.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this internal type-contract
maintenance change.
### Problem or motivation
The shared telemetry client should reject unregistered first-party event
names at compile time, while the plugin telemetry bridge must continue
to emit plugin-defined events through the existing batching and envelope
path. Helper wrappers should also avoid client-side enum coercion so the
backend can detect and record normalization when clients send unexpected
categorical values.
### Proposed solution
Generate and vendor the accepted Paperclip telemetry event and dimension
types, use those types for the first-party `track()` API, keep
plugin-defined telemetry on an explicit dynamic method, and let helper
wrappers pass raw categorical dimensions through to backend validation.
### Alternatives considered
Keeping `track()` open to arbitrary strings would preserve flexibility,
but it would not give first-party callers the type safety this change is
meant to provide. Enumerating plugin events in core was also ruled out
because plugin-defined events are not known to the core package.
Client-side enum normalization was removed after review because it
duplicates backend validation and can hide misbehaving-client signals.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a tightly scoped telemetry contract maintenance change and does
not overlap with a roadmap-level core feature.
## What Changed
- Vendored the generated Paperclip telemetry event and dimension type
module under shared telemetry code.
- Closed the first-party telemetry event-name union to generated
backend-accepted names plus an explicit `RegisteredPluginEventName =
never` extension point.
- Added `TelemetryClient.trackDynamic()` for plugin telemetry bridge
emission while keeping `track()` closed and typed.
- Added JSDoc explaining when to use `track()` versus `trackDynamic()`.
- Updated telemetry helper wrappers to type dimensions from each event's
generated schema entry while passing raw categorical values through for
backend normalization.
- Added `trackInteractionResolved()` and updated focused shared/server
tests for telemetry event typing, raw pass-through behavior, and plugin
telemetry bridging.
## Verification
Local verification passed before the latest push:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/telemetry/client-types.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/shared-telemetry-events.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-telemetry-bridge.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/project-goal-telemetry-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routine-run-telemetry.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `git diff --check`
Post-push verification completed on head
`3d973ffbea6154b19ad208dcffd1374d1b25b654`:
- GitHub PR checks passed, including `verify`, build, typecheck/release
registry, general test shards, serialized server shards, canary dry run,
e2e, and security checks.
- Greptile Review passed with 5/5 confidence.
- All PR review threads are resolved.
## Risks
Low runtime risk. The change is intended to affect TypeScript contracts
and helper typing while preserving the existing telemetry enqueue,
batching, and backend ingest path. The main intentional behavior shift
is that helper wrappers no longer coerce unexpected categorical values
on the client; those values reach the backend so backend normalization
can record the signal. Private company import source refs still use
`hashPrivateRef` when `isPrivate` is true.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent. Exact context window was
not exposed by the runtime; the agent used repository file access, shell
commands, and GitHub CLI operations.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issue-thread interactions are how agents ask board users for typed
decisions and structured answers inside an issue thread
> - Confirmation interactions already become stale when a later
board/user comment supersedes the pending decision
> - Question interactions had the same workflow risk, because a
board/user could answer in a comment while the old question card stayed
pending
> - This pull request extends the supersede-by-comment lifecycle to
ask-user-question interactions and makes that status visible in the UI
> - The benefit is agents get a clear continuation signal and users do
not see stale question forms after the discussion has moved on
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No exact public GitHub issue was found.
Bug report:
**Pre-submission checklist**
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip, or can reproduce
on `master`.
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in
an agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration.
**What happened?**
Pending `ask_user_questions` interactions could remain open after a
later board/user comment changed or answered the request in-thread. That
left a stale form visible and kept the interaction in a pending state
even though the discussion had moved on.
**Expected behavior**
Question interactions should follow the same default
supersede-on-comment behavior as confirmation interactions, with an
explicit expired result that points to the superseding comment.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction on an issue.
2. Add a board/user comment created at or after that interaction.
3. Observe that before this change, the question interaction stayed
pending instead of expiring as superseded by the comment.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` before this PR.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server or local dev. The bug is in shared issue-thread
interaction lifecycle handling.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core issue-thread interaction bug.
**Database mode**
Applies to the normal Paperclip database-backed interaction lifecycle.
**Access context**
Board user comments supersede agent-created questions.
**Relevant logs or output**
No crash output. The stale pending interaction was visible in the issue
thread state.
**Relevant config (if applicable)**
None.
**Additional context**
Confirmation-style interactions already supported this stale-by-comment
behavior. This PR brings question interactions into the same lifecycle
model.
**Privacy checklist**
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and included no private
instance links, local ticket ids, secrets, logs, or screenshots.
## What Changed
- Added `supersedeOnUserComment` support to `ask_user_questions`
payloads, defaulting it to `true` during interaction creation.
- Expire pending question interactions when a later board/user comment
supersedes them, including a result with `expirationReason:
"superseded_by_comment"` and the superseding `commentId`.
- Updated interaction summaries and cards so expired question requests
show a clear amber state with a jump link to the comment and correct
singular/plural copy.
- Updated agent onboarding guidance to describe the new default and how
to opt out.
- Added shared, server, and UI test coverage for the new lifecycle
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 5
files, 73 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
--reporter=dot && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed
after the final type-safety cleanup.
- Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`.
- Confirmed the diff does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`,
`.github/workflows`, or database migrations.
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: `ask_user_questions` now defaults to expiring
after later board/user comments. Existing callers that need questions to
stay open through discussion can set `supersedeOnUserComment: false`.
- Expired question interactions store an empty `answers` array, so
downstream consumers should treat the explicit `expirationReason` as the
meaningful outcome.
> 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 in Paperclip CodexCoder runtime,
with terminal and repository tool use. Exact context window is not
exposed in this runtime.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs are assembled by the heartbeat service from agent config,
project workspaces, environment config, secret bindings, skills, and
runtime session state.
> - The heartbeat service intentionally reuses adapter sessions,
execution workspaces, and sandbox leases when that preserves useful
state.
> - Reuse becomes incorrect when the effective next-run config changes
after a saved session, workspace, or lease was created.
> - Stale reuse can make a later run appear pinned to old agent,
environment, secret, instruction, or workspace settings.
> - This pull request records non-sensitive fingerprints for the
effective session, workspace, and lease config at run boundaries.
> - When those fingerprints drift, Paperclip refreshes persisted runtime
config or starts fresh execution instead of reusing stale state.
> - The benefit is predictable next-run config freshness without storing
raw secret values, full env maps, provider credentials, or private path
details.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8058
- Related PRs checked during dedup search: #4968, #4155, #84, #8480.
These cover nearby workspace/session routing or model-config freshness
areas, but do not duplicate this effective run config fingerprinting
path.
## What Changed
- Added effective run config fingerprinting for session, workspace, and
lease reuse decisions, with canonicalization that ignores generated
runtime noise and redacts sensitive values.
- Updated heartbeat reuse logic to compare stored and next-run
fingerprints, reset stale saved sessions, refresh persisted workspace
config snapshots, replace stale reused workspaces when required, and
avoid stale sandbox lease reuse.
- Included plain environment value drift via value hashes, without
storing the raw env values.
- Root-bound instruction content hashing so legacy direct absolute
instruction paths are represented but not read for config fingerprints.
- Batched secret/version metadata lookups for environment lease
fingerprinting.
- Added workspace operation/run result freshness metadata so operators
can inspect non-sensitive decision categories.
- Surfaced config freshness labels and next-run copy in the UI and docs.
- Added focused coverage for fingerprint redaction, session reset
decisions, workspace refresh/replace behavior, environment lease drift,
and persisted workspace restoration.
## Verification
- `git diff --check`
- Sensitive-data scan before push:
- `git diff --unified=0 origin/master...HEAD | rg -n --pcre2
"(AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID|AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY|ghp_[A-Za-z0-9_]{20,}|github_pat_[A-Za-z0-9_]{20,}|sk-[A-Za-z0-9]{20,}|-----BEGIN
(RSA |OPENSSH |EC |DSA )?PRIVATE KEY-----|AKIA[0-9A-Z]{16})"`
- `git diff --unified=0 origin/master...HEAD | rg -n --pcre2
"[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Za-z0-9.-]+\\.[A-Za-z]{2,}"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/effective-run-config-fingerprints.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db clean`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- UI screenshots from Cutter:
-
https://artifacts.cutter.sh/8797/run-2f4827c-2026-06-30T18-57-25/preview/change-01.png
-
https://artifacts.cutter.sh/8797/run-2f4827c-2026-06-30T18-57-25/preview/change-02.png
-
https://artifacts.cutter.sh/8797/run-2f4827c-2026-06-30T18-57-25/preview/change-03.png
## Risks
- Medium: overly broad fingerprints could start fresh sessions,
workspaces, or sandbox leases more often than necessary.
- Medium: missing a config category would allow stale reuse to persist
for that category.
- Medium: legacy direct absolute instruction paths are no longer
content-hashed unless they are paired with an absolute managed
instructions root.
- Low data risk: fingerprint metadata stores hashes and category names,
not raw secrets, raw env values, provider credentials, or private path
details.
> 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 via Codex CLI / Codex coding agent, tool-enabled with
shell, Git, GitHub CLI, local test execution, and code editing. The
exact deployed model variant and context window are not exposed by this
environment.
## 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: Cody <cody@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A growing part of that work runs in sandboxed environments rather
than on the operator's local machine.
> - Today sandbox providers can start fresh workspaces and run probes,
but they do not have a shared contract for capturing and reusing
prepared sandbox state.
> - Operators need a way to set up tools, credentials, and project
dependencies once, then reuse that prepared image for later agent runs.
> - This pull request adds reusable sandbox custom images across the
provider contract, server runtime, and board UI.
> - It also keeps probes and sandbox copy flows aligned with
pre-authenticated/custom-image environments.
> - The benefit is faster, more reliable sandbox runs without repeatedly
rebuilding the same environment setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Inline feature request
follows.
### Problem or motivation
Sandboxed agents need reusable prepared runtime state so repeated runs
do not require manual setup every time. Operators often need system
packages, CLIs, SDKs, dependency caches, credentials, and project
tooling available before an agent can work productively.
### Proposed solution
Add a provider-level custom-image capability, server-side setup/capture
lifecycle, Daytona/fake provider support, and board UI controls for
creating, testing, selecting, and deleting custom images.
### Alternatives considered
Leaving this as provider-specific setup outside Paperclip would keep the
control plane blind to image state and would not give agents consistent
environment metadata. Re-running setup commands for every lease is
simpler, but slower and less reliable for interactive or credentialed
setup.
### Roadmap alignment
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this aligns with the Cloud / Sandbox agents
roadmap area and does not duplicate any related public issue or PR found
by search.
Additional context:
- Subsystem affected: cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`,
`packages/plugins`, `server`, `ui`).
- Duplicate search: searched GitHub for `sandbox custom image` and
`sandbox template environment`; no related public issues or PRs were
found.
## What Changed
- Added custom-image shared types, validators, constants, API paths, and
database schema/migration.
- Added server services/routes for custom-image templates and setup
sessions, including runtime cleanup and provider metadata handling.
- Extended plugin/sandbox provider capabilities for interactive setup,
template capture, and template deletion.
- Implemented custom-image support in the fake sandbox provider and
Daytona provider.
- Updated environment runtime/config handling so active custom images
flow into leases, probes, and agent execution.
- Added board UI controls and API client support for custom-image setup,
capture, selection, status, and error states.
- Hardened sandbox copy/probe behavior for insecure clipboard contexts
and pre-authenticated sandbox images.
- Added targeted coverage across shared validators, DB schema, server
routes/services, provider plugins, adapter probes, and UI flows.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.probe.test.ts
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.ts
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `pnpm vitest run
packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts
packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `rm -rf packages/db/dist && pnpm test:run`
- Public-safety scan of the final diff found no internal Paperclip issue
links, private instance URLs, or real secret patterns.
## Risks
- Adds a database migration and new environment runtime tables, so
migration ordering and rollback need care.
- Provider implementations may differ in how reliably they can
capture/delete images; unsupported providers surface capability-gated UI
states.
- Custom-image state can contain operator-prepared tooling and
credentials inside the provider image, so providers must enforce their
own access controls and cleanup semantics.
- Broad surface area across shared contracts, server runtime, plugins,
adapters, and UI means CI and Greptile review should be watched closely.
> 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 (`gpt-5`) via Codex CLI with tool use and code execution.
Assisted with branch cleanup, conflict resolution, local verification,
and PR preparation. Earlier branch implementation work was assisted by
Paperclip-managed Claude/Codex agents.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pipeline automations let operators standardize repeated issue and
workflow actions.
> - Pipeline-created issues currently need a way to derive useful titles
from routine variables.
> - Without a configurable title template, automated pipeline output is
harder to scan and distinguish.
> - This pull request adds a title-template field through shared
contracts, server persistence, API routes, and the pipeline settings UI.
> - The benefit is clearer issue titles for pipeline-created work while
preserving the existing pipeline behavior when no template is
configured.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8790
This PR adds configurable generated-issue title templates for pipeline
automations.
## What Changed
- Added `issueTitleTemplate` to the shared pipeline automation contract
and field constants.
- Persisted and returned the title template through pipeline service and
route code.
- Applied title-template rendering when pipeline automations create
issue work.
- Added pipeline settings UI controls for editing the title template and
reusing routine variables.
- Moved title-token cursor restoration out of the React state updater
and into a layout effect.
- Added server and UI coverage for storing, returning, and rendering
pipeline title templates.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/PipelineSettings.test.ts`
- Result before review follow-up: 3 files passed, 58 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/PipelineSettings.test.ts`
- Result after review follow-up: 1 file passed, 7 tests passed.
- Branch was merged with current `paperclipai:master` at `f019f54bb3`
before opening this PR.
- Searched existing PRs for the same head branch and for pipeline
title-template duplicates; no matching existing PR was found.
- Note: GitHub could not open a PR directly from `cryppadotta/paperclip`
because that repository is not a fork of `paperclipai/paperclip`. The
same updated branch SHA was pushed to `paperclipai/paperclip` so this PR
can compare normally against `master`.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The change touches pipeline automation persistence
and generated issue creation, so regressions would most likely appear as
missing or incorrectly rendered generated issue titles. Existing
behavior should remain unchanged when `issueTitleTemplate` is unset.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled execution in a
Paperclip heartbeat, with repository inspection, Git, GitHub CLI, and
local 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 (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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The experimental server info debug view helps local operators
inspect what code a running dev instance is actually serving
> - The view was moved into the account-menu drawer, which only mounts
while that drawer is open
> - That made stale health-query data easier to see after restarts, and
the server was also caching the running commit at process boot
> - A clean commit label alone is incomplete when the checkout has
uncommitted local changes
> - This pull request keeps the drawer health data fresh, refreshes git
metadata on demand, and adds a path-free checkout-state summary
> - The benefit is that the debug view reports restart time, running
commit, and dirty-checkout state without exposing local paths, secrets,
logs, or environment details
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes: #8752
## What Changed
- `SidebarServerInfo.tsx`: refetch the health query whenever the drawer
opens and poll every 2s while the dev server is active.
- `server-info.ts`: keep `processStartedAt` stable while refreshing git
HEAD through a short TTL cache instead of freezing commit metadata at
module boot.
- Shared health contract/OpenAPI: add `serverInfo.git.localChanges` with
only staged, unstaged, and untracked counts plus safe unavailable
fallbacks.
- `SidebarServerInfo.tsx`: add a `Checkout state` row that renders
clean/dirty/unavailable copy without file paths.
- Tests: cover stale drawer refresh, interval polling, TTL commit
refresh, health response shape, checkout-state count parsing, and
path-free UI rendering.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-info.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts
ui/src/components/SidebarServerInfo.test.tsx` -> 3 files / 19 tests
passing.
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> refreshed stale
workspace links without lockfile/source churn.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` -> passing.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` -> passing after the
Greptile test-coverage fix.
- `pnpm check:tokens` -> no forbidden tokens found.
- Local diff scans for obvious secrets, credentials, private URLs, local
paths, and PII patterns -> no matches.
- GitHub PR checks on head `56defd446` -> all green, including `verify`,
canary dry run, e2e, security scans, and Greptile Review.
- Greptile latest summary -> Confidence Score 5/5, 0 new comments; the
prior P2 polling-coverage thread is resolved.
## Risks
Low risk. The UI remains behind the experimental
`enableServerInfoDebugView` flag. The extra git status call is throttled
by the existing server-info TTL and reports only counts, not paths or
file names. If git status is unavailable, the commit row still works and
the checkout-state row shows clear fallback copy.
## Model Used
Claude Opus (claude-opus-4-8), extended thinking, with tool use / code
execution assisted the original stale-metadata fix. OpenAI GPT-5 via
Codex local, with tool use and code execution, added the checkout-state
follow-up, Greptile fix-up, and PR verification.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Planning work relies on issue documents, request-confirmation
interactions, and inline plan annotations
> - Agents can be woken after a plan comment, annotation, or
confirmation decision
> - The wake payload needs enough plan-review context for the agent to
act on the specific feedback instead of losing the thread and falling
back to broad refetches
> - This pull request adds bounded plan-review context to wake payloads
and heartbeat context
> - It also teaches the adapter wake prompt renderer to surface those
open plan annotations and interaction results directly
> - The benefit is that agents can continue plan review and plan
acceptance flows with the relevant comments in hand while keeping wake
payloads bounded and company-scoped
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public GitHub issue was found.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and
`packages/adapter-utils`.
### Problem or motivation
Plan-review continuations can wake an agent after a plan comment, inline
annotation, or request-confirmation decision without enough inline
context about the open plan annotations or accepted/rejected
confirmation target. That makes scoped wakes less reliable because the
agent may need to refetch broad issue history before it can tell what
feedback should be incorporated.
### Proposed solution
Include bounded, company-scoped plan review context in wake payloads and
heartbeat context. The context includes open `plan` annotation threads,
recent annotation comments, truncation metadata, and plan-confirmation
interaction target/result details. Render that information in the
adapter wake prompt so agents see the relevant plan-review feedback
immediately.
### Alternatives considered
Relying on agents to fetch the full issue thread after every plan-review
wake was rejected because it is slower, harder to audit, and easier to
mishandle when the wake is meant to be scoped to a specific comment,
annotation, or interaction result.
### Roadmap alignment
This supports the roadmap areas for Agent Reviews and Approvals, Deep
Planning, and Enforced Outcomes by making plan approval continuations
explicit and actionable.
### Additional context
The implementation keeps payload size bounded with per-thread,
per-comment, and total-body limits. Resolved annotation threads are
intentionally omitted so the wake focuses on feedback still needing
action.
## What Changed
- Added shared `PlanReviewContext` types for plan annotation threads,
comments, interaction targets, and continuation results.
- Added server-side plan review context assembly for open `plan`
annotation threads with bounded thread/comment/body limits.
- Included plan review context in heartbeat context and scoped wake
payloads for planning, annotation, comment, and plan-confirmation
interaction wakes.
- Rendered plan annotation deltas, open plan comments, interaction
results, and accepted target revisions in adapter wake prompts.
- Added focused regression coverage for scoped plan review context, wake
prompt rendering, annotation filtering, and safe standard-mode
annotation wakes.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by bounding the plan-comment DB fetch and
removing unused plan review context input fields.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
--no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1
server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- GitHub PR checks are green on
`36d0ac6a5dce27b9d62e201bf6d9829170c5974e`n- Rebased onto current
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` and confirmed GitHub reports the PR as
mergeable
- Greptile Review completed successfully after 2 comments were addressed
and resolved; 0 unresolved review threads remain
## Risks
- Medium: wake payloads now include additional plan-review data, so
limits and truncation behavior need to stay conservative as annotation
volume grows.
- Low migration risk: no database schema or migration changes.
- Low repository hygiene risk: this PR does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`,
`.github/workflows`, or media assets.
> 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 using `gpt-5` as a coding agent with shell/tool execution.
Reasoning mode and exact context window were not exposed by the runtime.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The dev/server UI exposes a `/api/health` endpoint and a lower-left
account drawer, but nothing surfaces *which* build the running instance
is on or when it last restarted
> - When iterating on a local dev instance it is hard to tell whether
the server you're looking at has actually restarted onto your latest
commit, or how stale the running process is
> - Developers need a lightweight, opt-in way to confirm the running
instance's identity without digging through logs or shelling into the
host
> - This pull request adds an experimental "Server Info Debug View"
setting that surfaces the running instance's last-restart time and
current commit as read-only rows in the account drawer
> - The benefit is a quick, in-UI sanity check of what the live server
is actually running, behind an experimental flag so it ships zero cost
to users who don't opt in
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Describing the underlying request inline
following the feature request template:
**Problem or motivation:**
When working against a local Paperclip dev instance there is no in-UI
way to confirm what the running server is — its current commit or when
it last restarted. You have to check logs or the host shell to know
whether the process picked up your latest build.
**Proposed solution:**
An opt-in experimental setting ("Server Info Debug View") that, once
enabled, renders a small read-only "Server" section at the bottom of the
lower-left account drawer showing **Last restarted** (the server process
start time) and **Running commit** (the current git HEAD short SHA +
subject).
**Alternatives considered:**
A separate top-right pill/overlay (like the work-life-balance plugin).
The account drawer was chosen to reuse existing menu-row styling and
avoid adding new always-present chrome.
**Roadmap alignment:**
Small, self-contained developer-experience aid gated behind an
experimental flag; does not overlap planned core roadmap work.
## What Changed
- Added `server/src/server-info.ts`: captures a `serverInfo` snapshot
once at boot — process start time and current git commit (SHA +
subject). Git is read via `execFileSync` with SHA validation and a
timeout.
- `/api/health` exposes the `serverInfo` snapshot, but only on
full-details health responses (board/agent in authenticated mode, or
local-trusted dev).
- Gated the UI surface behind a new `enableServerInfoDebugView`
experimental setting, wired through the shared instance type, validator,
settings normalizer, and OpenAPI schema.
- UI: added `SidebarServerInfo` rendering the read-only rows in the
account drawer (`BreadcrumbBar` / `SidebarAccountMenu`), plus the
experimental settings toggle and a typed `health` API client.
- Moved `ServerGitInfo` / `ServerInfoSnapshot` into
`@paperclipai/shared` so the server and UI share one definition instead
of duplicating it.
- Added unit tests for the server-info snapshot, health route exposure,
validator/normalizer, settings routes, the experimental settings page,
and the sidebar component.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/health.test.ts src/__tests__/server-info.test.ts
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` — 32 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/SidebarServerInfo.test.tsx
src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — 9 passed
- `tsc --noEmit` on both `@paperclipai/server` and `@paperclipai/ui` —
clean
- Manual: enable **Settings → Experimental → Server Info Debug View**,
refresh the UI, open the lower-left account drawer — a "Server" section
shows Last restarted and Running commit.
## Risks
- Low risk. The UI surface is fully opt-in via an experimental flag and
defaults off.
- The `serverInfo` field on `/api/health` is access-controlled to
full-details responses only (board/agent in authenticated mode, or
local-trusted dev) — never anonymous authenticated callers — so the git
SHA is not broadly exposed.
- The only new server work is a one-time git read at boot, guarded with
SHA validation and a timeout; failures degrade gracefully (the git block
reports `available: false` rather than throwing).
## Model Used
Claude — `claude-opus-4` (Anthropic), extended thinking with tool use,
via Claude Code.
## 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 and contains no
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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent adapters are the boundary between the control plane and the
runtimes that actually do work.
> - Hermes support needs to be available as first-class local and
gateway adapters while still preserving the adapter-manager override
path for external packages.
> - The adapter work touches runtime execution, UI adapter metadata,
onboarding prompts, scoped credentials, release packaging, and smoke
coverage, so the handoff needs concrete verification rather than only
unit tests.
> - This pull request adds built-in Hermes local and Hermes gateway
support, keeps external adapter overrides compatible, and
documents/tests the gateway flow end to end.
> - The benefit is that operators can hire Hermes-backed agents without
a manual plugin install, while self-hosted installs can still
override/shadow the built-ins through Adapter manager packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this exact Hermes built-in adapter,
gateway onboarding, and release-source work.
Problem description:
- Hermes local and gateway adapters need a public, reviewable source
path in the monorepo so package artifacts and built-in adapter behavior
match the application source.
- Operators need built-in `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` adapter
choices without losing the ability to install external Hermes packages
as overrides.
- Gateway onboarding needs secure defaults for API server URLs, API
keys, and generated agent setup text.
- Hermes-originated task bridge credentials need narrower API-key scope
configuration.
- Related public PRs found during duplicate search include #3027, #2363,
#7544, #7950, #8095, and #8543.
## What Changed
- Added the unified Hermes adapter package with local and gateway
server/UI/CLI exports, config schemas, transcript parsing, model
detection, and package metadata.
- Registered `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` as built-in adapters
across shared constants, server registries, CLI packaging, and UI
adapter registries.
- Kept the external adapter override path compatible so installed Hermes
packages can shadow built-ins and restore the built-in parser when
disabled.
- Added Hermes gateway onboarding docs, board-operator docs, Docker
smoke assets, and shell smoke harnesses for join/e2e validation.
- Added scoped task-bridge API-key support, authorization checks,
issue-origin handling, and tests for Hermes-created Paperclip tasks.
- Hardened gateway transport and redaction behavior for API keys,
headers, session data, and smoke diagnostics.
- Updated release packaging/bootstrap checks for the Hermes packages
while leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of the PR per repository policy.
## Verification
Targeted local verification recorded before PR handoff:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter exec vitest run
src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` — 14/14 passed.
- `pnpm test:hermes-gateway-smoke` — 6/6 passed.
- Hermes package typecheck/build checks passed.
- Focused server/UI adapter tests passed — 31/31.
- Release helper Node tests passed — 18/18.
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed.
Fresh Docker E2E smoke evidence:
- Ran `pnpm smoke:hermes-gateway-e2e` on 2026-06-26 with a fresh state
directory and fresh Docker container against a live Paperclip dev
server.
- Hermes direct execution reached `completed`.
- Hermes stop/cancel path reached `cancelled`.
- Hermes gateway created a Paperclip task, Paperclip ran the Hermes
agent, and the task reached `done` with the expected marker response.
- Temporary board auth keys, token files, smoke state, and Docker
containers were cleaned up after the run.
PR checks on head `b5eae40ce`:
- GitHub Actions passed: `policy`, `review`, `Typecheck + Release
Registry`, all general test shards, all serialized server shards,
`Build`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, and aggregate `verify`.
- External checks passed: Snyk and Socket Project Report.
- External Socket Pull Request Alerts remained pending after the
first-party CI matrix completed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this spans adapter registration, package publishing,
gateway execution, onboarding docs, API-key scoping, and UI adapter
metadata.
- Migration risk is low: the scope-config migration adds a nullable
column and does not rewrite existing keys.
- Gateway execution depends on operator-provided Hermes API
configuration; the smoke covers the Docker gateway path but real
deployments may differ by network/auth setup.
- Direct Greptile review on the latest expanded diff is file-count
limited, although the commitperclip review gate passed.
> 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 coding agent, tool use enabled in a local repository
workspace. Context window size is not exposed in this environment.
## 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] Commitperclip review gate is green; direct Greptile review is
file-count limited on the latest expanded diff
- [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 pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving
through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift
notices, and linked work.
> - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface,
not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments.
> - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes,
CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation
controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the
primitive reviewable end to end.
> - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline
workflow primitive stack.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator
experience and server contract together against `master`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature
request is described inline.
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company
workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request
review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation,
and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified
pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues,
routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate.
### Proposed solution
Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and
migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes,
aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the
React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail,
review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over
fields, and retry/recovery flows.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because
operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated
workflow patterns.
- Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch
because the operator experience is the main way to validate the
primitive.
- Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same
primitives are useful across future company processes.
## What Changed
- Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts,
server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke
support.
- Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment,
blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and
permission recovery behavior.
- Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item
detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets,
automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets,
liveness banners, and source automation metadata.
- Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared
`DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent
with the pipeline document surfaces.
- Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current
pipeline branch.
## Verification
Current branch refresh:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31
passed
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19
passed
- `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed
- Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`:
sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline
routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental
settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle.
- GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket,
Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review
- Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
Confidence Score 5/5
- GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads
Previously recorded during branch development:
- Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests
- Shared validator tests
- UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests
- Pipeline tutorial smoke path
## Risks
- High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database,
shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI.
- Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention
because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master`
syncs.
- GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting
normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status
checks are green.
- Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing
requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming
rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification
commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip
agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship.
## 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)
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Scheduled routines can prompt agents with variables that are filled
in at dispatch time.
> - Existing routine variable handling supported plain text-like values,
but date inputs need a structured contract so routines can pass
consistent date values.
> - Operators also need date variables to be easy to configure and
override from the routine UI.
> - This pull request adds a date variable type across shared
validation, server dispatch, and UI editing/run dialogs.
> - The benefit is that routine authors can define date inputs once and
agents receive validated ISO-style date values when routines run.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #219
Feature request:
- Problem/motivation: Scheduled routines need first-class, typed date
variables so operators can configure dates without relying on free-form
text conventions.
- Proposed solution: Add an `x-date` routine variable type with shared
parsing/validation, server dispatch support, and UI date-picker controls
in routine variable editors and run dialogs.
- Alternatives considered: Continue treating dates as plain text, but
that leaves validation and formatting to individual operators and
agents.
- Roadmap alignment: This is a focused improvement to the completed
Scheduled Routines milestone and does not duplicate an active roadmap
item.
Related PR search:
- Searched existing PRs/issues for `routine date picker`, `date
variables`, and `scheduled routine date variable`; no direct duplicate
PR was found.
## What Changed
- Added the shared `x-date` routine variable contract, parsing,
defaults, and validation coverage.
- Extended routine dispatch to validate and pass date variable values.
- Added date input controls to the routine variable editor and routine
run variables dialog.
- Added focused tests for shared validation, server dispatch, and the UI
date controls.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public/master...HEAD`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/RoutineVariablesEditor.test.tsx`
- 5 test files passed
- 68 tests passed
## Risks
Low to medium risk. This adds a new routine variable type across
shared/server/UI paths, so the main risk is compatibility with existing
routine variable payloads. The change keeps existing variable types
intact and adds targeted validation tests for the new date behavior.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with terminal, git, GitHub
CLI, and local test execution capabilities.
## 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>
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents and board users operate inside a company-scoped control plane
where permissions decide which mutating actions they can perform
> - Company skills are part of the reusable agent-company setup surface,
but skill mutation had been coupled to broader agent-creation authority
> - That coupling meant importing or managing skills required a
permission that also implies hiring power, which is broader than the
operation needs
> - Paperclip already has a grant-based permission vocabulary, so skill
mutation should be authorized through a dedicated `skills:create`
capability while preserving existing default behavior for trusted agents
> - This pull request adds the skill creation permission contract,
enforces it on company skill mutations, exposes it in agent permission
management, and documents the changed CLI/API expectations
> - The benefit is a narrower, auditable permission path for skill
import/create/update/delete flows without forcing agents to receive
broader agent-creation authority
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue is linked.
Problem: company skill mutation APIs were effectively tied to broader
agent creation authority. This PR splits skill mutation authorization
onto the public `skills:create` permission while keeping existing
default skill creation behavior for agents unless explicitly disabled.
Related public PR found during duplicate search: #5330. That PR uses an
older `canManageSkills` shape; this PR implements the `skills:create`
grant path instead.
## What Changed
- Added `skills:create` to shared permission constants and agent
permission types/validators as `canCreateSkills`.
- Backfilled default human/member role grants for `skills:create`.
- Updated company skill mutation routes to require board/user or agent
access to `skills:create`, while preserving legacy/default agent
behavior through `canCreateSkills` unless explicitly disabled.
- Updated agent permission update handling, UI permission controls,
duplicate-agent payloads, plugin SDK fixtures, and agent detail API
surfaces for `canCreateSkills`.
- Added regression coverage for skill route authorization, permission
schema/default behavior, invite grants, omitted permission updates, and
duplicate-agent payloads.
- Updated CLI and Paperclip skill documentation for the new skill
creation permission.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-join-grants.test.ts
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts` — 5 files, 90 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run ...changed files...` was attempted first, but the
stable wrapper rejects explicit file arguments; direct Vitest was used
for the same targeted files.
## Risks
- Moderate authorization risk: this changes the gate for company skill
mutations, so the tests cover board grant checks, agent explicit grant
checks, legacy default allowance, and explicit denial.
- Migration/backfill risk is low: the migration only grants
`skills:create` to existing human roles that already need broad
management capability.
- UI/API compatibility risk is low: `canCreateSkills` remains default-on
for full agent permissions, and the update validator preserves omitted
values so unrelated permission edits do not re-enable disabled skill
creation.
> 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 coding agent with terminal/tool use 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 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Sandboxed agent runs can spend meaningful time preparing a remote
workspace before the agent transcript shows useful output.
> - Operators need short, current progress text for those setup phases,
but that text should not become durable run history.
> - The existing live-run websocket path already carries run updates to
the UI, so the backend can reuse that channel instead of adding polling.
> - This pull request adds an ephemeral runtime-progress contract, a
process-local status store, and heartbeat integration for
sandbox-managed runs.
> - The benefit is a clearer active-run experience without database
migrations or persistent progress rows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #248
No exact public GitHub issue was found for this status-message plumbing.
The underlying problem is that active sandboxed runs currently have
setup phases, such as workspace sync and restore, where the operator
cannot see concise current progress through the live run state. This PR
addresses that gap for the backend/runtime layer while keeping progress
messages ephemeral.
GitHub search performed for related or duplicate work: `sandbox runtime
status`, `sandbox restore index`, and `runtime progress`. No direct
duplicate PR was found.
## What Changed
- Added shared runtime-progress types and the `heartbeat.run.progress`
live event type.
- Added a process-local heartbeat run runtime-status store with TTL,
bounded/redacted messages, and terminal cleanup.
- Threaded runtime progress callbacks through heartbeat execution and
active/live run serialization.
- Emitted sandbox-managed runtime phase updates for sync, adapter
startup, restore/export, and finalization paths.
- Added backend and adapter-utils tests for ephemeral status behavior,
terminal cleanup, live serialization, and sandbox progress callbacks.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- Local PII scan before push: high-confidence secret patterns, internal
issue links, local user paths, and private URL patterns checked across
all three split diffs; no real secrets or internal links found. The only
secret-like text is an intentional fake test fixture (`sk-test-secret`).
- `git diff --check origin/master..feat/sandbox-runtime-status`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/heartbeat-run-runtime-status.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-state.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts` — 4 files,
23 tests passed.
- `pnpm run typecheck` passed on both top stacks that include this
branch: `feat/sandbox-status-ui` and `fix/sandbox-restore-index-sync`.
- `pnpm run build` passed on both top stacks that include this branch;
Vite reported existing CSS `::highlight` and chunk-size warnings.
- `pnpm run test:run` was attempted on `fix/sandbox-restore-index-sync`;
it failed in two unrelated broad-suite tests. One depends on this host's
Git default branch behavior, and one depends on local Claude
model-discovery environment. The changed focused suites above pass.
## Risks
- Runtime progress is process-local by design, so status disappears
after TTL, terminal cleanup, or server restart.
- Clients that do not consume `heartbeat.run.progress` simply keep
existing behavior.
- Message redaction is intentionally generic; overly specific phase
details should stay out of runtime-progress payloads.
> 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 via Codex coding agent, with shell/tool execution in a
local worktree. Exact context-window metadata is not exposed by the
runtime.
## 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 CTO <cto@paperclip.local>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip CTO <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - This change touches several already-shipped subsystems —
document-comment annotations, the selected-agent Conference Room chat
surface, routine description annotations, workspace-operation tracking,
and the board polling/inbox UI
> - A batch of incremental fixes and two small backend additions had
accumulated on a local mainline and were deployed to a live instance,
but never landed upstream — so each `origin/master` sync kept
re-diverging
> - Leaving them un-upstreamed means the same delta has to be re-merged
on every sync and risks being lost or silently reverted
> - This pull request rebases that delta cleanly on top of current
`origin/master` (preserving recent upstream work such as reusable
sandbox leases and the relation-list collapse controls) and brings it up
for review
> - The benefit is that mainline and the deployed instance converge, and
these fixes/additions get normal review + CI + Greptile coverage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No single GitHub issue tracks this; it is a bundle of bug fixes and two
small feature additions. Following the issue-template fields:
**Bug fixes (what was wrong → what this does):**
- Document comments rendered out of document order, didn't live-update
across clients, swallowed save failures, and lost the markdown text
selection on re-render. Now: doc-order sort, live updates, surfaced
save-failure state, stable selection across re-renders.
- The board polling hot path returned oversized payloads on every poll.
Now: an opt-in `summary` projection trims the heartbeat-run list
payload.
- Assorted UI fixes: sidebar nav peek/streamlining edge cases, markdown
file-viewer re-mount/line-height issues on iOS Safari, inbox badge/skill
deep-link tab selection, and `⌘.` work-mode cycling on iOS.
**Feature additions:**
- `workspace_operations.issue_id` — associate a workspace operation with
the issue that triggered it (new migration `0106`, schema, service,
shared type).
- Routine **description annotations** — comment threads on a routine's
description document, mirroring issue document annotations (new
migration `0107`, `routine_documents` schema, routes/service,
editable-sections UI).
- Selected-agent **Conference Room chat** surface wiring and live
issue-thread updates.
**Related PR:** #8229 (`feat(control-plane): add annotation and
workspace controls`, draft) covers overlapping
annotation/workspace-control territory — flagging it so a reviewer can
reconcile the two rather than double-merging.
## What Changed
- `feat(workspace)`: `workspace_operations.issue_id` migration +
schema/service/type; issue workspace property controls reconciled with
upstream's evolved "Service" row.
- `feat(routines)`: routine description annotations —
`routine_documents` schema, migration `0107`, routes/service,
`editable-sections` UI.
- `fix(document-comments)`: doc-order sort, live updates, save-failure
surfacing, stable markdown selection (+ storybook story, rerender test).
- `feat(chat)`: selected-agent Conference Room chat surface and live
issue-thread updates (`LiveUpdatesProvider`, `issue-chat-messages`,
interactions service).
- `perf(board)`: opt-in `summary` projection for the board
polling/heartbeat-run list payload, plus assorted sidebar / file-viewer
/ inbox / IssueProperties UI fixes.
Organized into 5 logical commits. Migrations are numbered incrementally
after upstream's latest (`0105`) — `0106` then `0107`, no journal
collision.
## Verification
- Built by 3-way merging the deployed delta onto current
`origin/master`; the only merge conflict (`IssueProperties.test.tsx`,
two adjacent test blocks) was resolved in favor of upstream's evolved
"green service link above the workspace row" layout, which matches the
merged component's rendered output.
- Confirmed recent upstream work is preserved post-merge: reusable
sandbox lease teardown (`#8513`), the IssueProperties relation-list
collapse controls, and the sidebar streamlined-nav default.
- Confirmed the net diff vs `origin/master` is exactly the intended
feature delta (65 files) and that overlapping server files (`issues.ts`,
`agents.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`) only add feature code without disturbing
upstream logic.
- This delta is already running on a live deployed instance.
- Full typecheck/test suite + Greptile to run in CI (see checklist).
## Risks
- Two new migrations (`0106`, `0107`). Both are additive (new table /
new nullable column) and ordered after upstream's `0105`; no data
backfill, low risk. If another migration-bearing PR merges first,
renumber before merge.
- Largest blast radius is in the merged overlapping UI/service files;
covered by the existing test suites for those files plus CI.
- Overlaps thematically with draft PR #8229 — reviewers should reconcile
rather than merge both blindly.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use
(git, shell). Agentic coding workflow.
## 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)
- [ ] 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 control plane people use to coordinate
AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products.
> - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue
properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and
plugin-provided external context.
> - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly
plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand
status, identity, and liveness.
> - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and
pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company.
> - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts,
storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can
contribute detection and status resolution.
> - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation,
GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters,
sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage.
> - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable
Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the
UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work.
Feature request:
- Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related
surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline.
- Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist
normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise
status-aware links across issue surfaces.
- Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues
containing external work links.
- Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped,
provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where
relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests.
Related PR search:
- No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`.
- Closed related prior attempt: #4556.
## What Changed
- Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness
helpers, and plugin protocol declarations.
- Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects,
source mentions, and display metadata.
- Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing,
refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents,
comments, projects, and plugins.
- Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring
docs.
- Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat,
documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar
badges, and Storybook stories.
- Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired
stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive
tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR
branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56
tests.
- Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm
test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not
claim those were rerun after the final rebase.
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on
issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync
wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core
mutations.
- Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are
additive and company-scoped.
- Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge
cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current
GitHub shapes.
- Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy
issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended
surfaces.
> Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the
current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature.
Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products,
preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped
external-object reference foundation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool
use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context
window were not exposed in the environment.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board UI has an experimental streamlined left navigation mode
that changes how projects and agents appear in the sidebar.
> - Today that mode is opt-in, so users keep seeing the classic
navigation unless they find and enable the experiment.
> - The requested product behavior is to make streamlined navigation the
default experience while keeping an explicit experiments opt-out.
> - This pull request flips the shared/server default, updates UI
consumers to treat only explicit `false` as classic mode, and covers
both the default-on path and opt-out behavior in tests.
> - The benefit is that new and legacy settings get the streamlined
sidebar by default without removing the classic-sidebar escape hatch.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7645
Related: #8430 takes the broader route of removing the classic sidebar.
This PR intentionally keeps the opt-out path.
## What Changed
- Default `enableStreamlinedLeftNavigation` to `true` in shared
validation and server-side normalization.
- Preserve explicit stored `false` as the experiments opt-out for the
classic sidebar.
- Render the sidebar and experimental settings toggle as streamlined-on
unless the setting is explicitly `false`.
- Add regression coverage for loading/default streamlined sidebar
behavior and the opt-out patch from the experiments page.
- Remove internal issue identifiers from newly touched source comments
before publishing.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed, 3 files /
27 tests.
- `pnpm build` — passed, with existing Vite/CSS/chunk-size warnings.
- `pnpm test:run` — failed in unrelated
`server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`: the test `auto-detects
the default branch via symbolic-ref when origin/HEAD is set` creates a
temp repo on `main` then runs `git push -u origin main master`; `master`
does not exist in that temp repo. Summary: 1 failed, 214 passed, 1780
tests passed, 1 skipped.
## Risks
Low-to-medium behavioral risk: the default sidebar changes for users who
never explicitly set the experiment. Explicit `false` remains respected,
so users can still opt out via experimental settings.
> 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 via Codex local adapter, with tool use and code execution.
Exact context window was not surfaced in the runtime.
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Local adapters (Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, Grok, OpenCode, Pi,
ACPX) ship bundled "skills" — opinionated Markdown prompt bundles
materialized into the agent's runtime
> - One of those bundled skills, `paperclip-dev`, existed to let agents
develop Paperclip itself; it has now moved to its own external repo and
no longer belongs in the core tree
> - The adapter skill model also carried a `required` / `requiredReason`
attribute plus a `paperclip_required` `AdapterSkillOrigin` variant, all
of which only existed to mark bundled skills as non-optional in the UI
and adapter sync logic
> - With `paperclip-dev` gone, no bundled skill is "required" anymore,
and the type / runtime surface for `required` is dead weight — but it is
computed at request time and never persisted, so a clean removal is safe
(no compatibility shim needed)
> - This pull request deletes `skills/paperclip-dev/` and removes every
trace of the `required` / `requiredReason` field and the
`paperclip_required` origin across shared types, validators,
adapter-utils, all eight local adapters, server routes, the
company-skills service, the UI, the storybook fixtures, and the test
suite
> - The benefit is a smaller, simpler adapter-skill surface: one origin
(`company_managed`) for managed bundled skills,
`resolvePaperclipDesiredSkillNames` collapses to "just the configured
desired set", and the AgentDetail skills tab no longer renders a
"Required by Paperclip" section that no longer applies
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
<!-- No existing public GitHub issue; describing the underlying work
inline (feature_request template fields). -->
**Summary**
Remove the bundled `paperclip-dev` skill (now maintained in its own
external repo) and retire the `required` / `requiredReason` skill
attribute and the `paperclip_required` skill origin, which only existed
to support it.
**Problem or motivation**
`paperclip-dev` is the only bundled skill that was ever marked
"required". Now that it lives in a separate repository, shipping it
inside the core tree is wrong, and the entire `required` surface (a type
field, a validator field, a synthesized `paperclip_required` origin, UI
"Required by Paperclip" section, and required-skill merging in the
desired-skills calculation) becomes dead weight. The `required` value is
computed at request time and never persisted, so it can be removed
cleanly without a migration or compatibility shim.
**Proposed solution**
Delete `skills/paperclip-dev/`, drop the `required` / `requiredReason`
fields and `paperclip_required` origin everywhere they are produced or
consumed, collapse managed-skill origin to a single `company_managed`
value, and simplify `resolvePaperclipDesiredSkillNames` to return only
the configured desired set.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping the `required` attribute as a no-op for forward compatibility —
rejected because it is request-time only (nothing persists it), so
leaving it in place is pure dead surface area with no callers.
**Roadmap alignment**
Internal cleanup / dead-code removal that simplifies the adapter-skill
surface; it does not introduce or duplicate any planned core feature in
ROADMAP.md.
## What Changed
- Deleted bundled `skills/paperclip-dev/` (moved to a separate repo).
- Dropped `required`, `requiredReason`, and the `paperclip_required`
origin from `packages/shared/src/types/adapter-skills.ts`,
`packages/shared/src/validators/adapter-skills.ts`, and
`packages/adapter-utils/src/types.ts`.
- In `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`: removed
`readSkillRequired()`; dropped `required`/`requiredReason` from
`listPaperclipSkillEntries()`,
`normalizeConfiguredPaperclipRuntimeSkills()`,
`buildPersistentSkillSnapshot()`, and `PaperclipSkillEntry`; collapsed
`buildManagedSkillOrigin()` to always return `company_managed`;
simplified `resolvePaperclipDesiredSkillNames()` to return only the
configured desired set (signature preserved so adapter call sites are
untouched).
- Walked all eight local adapters (`acpx-local`, `claude-local`,
`codex-local`, `cursor-local`, `gemini-local`, `grok-local`,
`opencode-local`, `pi-local`) and removed every remaining
`requiredReason` / `paperclip_required` reference.
- `server/src/services/company-skills.ts`: dropped the `required =
sourceKind === "paperclip_bundled"` synthesis when listing runtime skill
entries.
- `server/src/routes/agents.ts`: removed required-skill merging from the
desired-skills calculation in the persist-config path and the
unsupported-snapshot path (keeping the current version-aware
`desiredSkillEntries` structure).
- `ui/src/pages/AgentDetail.tsx`: dropped required-based filters, the
required tooltip, and the entire "Required by Paperclip" section from
the agent skills tab; storybook fixtures in
`ui/storybook/stories/acpx-local.stories.tsx` cleaned up to match.
- Tests: deleted the `required: false` case in
`paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` and the "keeps required bundled skills
installed" case in every `*-local-skill-sync.test.ts`;
`acpx-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-execute.test.ts`,
`cursor-local-skill-sync.test.ts`, `agent-skills-routes.test.ts`, and
`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` were updated to drop
removed fields and map `origin: "paperclip_required"` →
`"company_managed"`.
- `server/src/adapters/registry.ts`: two `as unknown as
ServerAdapterModule["..."]` casts on `hermesListSkills` /
`hermesSyncSkills` (matching the existing `executeHermesLocal` pattern).
`hermes-paperclip-adapter@0.2.0` still depends on the published
`@paperclipai/adapter-utils` which keeps the retired
`paperclip_required` variant; the cast bridges the
workspace-vs-published type mismatch at the registry seam and can drop
once hermes upgrades.
## Verification
Run from the workspace root:
```sh
grep -rn "skills/paperclip-dev" .
grep -rn "paperclip_required" --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" .
grep -rn "requiredReason" --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" .
pnpm -w typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run paperclip-skill-utils
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run skill-sync
```
The first three greps return only the explanatory comment in
`server/src/adapters/registry.ts` (no live `paperclip_required` /
`requiredReason` usage) and zero `skills/paperclip-dev` source hits.
Locally:
- `pnpm -w typecheck` → all packages this PR touches pass
(adapter-utils, shared, server, ui, cli, and the
cursor/gemini/opencode/pi adapters).
- Affected vitest suites pass: `paperclip-skill-utils`, `server-utils`,
all eight `*-local-skill-sync`, `agent-skills-routes`, and the
`acpx`/`cursor`/`pi` execute suites.
## Risks
- Behavioral shift in the agent skills UI: the "Required by Paperclip"
section disappears. No bundled skill is required anymore, so this only
affects environments that previously surfaced `paperclip-dev` as a
forced-on row; those installs will see the skill move into the regular
"company-managed" list (and be uninstalled on next sync unless
explicitly listed as desired).
- Existing agents may still have the string `"paperclip-dev"` in their
persisted `desiredSkills`. That entry is inert (no source for it to
install from); a one-time DB cleanup is out of scope. Low risk.
- Hermes adapter type bridge: two casts in `registry.ts` paper over a
type-only divergence between the workspace `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`
and the published version still pinned by
`hermes-paperclip-adapter@0.2.0`. Runtime behavior is unaffected because
the retired `paperclip_required` value is no longer produced by anything
in this tree. The casts can be removed once hermes upgrades its
dependency.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`)
- Capability: agent tool use via Paperclip's `claude_local` adapter
## 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)
- [ ] 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
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution
environment selection has to stay inspectable and predictable across
companies, agents, and runs.
> - The environment subsystem decides where an agent heartbeat actually
runs and how remote sandbox state is realized and restored.
> - That subsystem previously mixed company-scoped environment catalogs
with issue-level environment stamping, so a reassigned issue could keep
executing in the previous assignee's sandbox.
> - That behavior breaks the control-plane contract: changing the
assignee should change the executing agent/environment path unless there
is an explicit current override.
> - Fixing it cleanly required more than a narrow patch; the environment
model had to move to instance scope with a single inherited default and
per-agent override semantics.
> - This pull request rewires the schema, server/API surface, runtime
resolution, and UI around that model, then adds regression coverage for
cross-company inheritance and per-agent isolation.
> - The benefit is that environment choice now follows the approved
instance/agent configuration path instead of stale issue state, while
shared environments only need to be configured once per instance.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No directly matching public GitHub issue or PR was found while
searching for this refactor.
### What happened?
Reassigning work between agents with different execution environments
could keep running in the previous sandbox because environment choice
was stamped onto the issue and outranked the current assignee. The same
subsystem also forced environment catalogs to be duplicated per company
even though the underlying execution environments were instance-wide
resources.
### Expected behavior
Execution should resolve through the current instance and agent
configuration path, with one instance-scoped environment catalog, one
instance default, optional per-agent override, and no stale issue-level
environment authority surviving reassignment.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Configure two agents to use different execution environments.
2. Assign an issue to the first agent so the issue records execution
state in that environment.
3. Reassign the same issue to the second agent and run another
heartbeat.
4. Observe that the pre-fix runtime can still sync or execute in the
original sandbox instead of the second agent's environment.
### Paperclip version or commit
Current `master` before this PR.
### Deployment mode
Self-hosted server.
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`).
### Agent adapter(s) involved
- Claude Code
- Not adapter-specific (core bug in environment authority / resolution)
### Database mode
External Postgres.
### Access context
Both board reassignment and agent heartbeats were involved.
## What Changed
- Moved environments and their default selection contract to instance
scope in DB/shared types, including the migration that dedupes legacy
per-company environments and seeds the instance local default.
- Reworked environment CRUD/auth flows to use instance-scoped APIs and
added route/service coverage for instance-level environment management.
- Changed runtime resolution to prefer `agent default -> instance
default -> built-in local`, removed issue-level environment stamping
from the active execution path, and isolated sandbox/plugin leases by
`(executionWorkspaceId, agentId)`.
- Added environment env-var runtime precedence so environment-provided
values act as the baseline for agent execution.
- Moved the environment UI into instance settings and updated agent
configuration surfaces to reflect inherit/override behavior.
- Added regression coverage for instance-default inheritance across
companies and for the new runtime resolution behavior.
- Fixed a rebase-only duplicate `enableTaskWatchdogs` flag regression in
instance settings types/validators/services so the branch typechecks
cleanly on current `master`.
- Updated stale server tests so CI matches the shipped instance-scoped
environment contract.
## Verification
- `git diff --check`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime-driver-contract.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-instance-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`
## Risks
- The migration changes environment scope and dedupes existing rows, so
installs with unusual legacy environment combinations should be reviewed
carefully during upgrade.
- Remote execution behavior now depends on instance-default inheritance
semantics instead of issue-level stamping, so any remaining code paths
that still assume issue-scoped environment authority would surface as
follow-up bugs.
- This PR includes both server/runtime behavior and UI relocation, so
reviewers should watch for authorization edge cases around instance
settings and environment management.
> I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This work fits the existing
Cloud / Sandbox agents direction as a bug-fix/refactor to current
behavior, not a new parallel product surface.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in this Paperclip/Codex session; GPT-5-class
tool-using model with code execution and shell access. The exact backend
model ID is not exposed to the session runtime.
## 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation
composer frames the operator's intent.
> - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning
mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without
immediately implying execution or plan drafting.
> - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like
normal task execution.
> - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through
shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI.
> - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a
question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning
flows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request
follows the repository feature request template.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`.
### Problem or motivation
Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from
planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear
public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an
agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply
normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather
than an answer.
### Proposed solution
Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from
issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning
from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling,
and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly
instead of executing or drafting a plan.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not
communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI.
- Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks
for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question.
- Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be
represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be
reliable.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked
and no duplicate planned core work was found.
### Additional context
Related public searches performed before opening this PR:
- GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
No duplicate PR was found.
## What Changed
- Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation
coverage.
- Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can
see standard, planning, and ask state.
- Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and
selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI.
- Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and
affected UI work-mode flows.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests.
Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states:
https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8
It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture
about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment
metadata.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared,
server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are
preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work
modes may need to handle `ask`.
> 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 Codex coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with
shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context
window and exact hosted model snapshot are not exposed in this runtime.
## 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`,
`feat/...`) 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] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane people use to create, configure, and
run AI agents for work.
> - This change sits in the server-side agent lifecycle and
secret-binding subsystem, where adapter config `env` entries can
reference company secrets.
> - An incident (while trying to configure a Novita sandbox) showed that
an agent can reach a broken runtime state if `adapterConfig.env`
contains `secret_ref` entries but the matching `company_secret_bindings`
rows are missing.
> - The immediate run-path guard and error-surfacing work made the
failure diagnosable, but they did not fully prevent new broken agents
from being created.
> - The risk came from create and approval flows being responsible for
remembering to sync bindings at each call site, which is easy to miss as
new flows are added.
> - This pull request moves the invariant into `agentService`
create/update/activate paths, keeps the existing hire-flow fix, and adds
regression coverage for create, update, and legacy pending-approval
recovery.
> - The benefit is that agent secret binding integrity is enforced
closer to the data mutation point, so future callers inherit the
protection automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8309
### What happened?
A Paperclip agent could persist `adapterConfig.env` `secret_ref` entries
without matching agent-scoped `company_secret_bindings` rows. When that
happened, the config UI could still look configured, but the real run
path failed pre-dispatch because the secret was not actually bound to
that agent.
### Expected behavior
Every normal agent create, config-update, and pending-approval
activation flow should leave the agent with secret bindings that match
its persisted secret-ref env config.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create or activate an agent through a flow that persists
`adapterConfig.env` secret refs without synchronizing
`company_secret_bindings`.
2. Observe that the config state can still appear populated.
3. Start a run for that agent.
4. Observe that pre-dispatch binding validation fails because the secret
reference exists but the agent binding does not.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`)
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`)
### Agent adapter(s) involved
- Claude Code
- Not adapter-specific (core bug)
### Database mode
Embedded PGlite / embedded local dev database flow
### Access context
Board (human operator) created or approved the agent; agent runtime
later consumed the config.
### Additional context
This PR focuses on preventing new broken states from normal service
flows and on backfilling the covered legacy pending-approval activation
path.
## What Changed
- Kept the existing branch-local hire-flow fix that synchronized
bindings for route and approval paths.
- Moved the binding integrity invariant into `agentService.create()`,
`agentService.update()` when `adapterConfig` changes, and
`agentService.activatePendingApproval()`.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts`
covering create-time sync, update-time resync, and backfill for legacy
pending-approval agents.
- Removed now-redundant route-layer and approval-layer binding sync
calls once the service layer became authoritative.
- Simplified the affected unit tests so route/approval tests no longer
assert service-owned binding writes directly.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approvals-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low to medium risk.
- This changes where secret-binding synchronization is enforced, so any
unexpected caller that relied on upper-layer manual sync behavior could
behave differently.
- Agent create/update/activation flows now perform binding
synchronization consistently, which adds binding-table writes at those
mutation points.
- This PR does not retroactively scan and heal every already-broken
historical agent row; it prevents and backfills through the covered
service flows.
> 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 Codex class model via `codex_local`
- Session model family: GPT-5 Codex
- Tool-assisted coding with shell, git, HTTP, and local test execution
- Reasoning mode: medium interactive tool-use workflow
## 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
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane teams use to manage AI
agents for work.
> - Company skills are imported from `SKILL.md` files and rely on YAML
frontmatter to describe what each skill does.
> - Multi-line descriptions commonly use YAML block scalars (`>` and
`|`), but the broken parser path behind #4989 reduced those descriptions
to a literal `>` or `|`.
> - The earliest contributor fix for that bug was PR #5046, so this
branch keeps that PR as the canonical merge target instead of replacing
it.
> - Follow-up work from #5071 and #8258 was then transplanted onto this
earlier branch so the final PR preserves contributor credit while still
shipping the strongest complete fix.
> - The resulting change fixes block-scalar parsing in the shared
frontmatter path, aligns server company-skill imports with that shared
parser, and prevents already-stale stored markers from rendering as junk
in the UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Fixes#4989
- Refs #2863
- Refs #788
- Related superseded PRs: #5071, #8258
## What Changed
- Kept the original PR #5046 server-side company-skill fix and
regression coverage as the base branch history.
- Added the missing YAML chomping and indicator hardening explored
further in #5071.
- Moved frontmatter parsing to the shared parser path so
`packages/shared`, `packages/skills-catalog`, and server company-skill
imports stay aligned.
- Added UI summary sanitization and fallback handling so stale stored
`>` / `|` values no longer render as visible junk in company-skill
cards.
- Added regression coverage for shared frontmatter parsing,
skills-catalog parsing, company-skill imports, and stale-summary
fallback behavior.
## Verification
- Passed locally: `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/frontmatter.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/frontmatter.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-skill-summary.test.ts`
- Passed locally: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- Passed locally: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog typecheck`
- Not fully runnable in this worktree: `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck` currently fails in `packages/plugins/sdk`
before reaching server code because local workspace `node_modules` type
deps are missing (`TS2688` for `node` / `react`).
- GitHub Actions / PR checks are rerunning on PR #5046 head
`005290b7557725abf748d00f36dd24ea0d919aba`.
## Risks
- Medium-low risk: the fix now touches shared parser code, server
company-skill imports, and UI fallback display rather than only the
server import path.
- The parser is still intentionally narrower than a full YAML
implementation; this change focuses on block-scalar correctness and the
stale-description rendering path relevant to #4989 / #2863.
- This branch intentionally supersedes narrower overlapping work from
#5071 and duplicate work from #8258 once the survivor PR is green.
> 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 local shell and
code-editing tools 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Routines let users templatize titles and instructions with
`{{name}}` placeholders that get prompted for at run time
> - A user reported that `{{pr_url}}` typed into a routine description
was never detected as a variable, while camelCase placeholders worked
> - Root cause: the routine description is edited via MDXEditor (WYSIWYG
markdown). On save its serializer (`mdast-util-to-markdown`) defensively
escapes intraword underscores, so a user-typed `{{pr_url}}` is stored as
`{{pr\_url}}`. The variable matcher only accepted `[A-Za-z0-9_]` inside
the placeholder, so the backslash broke the match and the variable was
silently dropped
> - This PR widens the matcher to tolerate `\_` and unescapes it back to
`_` on capture, in both extraction and interpolation, so a single name
is detected and resolved regardless of whether the source markdown was
hand-typed or round-tripped through a WYSIWYG editor
> - The benefit is that snake_case placeholders behave the same in the
routine UI and the executor, removing a silent failure mode
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs PAPA-771 — "Fix example for variable_name". Initially scoped as a
docs-copy fix (change the example to camelCase), but investigation
showed the underlying bug was that the parser could not see the variable
when it was authored as `{{pr_url}}` in a WYSIWYG-edited description.
This PR addresses the bug directly so snake_case names work as users
expect. (Supersedes the now-closed PR #8054 — same commit, fresh branch
so the diff is visible.)
## What Changed
- `packages/shared/src/routine-variables.ts`:
- Widened the `ROUTINE_VARIABLE_MATCHER` regex to accept `\_` inside
placeholder names (in addition to `[A-Za-z0-9_]`)
- Added `unescapeRoutineVariableName` and applied it on capture in both
`extractRoutineVariableNames` and `interpolateRoutineTemplate`, so the
looked-up variable name is normalized regardless of the markdown escape
- `packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts`:
- Added tests covering plain snake_case (`{{pr_url}}`), markdown-escaped
(`{{pr\_url}}`), multi-underscore (`{{pr\_url\_v2}}`),
sync-with-template, and interpolation
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run routine-variables`
→ 13 passed (4 new), confirming both plain and escaped underscore
placeholders are detected and interpolated as the same variable name
- Reproduced the root cause out-of-band with `mdast-util-from-markdown`
+ `mdast-util-to-markdown` to confirm the editor's serializer is the
source of the `\_` escape
## Risks
- Low. Change is confined to `packages/shared/src/routine-variables.ts`;
the regex is strictly more permissive in a tightly bounded way (only
`\_` is newly allowed) and the captured name is normalized.
`isValidRoutineVariableName` is unchanged, so stored names are still
strict identifiers.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-7` (Opus 4.7), via Claude Code
## 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 — only my own closed#8054 supersedes/duplicates this one.
Open PRs touching `routine-variables.ts` (#7184, #7186, #6993, #7187)
are all for unrelated concerns (server-side PATCH persistence, GH#6525)
- [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 — `routine-variables` suite
passes (13/13)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — 4 new tests
covering snake_case + escaped forms
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — no UI change in this PR
- [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 — pending CI re-run after the
push for the Greptile blank-line nit
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups —
initial review was 5/5; the one P2 (missing blank line) is addressed in
the latest push
- [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 first-run experience (onboarding wizard) and the chat surfaces
(conference-room/board chat, task threads, composers) are the product's
front door — they decide whether a new operator understands "hire
agents, give them work, review results" in the first five minutes
> - Today those surfaces feel ticket-y and form-like: the wizard is a
static multi-step form that ends in an anticlimactic "Launch" screen,
the task composer and board chat behave differently from each other, and
agent-feed issue quicklooks misbehave (multiple flyouts open at once,
cards jump on hover)
> - We wanted to iterate toward a conversational, team-centric NUX — but
without risking the workflows of everyone already running Paperclip
> - This PR reworks the NUX behind a new default-OFF
`enableConferenceRoomChat` experimental flag: a capsule-motif onboarding
wizard that builds your team as you answer, a conference-room chat
surface, one shared ChatComposer across surfaces, brand-accurate status
chips, and feed-quicklook fixes — with the pre-existing UI
fork-and-frozen as `*Classic` components that flag-OFF users keep
> - The benefit is a complete, testable modern NUX that anyone can opt
into from Settings → Experimental, with zero default behavior change and
a clean path to either graduate or drop the experiment
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing GitHub issue — feature description per
`feature_request.yml`:
- **Problem / motivation:** Paperclip's onboarding wizard and chat
surfaces grew up as separate ticket-centric forms. New users get a
form-filling experience rather than the feeling of standing up a team;
the board chat and task threads use different composers with different
affordances; the agent feed's issue quicklook can stack multiple
popovers and shifts cards on hover.
- **Proposed solution:** A coherent NUX experiment behind one
experimental flag (`enableConferenceRoomChat`, Settings → Experimental,
default OFF): capsule onboarding wizard with an evolving team capsule,
conference-room chat, unified `ChatComposer`, team-centric copy, brand
status chips, quicklook single-flight fix. Flag-OFF users get the exact
pre-experiment UI via frozen `*Classic` forks, verified by an on/off
parity test matrix.
- **Alternatives considered:** (a) incremental unflagged restyling —
rejected: the changes interlock across surfaces and would drip risk into
every release; (b) a separate app shell / route for the new NUX —
rejected: too much divergence, the flag + classic-fork pattern keeps the
diff reviewable and reversible.
- **Roadmap alignment:** `ROADMAP.md` lists **CEO Chat** ("a
lighter-weight way to talk to leadership agents... should still resolve
to real work objects"). This experiment is groundwork in that direction
(conference-room chat resolves to issues/tasks via the same composer
used in task threads) and does not change the core task-and-comments
model.
Related PRs found in the dedup search (same area, none duplicate this
work — they target the classic wizard, which this PR intentionally
leaves intact and mergeable):
- #5385 — Coach-driven onboarding: conversational entry +
agent-companies package import
- #5378 — Onboarding wizard: reusable adapter picker + probe card
- #6636 — ui(onboarding): friendly error surface + retry for the wizard
- #7005 — fix(onboarding): explicitly await first-task wake
- #2616 — fix: restore workspace directory config in onboarding wizard
## What Changed
- **Experimental flag plumbing** — `enableConferenceRoomChat` in shared
types/validators, server instance-settings service + API, Settings →
Experimental card with explicit enable/disable copy
- **Onboarding wizard** — classic wizard forked and frozen
(`OnboardingWizardClassic`); flag-ON variant is a 5-step capsule wizard
with a persistent evolving `AgentCapsule` (gradient/glow motif),
team-centric reframed copy, and a typing-dots intro (hardened with
fake-timer tests)
- **Conference-room chat** — flag-ON board-chat surface with agent
bubble name/icon headers and copy/vote/timestamp action rows
(`AgentBubbleActionRow`)
- **Unified composer** — shared `ChatComposer` adopted across surfaces;
translucent surface + scroll-mask removal; "Agent mode"/"Plan mode"
relabels; no-assignee confirmation `AlertDialog` (new
`ui/alert-dialog.tsx` primitive); `@task` reference picker +
linkification in mentions
- **Agent feed** — single-flight issue-quicklook store (one popover at a
time), flyouts open to the left, removed hover translate-y jitter
- **Status chips** — brand-accurate task status chips behind the flag
(light/dark, 1px borders per paperclip.ing/brand)
- **Tests** — flag on/off parity matrix across IssueDetail,
NewIssueDialog, Sidebar, wizard, gate components; component tests for
all new pieces
- **Merge with `master`** — one conflict in
`ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`, resolved by keeping master's
new `AssigneeChip`/`HandoffWakeRow`/`RunStatusBadge` components inside
the flag-gated metadata-row chrome (details in commit `21a5642a`);
post-merge fixes: vitest 4 mock typing in `MarkdownEditor.test.tsx`,
flag hook made safe for provider-less mounts (master's new isolated
component tests)
- **Branch hygiene** — internal design wireframes/mockups stripped
before the PR (they live in the Paperclip issue threads)
- No user-facing documentation changes required: the flag is
intentionally experimental and self-described in the Settings card; no
existing docs reference the affected surfaces
## Verification
- `pnpm run typecheck` — green across the workspace (ui, server, shared,
plugins)
- Full UI suite (`vitest run` in `ui/`, clean worktree at this HEAD):
**1593/1595 passing, 223/224 files** — the 2 remaining failures are in
`src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx` and **fail identically
on pristine `origin/master`** (pre-existing upstream, unrelated to this
branch)
- Full server suite (`vitest run` in `server/`, same clean worktree):
results in PR checks; flag plumbing covered by instance-settings tests
- Targeted post-merge resolution check: `IssueChatThread`,
`IssueChatThreadSystemNotice`, `IssueDetail`, `Sidebar`,
`ConferenceRoomChatGate`, `OnboardingWizardVariant`, `NewIssueDialog`,
`InstanceExperimentalSettings`, `MarkdownEditor` — 172/172 passing
- Manual walkthrough: flag OFF (default) → onboarding wizard, task
thread, board chat, composer all render the classic UI; flag ON via
Settings → Experimental → capsule wizard, conference-room chat, unified
composer, status chips active
- Screenshots: see below
**Flag on/off screenshots** (committed on this branch under
`screenshots/PR-8000-*`):
| Surface | Flag OFF (classic, default) | Flag ON (experimental) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Settings → Experimental | 
| 
|
| Task thread | 
| 
|
| Home / nav | 
| 
|
| Conference Room (flag-ON only surface) | — | 
|
Capsule onboarding wizard walkthrough screenshots (flag ON) are attached
to the Paperclip design/implementation threads; the wizard requires a
fresh instance so it is captured via the e2e harness
(`tests/e2e/nux-phase4-screenshots.spec.ts`).
## Risks
- **Large surface, but gated:** all new behavior sits behind
`enableConferenceRoomChat`, default OFF; flag-OFF rendering is locked by
frozen `*Classic` forks plus an on/off parity test suite
- **Classic forks are frozen at the fork point (`e3aada1d`):** master
features added to the live thread component after that point (assignee
handoff chips, run status badge, composer mention coach) render in the
flag-ON path; the flag-OFF task thread keeps the fork-point behavior
until the experiment graduates (forks deleted) or is dropped (forks
restored as canonical). Called out for reviewer attention.
- **Merge-conflict resolution in `IssueChatThread.tsx`** (commit
`21a5642a`) deserves reviewer eyes: master's new handoff/run-status
components were kept; the base toast-style no-assignee flow remains
replaced by the AlertDialog flow introduced on this branch
- Schema/server changes are additive (one optional boolean instance
setting); no migrations of existing data
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) via Claude Code running in the Paperclip agent
harness (agent: ClaudeCoder)
- Branch implemented across multiple agent sessions on Claude Opus-class
models with extended thinking + tool use (file edits, shell, Playwright
screenshots); merge/PR session model ID as reported by the harness:
`claude-fable-5` (Claude Code CLI)
- All code was agent-authored and board-reviewed through Paperclip issue
threads (plans, wireframes, confirmations) before merging
## 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (none
required — experimental flag, self-documenting Settings card; noted
above)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (run 3 on `8af3041a`: all 16
gates SUCCESS, incl. e2e and all 4 serialized-suite shards)
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(re-review verdict: Confidence 5/5, “Safe to merge”; all 4 round-1
findings fixed + confirmed resolved; both summary notes addressed in
`8af3041a`)
- [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.
> - Agents increasingly depend on reusable skills, so the control plane
needs a first-class way to browse, inspect, install, version, and attach
those skills.
> - The old skills surface was mostly operational plumbing; it did not
give operators a store-like discovery flow, canonical detail URLs, rich
source/version context, or creation paths.
> - The backend also needed stronger contracts around company skill
metadata, versions, install counts, runtime materialization, and adapter
skill preferences.
> - This pull request builds the Skills Store foundation across DB,
shared contracts, server routes/services, UI, and Storybook.
> - The benefit is a more inspectable, operator-friendly skill workflow
that still preserves company-scoped control-plane boundaries and agent
runtime behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No GitHub issue exists for this Paperclip work item. Paperclip task
refs: PAP-10846 and PAP-10921.
Feature request:
Paperclip operators need a single Skills Store experience where company
skills can be discovered, inspected, created, versioned, installed, and
attached to agents without relying on scattered operational screens or
implicit runtime state.
Related PR search:
- Searched GitHub for `Skills Store`, `company skills`, and `skill
detail`.
- Found several open skills-related PRs such as #7809 and #4409, but no
duplicate PR for this end-to-end Skills Store branch.
## What Changed
- Added the Skills Store backend foundation: company skill schema
fields, migrations, shared types/validators, and expanded server skill
routes/services.
- Added skill discovery, category navigation, canonical skill detail
routes, tabs, source attribution, version snapshots/diffs, install count
backfill, and creation flows.
- Updated agent skill preference handling so version selections survive
runtime mention injection and runtime skill materialization honors
pinned versions.
- Preserved unversioned skill assignments as live/current selections
instead of silently pinning them to the current version at assignment
time.
- Added focused regression coverage for company skill routes/services,
route helpers, UI behavior, skill version diffs, and runtime skill
version pins.
- Added Storybook coverage for Skills Store discovery/detail states and
updated the main layout navigation.
- Addressed Greptile findings around version creation races,
soft-deleted comments, fork metadata scoping, GitHub skill directory
fallback, runtime snapshot materialization, shared runtime
skill-selection helpers, and version-assignment semantics.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx -t
"edits existing custom assignee model options from the properties pane"`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- GitHub checks are green on `0823957a2`: Build, Canary Dry Run, General
tests, Typecheck + Release Registry, serialized server suites, e2e,
policy/review, Socket, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`.
- Greptile Review succeeded on `0823957a2` with `40 files reviewed, 0
comments added`; GitHub unresolved review threads: 0.
Not run in this heartbeat:
- Browser screenshot capture for the UI changes. This PR intentionally
omits screenshots per the Paperclip task direction not to add design
screenshots/images.
## Risks
- Broad feature branch touching DB, shared contracts, server, and UI;
reviewers should still scan merge conflicts carefully if `master` moves
again before landing.
- Skill version/runtime behavior is sensitive: pinned skill versions
must stay pinned while default selections should continue following the
current version.
- UI polish should get normal reviewer/browser attention before merge
because this PR includes a large Skills Store surface and screenshots
were intentionally omitted.
> 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 tool use and local command
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 (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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (intentionally omitted per PAP-10921 direction)
- [ ] 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 subsystem runs those agents in environments (local,
ssh, sandbox), and sandbox-provider plugins let an environment
materialize per-run sandboxes
> - Stage 1 (#5790) contributed a first-party Kubernetes
sandbox-provider plugin, but the server core has no way to adopt it
operationally: no per-run adapter selection, no way to force an instance
onto sandboxed execution, no declarative adapter/model configuration,
and the plugin must be installed by hand
> - Without this, a multi-tenant or security-conscious deployment cannot
guarantee that agent runs never execute on the host, and a single
environment cannot serve agents with different harnesses
> - This pull request adds the server + SDK integration: per-run
adapterType on the lease protocol, an env-gated forced-Kubernetes
execution policy with provisioning and a per-run allowlist guard, a
declarative adapter registry and model list, in-cluster env passthrough
for sandbox plugin workers, fail-safe auto-install of the bundled
plugin, and the matching UI affordance
> - The benefit is that sandbox-provider plugins become fully usable for
Kubernetes execution: operators configure everything via environment
variables and GitOps, while self-hosters who set none of the variables
see exactly the behavior they have today
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #5790 (stage 1 of 3: the Kubernetes sandbox-provider plugin
package).
No existing issue. Feature description: the server core lacks the
integration seams to operate a sandbox-provider plugin as the mandatory
execution path of an instance. This PR is stage 2 of 3 of the staged
Kubernetes contribution; stage 3 will contribute the agent runtime
images and their build pipeline.
## What Changed
One line per piece:
- `packages/plugins/sdk/protocol.ts`: optional `adapterType` on
`PluginEnvironmentAcquireLeaseParams` so a provider can select the
runtime image per run; existing providers simply ignore it
- `server/services/environment-runtime.ts` +
`environment-run-orchestrator.ts`: thread the agent's adapter type into
both lease-acquiring drivers, including the heartbeat path (the two call
sites have historically drifted, hence the pinned test)
- `server/services/environments.ts`: `ensureKubernetesEnvironment` /
`findKubernetesEnvironment`, an idempotent managed Kubernetes
environment per company, identified by a metadata marker and refreshed
(not recreated) on config change; `timeoutMs` rides on the config for
slow cold-start leases
- `server/services/execution-allowlist.ts`: pure (driver, provider,
policy) -> allow/deny guard; `executionMode=kubernetes` only allows the
kubernetes sandbox provider
- `server/services/execution-policy-bootstrap.ts` + startup hook in
`server/index.ts`: parse `PAPERCLIP_EXECUTION_MODE` / `PAPERCLIP_K8S_*`,
persist `executionMode` into instance general settings, and provision
the managed environment for every company; fails loud on
misconfiguration
- `server/services/heartbeat.ts`: when the policy forces Kubernetes, pin
run selection to the managed environment (also overriding any persisted
workspace environment id), refuse to fall back to local, and re-check
the actually acquired environment against the allowlist as defense in
depth
- `server/services/adapter-registry-bootstrap.ts` + shared
`AdapterRegistryEntry` type/validator: declarative `PAPERCLIP_ADAPTERS`
registry (inline JSON or file) that reconciles adapter availability at
startup and rides on the Kubernetes environment config
- `server/services/adapter-models-env.ts` + `adapters/registry.ts`:
`PAPERCLIP_ADAPTER_MODELS` lets an operator declare picker model lists
the server cannot CLI-discover
- `server/services/plugin-loader.ts`: pass
`KUBERNETES_SERVICE_HOST/PORT(_HTTPS)` through to plugin workers that
register environment drivers, so in-cluster API clients can be
constructed; all other host env stays stripped
- `server/app.ts`: fail-safe auto-install of the bundled kubernetes
plugin at boot; no-ops when the bundle is absent and never blocks
startup on error
- `packages/shared` types/validators: `InstanceExecutionMode` on general
settings (optional, strict schema)
- `ui/lib/forced-kubernetes-environment.ts` + `AgentConfigForm`: when
the policy is active, show a read-only Kubernetes environment instead of
the environment picker and default new agents onto the managed
environment
- Tests for every new module plus the adapterType pin in
`heartbeat-plugin-environment` and the managed-environment lifecycle in
`environment-service`
Everything is gated: with `PAPERCLIP_EXECUTION_MODE`,
`PAPERCLIP_ADAPTERS`, and `PAPERCLIP_ADAPTER_MODELS` unset (and no
bundled plugin present), every code path reduces to current behavior.
The per-run `adapterType` is an optional SDK parameter that existing
providers ignore.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit`: clean (0 errors); `ui` typecheck also
clean
- Targeted suites all green (11 files, 90 tests): `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-run-orchestrator.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts
server/src/services/execution-policy-bootstrap.test.ts
server/src/services/execution-allowlist.test.ts
server/src/services/adapter-registry-bootstrap.test.ts
server/src/services/adapter-registry-bootstrap.reconcile.test.ts
server/src/services/adapter-models-env.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/adapter-registry.test.ts`
- `npx vitest run ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.test.ts`: green (6
tests)
- Full `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__`: 2323 passed, 1 skipped;
the only failures (heartbeat-process-recovery pid-retry,
workspace-runtime symbolic-ref/git tests) reproduce identically on
pristine `master` in the same environment, so they are
machine-environment issues unrelated to this change;
`server-startup-feedback-export` needed its `services/index.js` mock
extended with the new export and is green
- This integration has been running in production on a hosted
multi-tenant deployment, where it executes agent runs across five
different harnesses through the stage 1 plugin
## Risks
- Low for existing deployments: every behavior is env-gated and the
defaults preserve current semantics; the auto-install block is wrapped
fail-safe and skips silently when the plugin bundle is absent
- `executionMode` is a new optional field on a strict zod schema; absent
input normalizes exactly as before
- The forced policy intentionally fails runs loudly (rather than falling
back to local) when no managed Kubernetes environment exists; this only
affects instances that explicitly set
`PAPERCLIP_EXECUTION_MODE=kubernetes`
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (claude-opus-4-8, 1M context), extended thinking,
agentic tool use via Claude Code.
## UI screenshots
The UI change is a new read-only "Execution" section in
`AgentConfigForm`, shown only when the instance execution policy forces
Kubernetes (`executionMode=kubernetes`); there is no "before" state for
it (the section did not exist, and instances without the forced policy
render the existing picker unchanged). Captured from the new Storybook
stories added in this PR (`Product/Agent Management`):
Managed Kubernetes environment present (read-only display, no local/SSH
picker):
No managed environment available yet (warning notice, no silent local
fallback):
## 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
- [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 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect
files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work.
> - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file
references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI.
> - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side
workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing
arbitrary host paths.
> - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and
be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review.
> - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page
file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact
file chips.
> - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from
issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip
issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`.
Problem / motivation:
- Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents
or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal.
- The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace
browsing/searching from an issue page.
- The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size
limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging.
Related PR:
- Prior closed attempt: #4442
- Single active PR for this branch: #7681
## What Changed
- Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and
workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products.
- Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing
workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific
limits, and audit logging.
- Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser,
command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact
file chips.
- Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and
workspace file opening.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
updated the existing single PR branch.
- Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset`
consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring
stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and
stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test.
## Verification
Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`:
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts
ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts
ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx`
- 1 file passed, 25 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed.
- Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current
`public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer
PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single
active PR for the branch.
- No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add
design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work.
Current remote verification on head
`a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`:
- Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no
unresolved Greptile review threads.
- PR workflow `verify` - success.
- Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards,
serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk -
success.
- `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was
filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block.
- `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate
detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I
reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test
failure was exposed in the job logs.
## Risks
- This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention
to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown
autolink false positives.
- Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth;
very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms.
- Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access
support is implemented.
- The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer
review, but the check output says it is not a merge block.
> 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 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use
environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch
inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI
inspection.
## 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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
- [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 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators manage both company-scoped configuration and
instance-level runtime/admin settings from the board UI
> - Instance settings previously lived as their own top-level sidebar
area, separate from the company settings context operators already use
> - That split made settings navigation feel heavier and made instance
configuration less discoverable from the settings tab
> - This pull request moves instance settings under company settings
while preserving the existing instance settings routes and plugin/admin
surfaces
> - The benefit is a smaller primary sidebar and a more coherent
settings hierarchy for operators
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #338
- Internal: PAP-10491, PAP-10538
## What Changed
- Moved instance settings navigation under the company settings area.
- Added route helpers and sidebar entries for nested instance settings
paths.
- Updated plugin/admin settings routes to use the company settings
instance scope.
- Preserved legacy instance-settings bookmarks through compatibility
redirects that keep the active company prefix.
- Updated focused UI and plugin tests for the new navigation shape.
- Stabilized the process-loss retry test that was failing the serialized
server shard in CI.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and
pushed the current head.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/access/CompanySettingsNav.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/instance-settings.test.ts
ui/src/components/InstanceSidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/instance-settings.test.ts
ui/src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/access/CompanySettingsNav.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues
exactly one retry when the recorded local pid is dead"`
- `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 0 --shard-count 4`
- GitHub PR checks are green on head
`fe7b0955169dcae55cbe10889c1876a70ab0b80c`, including `verify`, `General
tests (server)`, all serialized server shards, build, e2e, policy,
security checks, and Greptile.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Medium UI/navigation risk: instance settings links are intentionally
moving under company settings, so stale external bookmarks to legacy
paths rely on the compatibility routing in this branch.
- Low test-only risk from the CI stabilization commit: it makes the
recovery assertion select the actual retry run by `retryOfRunId` instead
of whichever non-original run appears first.
- No database migrations.
- No dependency lockfile or workflow changes.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell/tool execution in
a local repository worktree. Exact context window was not exposed by the
runtime.
## 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI
agents for work.
> - Agent runtime state is surfaced in both the server API and the board
UI so operators can tell whether an agent is idle, running, paused, or
in error.
> - When an agent is already in `error`, the existing pause/resume
action slot is not useful because there is no running work to pause.
> - Operators need a direct, audited recovery path that clears the stale
error state only for agents in the same company.
> - This pull request adds a company-scoped clear-error mutation,
exposes the shared API contract, and wires the board action cluster to
show Clear error in the pause/resume slot for errored agents.
> - The benefit is that operators can recover CEO/CTO-style errored
agents without resorting to database edits or unrelated session reset
actions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #4021
Paperclip issue: PAP-10515 — right now the CEO and CTO agents are in
error state, but there is no way to clear the error; they appear
otherwise fine.
## What Changed
- Added shared constants, API path, and agent status type support for a
company-scoped clear-error action.
- Added the server service and route to clear an agent from `error` back
to `idle`, with company access enforcement and activity logging.
- Added OpenAPI/docs coverage for the clear-error endpoint.
- Added backend coverage for service behavior and cross-tenant
authorization.
- Updated the board agent action cluster to show a red-tinted Clear
error button only when `agent.status === "error"`.
- Updated agent properties to show a red active last-error indicator
only while the agent is currently errored.
- Added UI component tests for the error-state action and the non-error
pause/resume behavior.
## Verification
Local:
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-clear-error.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/AgentActionButtons.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`
PR checks:
- Main Paperclip workflow is green on
`a7378e584d50594e7bd507a1a02985bfaaa5abf8`.
- Greptile is 5/5 with no files requiring special attention and no new
comments on the latest review.
- `commitperclip PR Review` is still red because its security-gate step
canceled after filing a draft advisory; the linked `security-review`
check is neutral and says the draft advisory is not a merge block.
Visual artifact:
- 
## Risks
Low to medium risk. The mutation is intentionally narrow, but reviewers
should check that clearing `lastError`/`lastRunError` and returning to
`idle` is the desired recovery semantics for every adapter state. The
remaining red check is from the external commitperclip security-review
workflow, not from the code/test workflow for this PR.
> 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-family coding model, tool-assisted with local shell,
git, GitHub CLI, and targeted Vitest 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 (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
- [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
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The control plane owns agent lifecycle, issue assignment, routine
dispatch, heartbeat wakeups, and recovery paths
> - Terminated, paused, pending-approval, or otherwise invalid agents
should not receive new work or new execution attempts
> - The old behavior left eligibility checks spread across routes and
services, so assignment and run paths could drift apart
> - This pull request centralizes agent lifecycle eligibility and
applies it consistently to assignment, invocation, routines, recovery,
and UI affordances
> - The benefit is safer autonomy: terminated agents stay paused,
invalid org-chain agents are surfaced, and active agents keep receiving
valid work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #5103
Related: #1864
Bug fix context:
- What happened: agent assignment and heartbeat/run paths did not share
one eligibility contract, so invalid lifecycle states could still be
considered in some paths.
- Expected behavior: terminated agents must never receive new
assignments or heartbeat runs, and paused or otherwise invalid agents
should be treated as non-invokable consistently.
- Steps to reproduce: create or select an agent in an invalid lifecycle
state, then attempt assignment, routine dispatch, or heartbeat/recovery
wake paths.
- Paperclip version/commit: fixed on top of `paperclipai/paperclip`
`master` at the PR base.
- Deployment mode: applies to the server control plane in local and
authenticated deployments.
## What Changed
- Added shared agent lifecycle eligibility helpers and exported the
related shared types.
- Centralized server-side assignability and invokability checks for
issue assignment, agent routes, heartbeat dispatch, routines, recovery,
and liveness logic.
- Hardened issue assignment so invalid assignees are rejected instead of
queued for work.
- Hardened heartbeat/routine/recovery paths so terminated and otherwise
invalid agents are not woken for new runs.
- Updated board UI affordances to disable invalid agent actions and
surface org-chain warnings where relevant.
- Added targeted shared, server, and UI tests for the new eligibility
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/agent-eligibility.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-invokability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-archived-company-guard.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-members.test.ts ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx` — 8
files, 144 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` — passed.
- Checked the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a targeted control-plane safety fix and
does not duplicate a planned core feature.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs/issues; closest related
items are linked above.
- CI and Greptile verification are pending on the opened PR and will be
followed up before requesting merge.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The intended behavioral shift is that invalid
agents are refused earlier and more consistently, which could expose
existing data with paused, pending, terminated, or broken org-chain
assignees. The added tests cover the critical assignment, heartbeat,
routine, recovery, shared helper, and UI paths. No database migrations
are included.
> 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 Codex via the Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode and context window are
managed by the adapter runtime and not exposed in this environment.
## 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 (not applicable: no design screenshots requested; UI
behavior is covered by tests)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (not
applicable: no user-facing command or schema docs changed)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending CI)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending Greptile)
- [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 artifacts surface is where board users inspect files, media, and
documents produced by agents.
> - Grouped artifact stacks make that surface easier to scan by task,
but the first pass still made grouping feel secondary to media filters.
> - The follow-up request was to make grouping the default and give the
grouping control the same icon-only outline treatment used on the issues
page.
> - This pull request keeps the existing artifact grouping API/UI, then
polishes the artifacts toolbar state and Storybook review coverage.
> - The benefit is that `/artifacts` now opens in the task-stack view by
default while preserving explicit flat-mode filtering via
`groupBy=none`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this internal Paperclip task.
### Subsystem affected
ui/ — React + Vite board UI.
### Problem or motivation
The `/artifacts` grouping affordance was visually placed after the media
filters, rendered as a text button, and defaulted to a flat artifact
list. Internal follow-up `PAP-10465` requested the grouping icon move
left of the filters, become an icon-only outlined button like `/issues`,
and make Task grouping the default.
### Proposed solution
Default `/artifacts` to grouped Task stacks, keep explicit flat mode
available as `groupBy=none`, move the grouping control before the media
chips, and restyle it as the shared icon-only outline button pattern.
### Alternatives considered
Leaving flat mode as the implicit default was rejected because it does
not satisfy the follow-up. Keeping a text label on the grouping trigger
was rejected because `/issues` already established the icon-only outline
pattern for this class of toolbar control.
### Roadmap alignment
This aligns with the `Artifacts & Work Products` roadmap item by making
generated outputs easier to inspect and operate from the board UI.
## What Changed
- Defaulted the `/artifacts` page to `groupBy=task` when no grouping URL
param is present, while keeping explicit flat mode available with
`groupBy=none`.
- Moved the group control before the media filter chips and changed it
to an icon-only outlined button using the shared `Button` pattern.
- Updated artifact page tests to cover default Task grouping, explicit
flat mode, trigger ordering, and icon-only outline metadata.
- Updated the artifact Storybook story so its toolbar mock matches the
production ordering and grouped Task is documented as the default mode.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Artifacts.test.tsx
ui/src/components/artifacts/ArtifactGroupCard.test.tsx` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- QA visual validation from internal follow-up PAP-10466 passed
desktop/mobile scenarios. Screenshot evidence attached there:
- Desktop default:
http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/bc81305d-f5de-485c-abeb-9e7c3d9d8539/content
- Desktop toolbar close-up:
http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/3375a62b-2110-48f3-bafa-ea98c00f99f7/content
- Mobile default:
http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/bfc5642e-9248-431e-9bac-36284dec1c89/content
- Mobile toolbar close-up:
http://paperclip-dev:3100/api/attachments/ca79401a-5ba8-464d-bc6e-aeffd47fe695/content
- GitHub PR checks on head `431964c8b` — passed, including Greptile 5/5.
## Risks
Low to medium risk. The main behavior shift is intentional: `/artifacts`
now queries grouped Task stacks by default. Existing flat mode remains
available through the grouping menu and explicit `groupBy=none` URLs.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4 class coding model in this Paperclip heartbeat
environment, with shell, git, test, and GitHub CLI tool use. Context
window managed by the Codex runtime.
## 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
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The affected subsystem is the heartbeat execution path that turns
issue assignment into adapter-backed work in a selected workspace.
> - PAP-10409 and sibling follow-ups failed before useful adapter output
because project/workspace identity became incoherent.
> - A project-workspace-linked child issue could keep
`projectWorkspaceId` / execution workspace state while losing
`projectId`, then a git-sensitive local adapter could fall through
toward an invalid fallback cwd.
> - Paperclip needs to treat coherent workspace identity as part of the
live-path contract, not only as post-failure cleanup.
> - This pull request documents that rule, repairs issue inheritance,
and blocks git-sensitive adapter launch before it can run from the wrong
cwd.
> - The benefit is a bounded recovery path: affected issues are repaired
explicitly, future malformed workspaces fail fast with a clear recovery
action, and the UI surfaces that reason.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7646
Bug report fields:
- Summary: adapter-backed follow-up issues can fail before doing work
when issue creation/inheritance preserves workspace ids but drops
project identity.
- Affected issues: internal Paperclip issues PAP-10408 through
PAP-10412, especially PAP-10409.
- Steps to reproduce: create a project-scoped parent/follow-up tree
where a child issue keeps `projectWorkspaceId` or an inherited execution
workspace but has `projectId: null`, then launch a git-sensitive local
adapter such as `codex_local`.
- Expected behavior: Paperclip derives or preserves coherent project
identity during issue creation, and heartbeat refuses malformed
git-sensitive workspace launches with one clear recovery action.
- Actual behavior before this PR: the run could reach adapter bootstrap
with an incoherent workspace context and fail with git errors such as
`fatal: not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /srv)`.
- Root cause: child/follow-up issue inheritance preserved workspace
execution context without coherent project context. That let heartbeat
workspace resolution/adapter launch reach a fallback cwd instead of
refusing the malformed workspace state up front.
## What Changed
- Documented the adapter workspace-coherence live-path precondition in
`doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Updated issue creation/inheritance so workspace-inheriting issues
preserve or derive project identity, while existing mismatch validation
still rejects incoherent project/workspace combinations.
- Added a heartbeat preflight guard for git-sensitive local adapters
that validates effective cwd, persisted workspace identity, project
workspace identity, and required git metadata before launch.
- Added `workspace_validation` recovery actions for this failure class
and ensured the source issue gets a visible, idempotent recovery
comment.
- Surfaced workspace-validation recovery state in issue rows, blocked
notices, and recovery action cards, including the manual-repair wake
policy label.
- Added focused regression coverage for issue inheritance, all heartbeat
workspace-validation guard branches, recovery display helpers, and UI
recovery components.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- Result: 1 test file passed, 68 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`
- Result: 1 test file passed, 12 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`
- Result: 2 test files passed, 18 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Result: passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/recovery-display.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 200 tests passed before the final
guard-branch additions; the changed server file was re-run above.
- UI coverage: `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`
contains rendered scenarios for the generic recovery chip,
workspace-validation recovery chip, blocked notice indicator, recovery
action card, and issue-row chip.
- Screenshot capture attempt: Storybook started successfully on
`http://127.0.0.1:6016/`, but screenshots could not be captured in this
runner because `agent-browser` launched an unusable Chrome binary and
Playwright Chromium failed on missing system library `libatk-1.0.so.0`;
the runner is non-root and lacks passwordless sudo for installing
browser dependencies.
- Hosted CI on final commit `969594e7` is green, including `verify`,
`Build`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, `General tests (server)`,
workspace suites, serialized server suites, `Canary Dry Run`, and `e2e`.
- Roadmap checked: no duplicate roadmap item; this is a tightly scoped
reliability fix for existing heartbeat/workspace behavior.
- Duplicate PR search checked: no open PR matched `workspace coherence
adapter cwd`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: heartbeat launch is stricter for git-sensitive local
adapters and can now block malformed workspace states before adapter
execution.
- Mitigation: the guard is limited to local git-sensitive adapters and
records a source-scoped recovery action with structured evidence instead
of retrying indefinitely.
- Compatibility: valid project/workspace execution paths continue
normally; explicit project/workspace mismatches remain rejected.
> 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 `codex_local` coding agent with terminal/tool
use. Work was produced through Paperclip issue execution with focused
local test runs.
## 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board UI is the control surface for issues, projects, agents,
goals, workspaces, and operator settings.
> - The existing navigation and list surfaces make several
high-frequency workflows feel harder to scan than they should,
especially around projects and agents.
> - The product direction is to improve those surfaces without breaking
the existing route model or forcing a new IA on every operator at once.
> - This pull request now keeps the dependent IA, project identity, and
agent-list visual refresh work together while the Issue-to-Task copy
migration is split into #7651.
> - The benefit is a clearer left nav, better project identity, denser
agent/project list rows, and brand-aligned status treatment while
preserving the classic default experience behind a flag.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7645
Refs #7651
Internal planning/work references: PAP-53, PAP-56, PAP-58, PAP-59,
PAP-60, PAP-61, PAP-68, PAP-69, PAP-70, PAP-71, PAP-72, PAP-75, PAP-76,
PAP-80, PAP-85, PAP-86, PAP-87, PAP-88, PAP-89.
## What Changed
- Adds `enableStreamlinedLeftNavigation`, defaulting off, and gates
sidebar presentation so classic navigation remains the default.
- Adds project icon persistence, validation, portability, picker UI, and
`ProjectTile` rendering while defaulting new projects to neutral gray.
- Adds projects-list task-count and budget summary data with focused
server/shared/UI coverage.
- Refreshes agent list rows, row actions, active/recent sidebar
behavior, and status capsule/chip styling for the approved brand state
system.
- Removes the placeholder Conference room and Artifacts nav/routes from
the finalized experimental nav direction.
- Removes `pnpm-lock.yaml` and the Issue-to-Task copy migration from
this PR diff; the copy migration now lives in #7651.
## Verification
- Existing branch verification from the authored commits: UI typecheck,
targeted unit tests, and light/dark visual checks for `/agents`, agent
detail, and design-guide status states.
- Maintainer cleanup verification on `75e34e5`: `git diff --check
origin/master...HEAD` passed, the `design/` diff is empty, and the PR
diff is 61 files, below Greptile's 100-file review limit.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 8 tests.
- CI and Greptile should rerun on the latest push.
## Risks
- Broad UI surface area: the experimental flag keeps the classic nav
default, but changed shared components such as `EntityRow`,
`ProjectTile`, and agent status badges could affect multiple pages.
- Database migration: `projects.icon` is additive and nullable, but
migration ordering and portability import/export must stay aligned.
- The Issue-to-Task copy migration is now separated into #7651, so
reviewers should evaluate this PR as IA/project/agent presentation work
only.
- Visual regressions are possible across smaller widths because the PR
intentionally changes dense list-row layouts.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 assisted the original feature commits.
Paperclip-Paperclip agents assisted some planning/design commits. Codex
/ GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access
performed this PR-readiness cleanup and split.
## 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
- [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>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions,
and approval-style handoffs.
> - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest
tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured
checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options.
> - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate
consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the
UI.
> - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract,
server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render
and submit structured selections.
> - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select
confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip
interactions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip
issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox
confirmation issue-thread UI component work.
- GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation /
issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found.
- Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup
work, so it is not linked as a related issue.
## What Changed
- Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for
`request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions.
- Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for
checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response
handling.
- Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can
create the new interaction shape consistently.
- Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox
confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target
states, and accept/decline flows.
- Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the
Paperclip skill/API reference.
## Verification
- Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into
`public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`:
```sh
NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links
NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts
```
Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed.
- CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green.
- Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check
shows all Greptile threads resolved.
## Risks
- Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared
validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK
helpers, and docs.
- No database migrations are included.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile
policy.
- UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested
not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the
work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access,
shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip
control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata
is not exposed inside this runtime.
## 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Test infrastructure across server, ui, packages/* runs on Vitest
> - Dependabot opened a narrow bump (3.2.4 → 3.2.6), but the wider
workspace is on 3.2.4 and the major-version bridge to v4 needs a
coordinated change set across configs and tests
> - Staying on 3.x indefinitely leaves us behind on Vitest 4 (perf,
pool, and config improvements) and forces repeated patch-only dependabot
churn
> - This pull request upgrades Vitest to 4.1.8 across the workspace,
updates `server/vitest.config.ts` and `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`
for the new API, and adjusts two UI tests for the new assertion
semantics
> - The benefit is a single, coherent Vitest 4 upgrade that supersedes
#7570 and gets us on the supported major line
## What Changed
- Bump `vitest` from `3.2.4` to `4.1.8` across root, `server`, `ui`, and
all `packages/*` (including plugin examples and sandbox providers)
- Update `server/vitest.config.ts` for Vitest 4 config surface
- Update `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` to match the new runner
behavior
- Adjust `ui/src/components/CommentThread.test.tsx` and
`ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx` for Vitest 4 matcher/timing
semantics
- Refresh `pnpm-lock.yaml`
## Verification
- `pnpm install` resolves cleanly with the new lockfile
- `pnpm -w -r test` (server, ui, packages) runs under Vitest 4.1.8
## Risks
- Major-version Vitest bump: behavioral changes in pools, fake timers,
and matcher strictness can surface flake. Test config and the two UI
tests were updated to match v4 semantics; broader test runs should be
watched on CI before merge.
- Supersedes dependabot PR #7570 (3.2.4 → 3.2.6); that PR should be
closed.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking, tool use
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
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Closes#7570
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators need a way to inspect files and work products created by
agents across a company without opening each issue one by one.
> - The existing issue detail surfaces already show attachments and
outputs, but there was no company-level artifacts index or search-result
affordance for artifact-like records.
> - The backend needed a company-scoped artifacts projection API that
preserves issue/run attribution and safe links back to source records.
> - The UI needed a first-class Artifacts page, sidebar entry, reusable
artifact cards, and deep-link handling that keeps company prefixes
intact.
> - This pull request adds the company artifacts API and page, then
wires artifacts into search and issue output surfaces.
> - The benefit is a single place to browse, filter, and open generated
work products and attachments while preserving company boundaries.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#7622.
Feature request fields:
- Problem/motivation: company operators need a consolidated artifacts
surface for attachments and work products produced by agents.
- Proposed solution: add a company-scoped artifacts projection endpoint,
a board Artifacts route, reusable cards, sidebar navigation, and
artifact search integration.
- Alternatives considered: keep artifact discovery only on individual
issue pages; that forces operators to know the source issue before
finding generated outputs.
- Roadmap alignment: checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a focused board
UI/API improvement and does not duplicate a listed roadmap item.
## What Changed
- Added shared artifact types and validators.
- Added a company-scoped artifact projection service/API with tests for
attachment/work-product attribution.
- Added Artifacts board UI route, API client, sidebar link, cards,
filters, and storybook coverage.
- Added artifact result handling to company search and issue
output/deep-link flows.
- Rebased the branch onto the latest `public-gh/master` state and
resolved the route-test conflict by preserving both upstream
team-catalog coverage and artifact route coverage.
- Fixed a local Sidebar test helper so it no longer depends on a
runtime-undefined `React.act` export in this dependency install.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx src/api/artifacts.test.ts
src/lib/company-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Artifacts.test.tsx src/pages/Search.test.tsx
src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-artifacts-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows/*`.
- Duplicate search: no open PRs or issues found for `artifact page
ArtifactCard` in `paperclipai/paperclip`.
Screenshots are intentionally omitted per the internal task instruction
not to add design screenshots or images to this PR unless they are
specifically part of the work. I also attempted browser capture in this
runner, but `agent-browser` failed to launch Chrome and Playwright
Chromium is missing `libatk-1.0.so.0`.
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: this adds a new API projection and UI surface, so
attribution/link regressions could affect artifact navigation.
- Company scoping is covered in the new service/API tests.
- No database migrations are included.
- No lockfile or workflow changes are included.
> 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 coding agent with tool use and local command
execution. Exact hosted model identifier is not exposed in this runtime.
## 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (intentionally omitted per task instruction; browser capture
unavailable in this runner)
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution
policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract.
> - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal
same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and
generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads.
> - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context,
which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer
assigned to hostile content.
> - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging,
route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output
does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the
low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations.
> - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection,
preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind
promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion,
documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks,
enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor
authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic.
> - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review
containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot
surfaces.
Fixes#7531.
## What Changed
- Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus
database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work
products.
- Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent
self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion
checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context.
- Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source
trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime
containment, and quarantine redaction.
- Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust
preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views.
- Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review
contract plan under `doc/plans/`.
- Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses
`ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered
migration are not broken by the renumbered migration.
## Verification
- Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with
lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment
tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata.
- Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to
`0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT
EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not
broken.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts
ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `git diff --check`
- GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release
registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify,
policy/review, Socket, and Snyk.
- Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved
Greptile review threads.
- No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly
says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server
authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata,
and UI preset controls.
- Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate
future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions.
- Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover
the current known routes but future integrations must route through the
same containment layer.
- The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is
5/5.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI
workflow.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added
per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically
required
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Fixes#7551
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable
company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch.
> - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that
can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company.
> - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package
contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI
workflows, and the board UI.
> - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped
company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent
creation, and preserved catalog provenance.
> - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into
one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`.
> - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI,
package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync.
## What Changed
- Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional
team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests,
and migration notes.
- Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and
services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams.
- Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source
policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager
reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection.
- Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior,
including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden
agent-run installs.
- Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures,
and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary
navigation.
- Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed
generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai
typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and
`public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`.
- Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`,
generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts.
## Risks
- Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared
contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code.
- Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must
keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks
strict.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy;
CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh.
- The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so
future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure.
> 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`.
>
> ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and
plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed
on the Paperclip task branch for review.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session;
exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and
local test/typecheck tooling.
## 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 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, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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 orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Each agent has a heartbeat scheduler that wakes it on timers and on
events; every wake spawns an adapter (Claude / Codex / …) run that bills
the operator's subscription
> - When an operator archives a company, the agents inside it remain in
invokable states — the heartbeat scheduler never consults company status
— so timers keep firing and event-driven wakes (comments, mentions,
blockers-resolved, etc.) keep cascading
> - On real deployments this silently drains the operator's
subscription: idle archived companies wake their CEOs hourly, plus any
cross-company event cascade
> - This pull request enforces "archived ⇒ never spawns a run" as a
structural invariant by guarding the wake path AND cascading agent state
on archive/reactivate
> - The benefit is that archived companies stop billing the operator,
and the UI/queue stays consistent with the invariant
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`:
- `enqueueWakeup()` loads the company and short-circuits when status is
not `active`. Background sources (timer, automation, events) write a
`company.inactive` skipped wake and return `null`; explicit user invokes
throw a `conflict` so the UI surfaces the real reason.
- `tickTimers()` joins agents to active companies so the scheduler does
not iterate archived-company agents at all (no skip-row noise).
- `server/src/services/companies.ts`:
- `archive(id, actor?)` pauses runnable agents with `pauseReason =
"company_archived"` inside the transaction (preserving
`pending_approval`, `terminated`, and agents paused for unrelated
reasons), then cancels `queued`/`running` heartbeat runs after the
transaction commits.
- `update(id, data, actor?)` reverses the cascade only for agents whose
`pauseReason === "company_archived"` on the `archived → active`
transition; manually-paused agents stay paused.
- Both methods emit activity-log entries (`company.archived` with
`agentsPaused` + `runsCancelled`, `company.reactivated` with
`agentsRestored`) so the audit trail fires regardless of caller.
- `packages/shared/src/constants.ts` + `server/src/services/budgets.ts`:
add `company_archived` to the legal `PauseReason` union so the
restorable marker is a first-class value.
-
`packages/db/src/migrations/0094_backfill_archived_company_agent_pauses.sql`:
backfill so existing archived-company agents become `paused /
company_archived` (excludes `pending_approval`).
- `ui/src/lib/activity-format.ts`: add the `company.reactivated` label.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/companies-service.test.ts` — archive
cascade, reactivate cascade, and activity-log entries (with counts) all
pass.
- `npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-archived-company-guard.test.ts` — timer +
on-demand + event-wake paths all blocked for archived companies;
`company.inactive` skipped-wake row written; user-initiated wakes throw
`conflict`.
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean.
- Manual repro from the bug description: archive a company, wait an
interval / post a comment on one of its issues, observe zero new
heartbeat runs.
## Risks
- Migration `0094` is a single bulk UPDATE on `agents` joined to
archived `companies`. On large deployments it briefly holds row locks on
archived-company agent rows; should be quick because the predicate is
narrow (`status NOT IN (paused, terminated, pending_approval)` and
`companies.status = 'archived'`).
- New `pauseReason` value (`company_archived`) is opaque to older
clients that only know the previous union. Acceptable because the union
is read as plain text and the contract is sync'd in the same change.
- Behavior change for users: invoking an agent in an archived company
now fails with a conflict instead of silently spawning a run. Intended.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — model `claude-opus-4-7` ("Opus 4.7"), Claude Code
CLI, with tool use (Read/Edit/Bash/Grep). No extended thinking 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A, no UI changes beyond an activity-log label string
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Related Work
Fixes#1348 (`[Bug] Archived companies still running heartbeats and
consuming tokens`).
Prior attempts and parallel work in this area:
- #1365 and #1429 by @hungdqdesign (March 2026) — both closed without
merging. Same three-layer shape (`tickTimers` / `enqueueWakeup` /
`resumeQueuedRuns` + archive-route cancellation) targeting #1348. Credit
for first publicly proposing the wake-path-guard approach.
- #5865 by @stubbi (May 2026, open) — adds the same `companies.status !=
'archived'` joins to `tickTimers`, `enqueueWakeup`, `resumeQueuedRuns`,
**and** routines `tickScheduledTriggers`, bundled with plugin-table
tenant isolation (`plugin_entities` / `plugin_job_runs` / `plugin_logs`
/ `plugin_webhook_deliveries` get a `companyId` FK with `ON DELETE
CASCADE`). This PR is narrower — it does not touch routines or plugin
tables — but adds the **archive cascade** (pause agents with
`pauseReason = "company_archived"`), the **reactivate reverse**
(un-pause only that subset), the **`company_archived` pause-reason
marker**, and a **backfill migration** for pre-existing archived
companies, which #5865 does not include. Happy to coordinate sequencing
or rebase if #5865 lands first.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, with the CLI
acting as a scriptable operator and agent interface to that control
plane.
> - The REST API surface has grown across companies, agents, issues,
routines, plugins, auth, workspaces, secrets, and operational inspection
commands.
> - The CLI had drifted from that API surface: some commands were
missing, some command shapes differed from docs/reference material, and
several edge cases only failed during end-to-end local-source testing.
> - The local development runbook requires these tests to be disposable
and isolated from a real `~/.paperclip`, `~/.codex`, or `~/.claude`
installation.
> - This pull request adds broad CLI/API parity coverage, fixes the
actionable bugs found during that pass, and records the reproducible
test log under `doc/logs`.
> - The benefit is a more complete, scriptable CLI surface with
regression coverage for the command families exercised by the parity
run.
## What Changed
- Added or expanded CLI command coverage for access/auth, companies,
agents, projects, goals, issues and subresources, routines, plugins,
workspaces, activity/run/cost/dashboard inspection, assets, skills,
secrets, tokens, prompt/wake flows, and local setup helpers.
- Fixed CLI/API parity bugs found during the run, including context
profile patching, issue interaction optional payloads, malformed
tree-hold errors, environment duplicate handling, configure
invalid-section exit codes, worktree pnpm invocation, token agent ID
resolution, plugin tool worker lookup, and routine webhook secret
cleanup.
- Added missing CLI wrappers and route coverage for health/access,
invite resolution URL forwarding, join status normalization, secret
lifecycle commands, LLM docs routes, available-skill isolation, positive
board-claim coverage, and interactive `connect` prompt-flow tests.
- Added a schema-backed `/api/openapi.json` route sufficient for CLI
parity and `paperclipai openapi --json` smoke coverage.
- Added `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` with the
detailed living test/bug log and renamed the log directory from
`doc/bugs` to `doc/logs`.
- Added `doc/plans/2026-05-23-cli-api-parity.md` and the OpenAPI parity
reference used during the pass.
OpenAPI note: this PR intentionally does not try to subsume
`feature/openapi-spec`. The OpenAPI implementation here is schema-backed
and better than the earlier route-inventory stub, but
`feature/openapi-spec` is the fuller/better OpenAPI branch because it
includes exact mounted-route coverage tests and additional current route
coverage. That branch should stay as its own PR and can supersede this
OpenAPI route implementation.
## Verification
Targeted automated checks run:
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/board-claim.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/connect.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/agent-lifecycle.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --dir cli typecheck`
- `pnpm --dir server typecheck`
Manual/local E2E verification:
- Ran the full disposable local-source CLI/API parity pass with isolated
`PAPERCLIP_HOME`, `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT`,
`PAPERCLIP_AUTH_STORE`, `CODEX_HOME`, and `CLAUDE_HOME` under
`tmp/cli-api-parity`.
- Verified `DATABASE_URL` and `DATABASE_MIGRATION_URL` stayed unset for
the scratch server.
- Verified live health and schema-backed OpenAPI responses on
non-default port `3197`.
- Revoked created board/agent tokens and cleaned up temporary plugins,
secrets, non-default environments, and project workspaces.
- See `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` for the full
command-by-command reproduction log.
Not run:
- Full `pnpm test`, `pnpm test:run`, or `pnpm build` were not run after
the entire branch because the branch is broad and the parity pass used
focused test/typecheck verification plus live isolated CLI reruns.
## Risks
- This is a broad PR and touches many CLI command modules, so review
surface is high. The changes are grouped around one theme, but a split
may be easier if maintainers prefer narrower PRs.
- The OpenAPI route in this PR is not the final/best OpenAPI
implementation. `feature/openapi-spec` has stronger exact-route coverage
and should remain the source for the dedicated OpenAPI PR.
- The living log is intentionally detailed and large. It is useful for
reproducibility but adds documentation weight.
- No UI changes are intended; screenshots are not applicable.
> 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 in Codex desktop. Exact served
model/context-window identifier was not exposed in the local app. Work
used shell/Git/GitHub CLI tooling, local source inspection, targeted
test execution, and live isolated Paperclip CLI/API smoke testing.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and provisions sandboxed execution
environments for them; one of those provisioners is the exe.dev plugin,
which runs each agent inside a long-lived VM reached over SSH.
> - The instance-config form for that plugin is rendered generically by
`JsonSchemaForm` from the plugin's `instanceConfigSchema`, so any UX
problem with the form is split between the shared form component and the
plugin's schema/runtime code.
> - Users coming in cold hit a 12-field flat config they couldn't reason
about (PAPA-407), a form that silently submitted `cpu: 0` for untouched
optional fields (PAPA-407 root cause), a `sshPrivateKey` textarea that
truncated RSA-4096 keys at 4096 chars (PAPA-449), a save flow that
accepted clearly-malformed keys and only blew up at lease time with raw
SSH stderr (PAPA-450, PAPA-451), and a manifest that didn't distinguish
"essential" from "advanced" knobs (PAPA-410 / PAPA-411 — duplicate
sub-issues with identical scope; PAPA-418 reconciliation kept PAPA-410
canonical).
> - These problems all point at the same surface (exe.dev sandbox
config) and are tightly coupled in code — PAPA-449/450/451 patch fields
that PAPA-410/411 introduce — so they get reviewed together.
> - This pull request lands the shared-form changes (advanced-options
disclosure, optional-scalar defaults) and the exe.dev-specific changes
(manifest restructure, longer `maxLength`, stderr translation, save-time
key validation) as five focused commits stacked on `master`.
> - The benefit is a config form that defaults to the two fields a new
user actually needs (API key + SSH private key) with a collapsible
disclosure for the rest, no silent truncation or zero-default
submissions, and SSH key problems surfaced at save time with actionable
messages instead of cryptic post-provision failures.
## What Changed
- **JsonSchemaForm advanced-options disclosure** (PAPA-410, PAPA-411 —
same scope, see note above): adds `x-paperclip-advanced` /
`x-paperclip-group` schema annotations and renders flagged fields behind
a collapsible "Advanced options" disclosure that auto-opens when a
hidden field has a validation error. Exe.dev manifest is restructured to
use the new annotations, so essentials (`apiKey`, `sshPrivateKey`) show
by default while the long tail of optional knobs is grouped under "SSH
access" / "VM resources" / "More options" headings.
- **Omit optional scalar defaults** (PAPA-407): `getDefaultForSchema` no
longer materialises `0` / `""` for optional
`number`/`integer`/`string`/`secret-ref` fields without an explicit
`default`. Object recursion drops properties whose default is
`undefined`. Fields that declare a `default` (e.g. `sshPort: 22`) still
round-trip. Adds a regression test against `getDefaultValues`.
- **Raise `sshPrivateKey` `maxLength`** (PAPA-449): bumps the exe.dev
manifest cap from 4096 to 8192 so RSA-4096 OpenSSH private keys (which
can exceed 4 KB with comments/metadata) aren't silently truncated at
submit.
- **Translate `invalid format` SSH stderr** (PAPA-450):
`formatSshFailure` now recognises `Load key … invalid format` in
combined stderr/stdout and returns a specific message naming the
key-format problem ("isn't an OpenSSH/PEM private key — confirm the
secret starts with `-----BEGIN … PRIVATE KEY-----` and isn't the `.pub`
or a PuTTY `.ppk` export") instead of dumping the raw stderr.
- **Save-time SSH key validation** (PAPA-451):
`onEnvironmentValidateConfig` inline-parses `sshPrivateKey` and rejects
common failure modes — pasted public keys, PuTTY `.ppk` format, missing
`-----END-----` footer, non-base64 body — so the form surfaces an inline
error before any VM is provisioned. Secret-ref bindings (UUIDs) are
still passed through unchanged.
## Verification
CI gates (`pnpm typecheck`, `pnpm test`, the targeted vitest suites
below) all pass.
Run locally:
```bash
# Shared form
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/JsonSchemaForm
# 9 tests pass — includes the new "omits optional scalar fields" regression
# and the three advanced-options-disclosure tests.
# exe.dev plugin
cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/exe-dev && pnpm test
# 32 tests pass — includes the new sshPrivateKey-validation cases
# and the new "invalid format" stderr-translation case.
```
Manual smoke (after reinstalling the plugin so the DB manifest
refreshes):
1. Open the exe.dev environment config page. **Default view shows API
Key + SSH Private Key only**, with an "Advanced options" disclosure for
everything else (PAPA-410 / PAPA-411).
2. Paste a `.pub` file's contents into SSH Private Key, click Save.
**Inline error** rejecting the wrong-format key (PAPA-451).
3. Re-paste a valid OpenSSH/PEM private key longer than 4096 bytes —
saves cleanly (PAPA-449).
4. Save the form with everything optional left blank — server no longer
rejects with `"cpu must be greater than 0 when provided"` (PAPA-407).
5. Force a bad key through via a stored secret-ref binding and lease a
VM — failure message names the key-format problem instead of dumping raw
SSH stderr (PAPA-450).
## Risks
- **PAPA-410 / PAPA-411 manifest restructure** is the largest surface
here. Schemas using `x-paperclip-*` extensions are forward-compatible
with stricter JSON Schema validators (extensions are ignored by
default), and the form gracefully renders a flat layout when no field
opts in.
- **PAPA-407** changes form-default behaviour: optional scalar fields
that previously round-tripped as `""` / `0` will now be `undefined` and
absent from the submitted payload. Downstream consumers that expected
the empty-string/zero shape need to treat the field as optional.
Spot-checked the existing exe.dev driver — it already uses
`parseOptionalString` / `parseOptionalInteger`, which treat missing
fields as `null` rather than `0`/`""`.
- **PAPA-451** adds a save-time check, so a
previously-saved-but-malformed `sshPrivateKey` raw value will now fail
to re-save. Bound secret-refs are unaffected, matching how the user
reaches the bad-key state today (via the secrets picker).
- **PAPA-449** simply raises a cap; no semantic risk.
- **PAPA-450** only kicks in on the "invalid format" code path; existing
onboarding-marker branch is untouched.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`)
- Capabilities used: code reading, code editing, test execution, git/PR
mechanics, Paperclip API for issue coordination
## Checklist
- [x] PR body sections present (Thinking Path, What Changed,
Verification, Risks, Model Used, Checklist)
- [x] Unit tests added for the new behaviours (JsonSchemaForm
default-value omission + advanced disclosure; exe.dev plugin validation
+ stderr translation)
- [x] Existing tests still pass locally (`vitest run` on both packages)
- [x] No raw secrets, IP addresses, or machine-local config in commits
or PR body
- [x] Commits are atomic per linked issue (PAPA-410 / PAPA-411,
PAPA-407, PAPA-449, PAPA-450, PAPA-451)
- [x] Branch is up-to-date with `origin/master`
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents across isolated execution
workspaces; the local cwd is the only persistence boundary between runs.
> - Workspace lifecycle (worktree_prepare → execute →
workspace_finalize) and the wake/accept flow are what guarantee that
dependent issues see a consistent worktree.
> - PAPA-380 / PAPA-431 / PAPA-432 / PAPA-440 surfaced three holes in
that contract: silent env reuse across assignees, dependent wakes firing
before finalize, and `issue.interaction.accept` advancing before
finalize landed.
> - PAPA-441 / PAPA-442 then needed to document the "no remote git"
contract and prevent future adapter/runtime code from quietly
reintroducing `git push` as a backdoor sync.
> - This pull request lands those server fixes, the static
`check-no-git-push` enforcement, the AUTHORING.md cross-link, and the
Cody-review follow-ups on the PAPA-430 thread.
> - The benefit is that finalize is a real barrier — board accepts,
dependent wakes, and operator-set env all respect it — and adapter code
can't bypass it via raw `git push`.
## What Changed
- **server (PAPA-380, PAPA-431):** `execution-workspace-policy` refuses
silent env reuse when the assignee's resolved env disagrees with the
workspace it would inherit. The inheritance protection is now scoped to
the actual inheritance signal — explicit issue-level `environmentId` is
honored even when the agent's default env is `null`.
- **server (PAPA-432):** `heartbeat.ts` gates dependent wakes on
`listUnfinalizedExecutionWorkspaceIds`, and writes a
`workspace_finalize` row on the succeeded path. Write failures now
surface instead of being swallowed so dependents aren't silently
stranded behind a missing row.
- **server (PAPA-440):** `issue-thread-interactions.acceptInteraction`
adds a workspace_finalize precondition for `request_confirmation` (not
`suggest_tasks`). Accept returns 409 if finalize hasn't succeeded for
the latest workspace operation.
- **ci (PAPA-442):** new `scripts/check-no-git-push.mjs` static check
scans `packages/adapters/`, `packages/adapter-utils/`, `server/src/`,
and `cli/src/` for any `git push` invocation (string or args-array).
Wired into the `policy` PR job and `test:release-registry`. Operators
can opt in per-call with `// paperclip:allow-git-push: <reason>`.
Release scripts are out of scope by design.
- **docs (PAPA-441):** `AUTHORING.md` documents the no-remote-git
contract and cross-links the static check so adapter authors learn the
rule and the enforcement together.
- **review follow-up (PAPA-430, Cody):** three fixes — env resolver bug,
accept-gate scope (request_confirmation only), and finalize record write
on the succeeded path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` → 33/33
pass
- `node scripts/check-no-git-push.test.mjs` → check covers string form,
args-array form, comment exclusions, and per-line allow-comment.
- Manual: server compiles; the policy job runs the check in <1s before
heavier jobs.
## Risks
- **Behavioral shift in accept:** boards accepting
`request_confirmation` while finalize is in-flight now get 409s. This is
intentional — they can retry — but it changes timing on a hot path.
`suggest_tasks` is unaffected.
- **Workspace policy:** the env-reuse refusal is a new error path.
Issues that previously silently reused an env from a different-assignee
workspace will now fail-loud; the resolver still honors explicit
issue-level `executionWorkspaceSettings.environmentId`.
- **CI rule:** any future legitimate `git push` in scoped dirs must be
marked with the allow-comment, which is the intended ergonomic.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking), via Claude
Code in the Paperclip executor adapter.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — server/CI/docs only)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Closes related issues: PAPA-430, PAPA-380, PAPA-431, PAPA-432, PAPA-440,
PAPA-441, PAPA-442
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so
planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core
control-plane loop.
> - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into
execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse
isolated workspaces.
> - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision
could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke
the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition.
> - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first:
accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable
claim state, and retry-safe child creation.
> - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed
visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a
dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to
reconstruct child creation from raw activity.
> - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive,
hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces
decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and
easier to inspect.
## What Changed
- Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to
`doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint,
durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior.
- Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend,
including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue
routes for creating and listing decomposition state.
- Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays
scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically
re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee.
- Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent
same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial
child recreation under the same fingerprint.
- Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting
API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision
status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the
UI.
- Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still
renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"accepted plan decomposition"
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts`
- Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution
workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let
Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page
and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted
revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links.
- Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a
plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked
in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope.
## Risks
- This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update;
reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match
the intended decomposition table.
- The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so
regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle
retries if the claim state machine is wrong.
- The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers
should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting
existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section
automatically.
- `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize`
accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can
interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does
not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature
itself.
> Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening
change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap
feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent;
exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context),
with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing
capabilities.
<img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05
48 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28"
/>
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through
company-scoped control-plane workflows.
> - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed,
reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup.
> - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills,
optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills
have clear provenance.
> - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and
managing company skills.
> - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog,
company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI.
> - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills
are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog
listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills.
- Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled
and optional skill content plus validation/build tests.
- Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI,
server, and UI contracts.
- Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog
operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance.
- Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains
explicit across local adapters.
- Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed
company skills.
- Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills
Paperclip skill reference.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no
`pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included
in the final PR diff.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`.
- Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default
branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`.
- Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four
provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database
from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump
contains a duplicate-column foreign key
(`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The
default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the
focused run above.
- Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and
no migration-file changes relative to `master`.
## Risks
- Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server
APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI.
- Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention
because they affect reusable company setup and portability.
- No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no
migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff.
- No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be
handled by the repository lockfile workflow.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the
`codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool
access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata is not exposed
in this runtime.
## 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 run targeted tests locally and documented the local
workspace-runtime seed failure above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally
omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and
reviewer inspection
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through issues, documents,
runs, and durable company-scoped state.
> - Issue documents are where agents and operators capture plans,
handoffs, and work products.
> - Before this change, document collaboration could only happen through
whole-document edits and detached issue comments.
> - Inline document annotations need stable anchors, revision-aware
persistence, and UI affordances that do not break existing document
editing.
> - This pull request adds company-scoped document annotation threads,
comments, anchor snapshots, API routes, and board UI.
> - The benefit is that operators and agents can discuss specific
document passages without losing context as documents evolve.
## What Changed
- Added document annotation tables, schema exports, shared types,
validators, anchor hashing, and text-anchor helpers.
- Added server-side document annotation services and issue routes for
listing, creating, commenting, resolving, and reopening annotation
threads.
- Included annotation summaries in relevant issue document reads and
backup/recovery document workspace behavior.
- Added React UI for inline document highlights, comment panels, mobile
sheet behavior, deep-link focus, and resolved/open filtering.
- Added annotation design artifacts, Storybook coverage, screenshots,
and a screenshot helper script.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and
renumbered the annotation migration from `0085_old_swarm` to
`0091_old_swarm`; the SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments
that previously applied the old migration number can safely apply the
new one.
- Adjusted the new annotation UI tests to use a local async flush helper
because this workspace's React 19.2.4 export does not expose
`React.act`.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/document-anchors.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.test.ts
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-selection.test.ts`
- Confirmed `git diff --check` passes.
- Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` files are
included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this adds new persisted annotation tables and routes
across db/shared/server/ui.
- Migration risk is reduced by moving the branch migration to
`0091_old_swarm` after upstream `0090_resource_memberships` and keeping
the SQL idempotent for old `0085_old_swarm` adopters.
- UI risk is mostly around text range anchoring and panel positioning
across long documents, folded content, and mobile layouts; the PR
includes focused unit coverage and design screenshots.
> 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 coding agent, tool-using software engineering
mode. Context window size is not exposed in this Paperclip runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped
issues, projects, agents, and board-visible workflows.
> - The board sidebar and project list are the daily navigation surface
for that control plane.
> - Users need to keep all projects and agents accessible while hiding
resources they have intentionally left from their own sidebar.
> - That requires user-scoped resource membership state backed by
company-scoped API and database contracts.
> - The branch also needed to preserve HTTP worktree login sessions and
keep the project list easier to scan after membership grouping.
> - This pull request adds resource membership controls, sidebar leave
actions, grouped/sortable project listings, and focused tests.
> - The benefit is a cleaner personal workspace view without weakening
company-scoped access to the underlying project or agent detail pages.
## What Changed
- Added `project_memberships` and `agent_memberships` tables with
API/shared/server contracts for current-user join/leave state.
- Renumbered the membership migration to `0090_resource_memberships`
after rebasing onto current `master`, and made it idempotent for anyone
who had applied the old branch-local `0087` migration.
- Added project and agent sidebar leave actions, plus list filtering
that waits for membership state before hiding resources.
- Added grouped project listing, project sorting controls, and reserved
row subtitle height for cleaner scanning.
- Fixed HTTP auth cookie security handling so HTTP worktree sessions can
persist.
- Updated focused server and UI tests for the new membership, sidebar,
project list, and auth behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MembershipAction.test.tsx
ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx`
- Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Migration safety: low to medium. The migration now uses `IF NOT
EXISTS` / guarded constraints and is numbered after current master
migrations, but it should still get CI coverage against fresh databases.
- UI behavior: low. Left resources are hidden from sidebar only after
membership state loads; direct detail access remains available.
- Auth behavior: low. Cookie security is relaxed only for HTTP/private
local-style origins where secure cookies would prevent login
persistence.
> 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 Codex coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git workflow,
context window not exposed by runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Screenshot note: no browser screenshots were captured in this heartbeat;
the UI changes are covered by focused component tests above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch accumulated multiple already-tested control-plane,
adapter runtime, invite, workspace, plugin, and UI quality fixes on the
primary Paperclip checkout.
> - `origin/master` advanced while those commits were still local, so
the branch needed to be preserved and reconciled before review.
> - Splitting the branch commit-by-commit against the new base produced
overlapping conflicts with recently merged upstream PRs.
> - This pull request keeps the remaining branch as one standalone PR
because the final diff is 38 files after removing screenshot artifacts,
under Greptile's 100-file cap, and can be merged independently after
review.
> - The benefit is that none of the local work is lost, the branch is
now based on current `origin/master`, and reviewers can evaluate the
reconciled changes in one place.
## What Changed
- Merged the local accumulated branch with current `origin/master` and
resolved the invite-flow overlaps from the newer upstream companies
query helper.
- Preserved the local fixes for invite existing-member behavior, invite
link copy fallback, reusable workspace selection, worktree auth, static
SPA fallback, markdown wrapping, plugin slot registration, cloud
upstream UX/server polish, project sorting, and related tests.
- Removed screenshot artifacts from the PR per review request.
- Kept the PR under the requested file limit: 38 files changed, with no
`pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/pages/CompanyInvites.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InviteLanding.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/slots.test.ts
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/invite-accept-existing-member.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/static-index-html.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Confirmed `git diff --name-only origin/master...HEAD | wc -l` is `38`.
- Confirmed no PR diff entries match `pnpm-lock.yaml`,
`.github/workflows/*`, or `screenshots/*`.
## Risks
- Medium review risk because this is a bundled rescue PR rather than
several narrow feature PRs.
- Invite flow and company cache behavior overlapped with newer upstream
changes; the merge resolution intentionally keeps the shared
`companiesListQueryOptions` helper while preserving local
existing-member invite behavior.
- Visual review evidence is no longer attached in-repo because
screenshots were removed from this PR per review request.
> 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 access,
terminal execution, and git/GitHub CLI operations.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] UI screenshots were intentionally removed from this PR per review
request
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: CodexCoder <codexcoder@paperclip.local>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies.
> - Operators need a path to move local company state toward Paperclip
Cloud without losing local-first control.
> - The Cloud Upstream flow needs API, persistence, CLI, and board UI
surfaces that agree on the same manifest/run model.
> - The existing branch had the feature work plus UX and error-handling
follow-ups.
> - This pull request packages the remaining Cloud Upstream sync work
into one standalone branch.
> - The benefit is an inspectable local-to-cloud sync workflow with
preview, conflicts, activation, and captured UX review states.
## What Changed
- Added Cloud Upstream shared types, server routes/services, and
persisted run schema/migration.
- Added Paperclip Cloud CLI sync helpers and local connection storage.
- Added the Cloud Upstream board UI, settings entry points, query keys,
and UX lab page.
- Added preview/activation checklist behavior, redirect handling,
manifest-only preview support, friendly errors, in-flight hints, and
entity count summaries.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/cloud.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CloudUpstream.test.tsx
ui/src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.test.tsx`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/cloud-upstreams.test.ts`
Worktree setup note: the isolated worktree install skipped native sqlite
build scripts, so I copied the already-built local sqlite binding from
the main checkout before running
`server/src/__tests__/cloud-upstreams.test.ts`. The test then passed.
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a database migration and a broad feature path across
CLI/server/UI.
- Merge order: this is the only PR in this split with a DB migration;
merge it before any future Cloud Upstream migration follow-up.
- Mitigation: the PR is based directly on current `origin/master`, has
targeted route/service/UI tests, and keeps the feature behind existing
experimental Cloud Sync settings.
> 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 Codex via `codex_local`, tool-enabled coding session;
exact context window not exposed by this runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshot artifacts are
intentionally omitted per reviewer request
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through a company-scoped
control plane.
> - Plugins extend that control plane, but plugin workers still call
back into host APIs.
> - Those worker-to-host calls need the same company boundary guarantees
as normal API routes.
> - Plugin action handlers also need authenticated actor context from
the host instead of trusting caller-supplied params.
> - This pull request hardens plugin bridge/action scope and keeps
plugin operation issues out of normal issue surfaces.
> - The benefit is safer plugin execution with clearer authorization
boundaries and better test coverage.
## What Changed
- Added host-owned invocation context plumbing for nested plugin worker
calls.
- Added actor context to plugin `performAction` calls and test harness
helpers.
- Enforced company invocation scope on worker-to-host calls and filtered
company lists to the active invocation scope.
- Extended plugin action route tests for board and agent actor context,
spoofed company params, and cross-company rejection.
- Extended plugin worker manager coverage for invocation-scope
propagation.
- Filtered typed and legacy plugin operation issue origins from default
issue/inbox lists.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
packages/plugins/sdk/tests/host-client-factory.test.ts
packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
Note: embedded Postgres issue-service tests reported host-level Postgres
init skip for 47 tests; the non-embedded targeted tests passed.
## Risks
- Medium: plugin host authorization paths are sensitive, and external
plugins may rely on previously loose company params.
- Mitigation: the change only tightens calls when the host attached a
company invocation scope and includes explicit tests for board, agent,
and nested worker calls.
> 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 Codex via `codex_local`, tool-enabled coding session;
exact context window not exposed by this runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies by keeping
task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control
plane.
> - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the
boundary between autonomy and governance.
> - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and
clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries.
> - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host
APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls.
> - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this
core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public
core/plugin infrastructure work.
> - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong
in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental
`plugin-briefs` package.
> - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths
and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved
Greptile threads.
> - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for
richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal
operators.
## What Changed
- Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed
issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service.
- Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots,
authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge
invocation scope propagation.
- Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind
plugin-provided settings surfaces.
- Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices.
- Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted
agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback
behavior.
- Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active
agent memberships and role-default human permission grants.
- Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch
changes.
- Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff.
- Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy
membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and
startup test mocks.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files
passed, 28 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed.
- `git diff --check` -> passed.
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed.
- `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed
with no lockfile update.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed.
- `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0.
- GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`.
- Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0
comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads.
- Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`,
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter
for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies
may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are
configured.
- Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area
available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company
scoping.
- Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill,
but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled workflow with shell,
git, and GitHub CLI access.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents that need scoped, auditable access
to secrets
> - Hosted and external deployments need provider vault configuration
without exposing secret values in Paperclip metadata
> - AWS Secrets Manager vault setup previously required too much manual
operator knowledge
> - Provider vault discovery and removal belong together as an
independent secrets-management improvement
> - This pull request adds AWS provider vault discovery/prefill plus
vault removal flows
> - The benefit is a safer operator path for configuring external secret
storage before higher-level cloud workflows depend on it
## What Changed
- Added shared validators/types for AWS provider vault discovery
payloads and safe provider metadata.
- Implemented AWS provider vault discovery preview on the server.
- Added provider vault removal service/route behavior.
- Added Secrets page UI for discovery prefill, removal messaging, and
related rendering coverage.
- Added Storybook provider-vault fixtures and captured screenshots for
the new UX states.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/secret.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`
- Result: 4 files passed, 1 embedded Postgres-backed file skipped on
this host because local Postgres init was unavailable.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Storybook screenshot capture against `Product/Secrets` on
`http://127.0.0.1:60381/iframe.html?id=product-secrets--secrets-inventory&viewMode=story&globals=theme:dark`
## Screenshots
Provider vaults tab after this change:
AWS discovery candidate flow:
Provider vault removal confirmation:
## Risks
- Secret provider metadata handling must remain non-sensitive;
validators reject credential-bearing Vault URLs and sensitive AWS
discovery keys.
- AWS discovery depends on deployment credentials being configured
correctly outside Paperclip-managed company secrets.
> 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 local shell/git/tool use.
Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the
local Paperclip adapter runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators need to inspect what agents changed inside execution and
project workspaces.
> - The existing workspace detail views did not provide a first-party
rich diff surface for staged, unstaged, head, renamed, binary,
oversized, and untracked changes.
> - The plugin system is the intended extension point for optional rich
UI surfaces.
> - This pull request adds a workspace diff plugin plus host services
and shared contracts so Changes tabs can render workspace diffs through
plugin slots.
> - The diff-renderer dependency should stay owned by the plugin package
rather than the core UI app.
> - The dependency surface must stay aligned with repository PR policy,
including intentionally omitting `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the PR.
> - The benefit is a more reviewable workspace surface without
hard-coding the renderer into every page.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`, including diff
normalization, plugin manifest/worker/UI entrypoints, and focused plugin
tests.
- Kept `@pierre/diffs` scoped to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`;
removed the core UI lab diff-renderer surface and direct UI package
dependency.
- Added shared workspace diff types and validators, plus plugin SDK
surface for workspace diff host services.
- Added server workspace diff service support and route coverage for
execution/project workspace diff flows.
- Wired Execution Workspace and Project Workspace Changes tabs to load
the diff plugin, including loading/error fallback behavior.
- Added UI tests and fixtures for the Changes tabs and plugin bridge
behavior.
- Added the new plugin package manifest to the Docker deps stage so PR
policy can validate dependency coverage.
- Addressed review hardening around empty untracked patches, workspace
path exposure, project workspace read capability checks, and default
base refs.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff test`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/workspace-diff.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-diff-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/ProjectWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs`
- Browser screenshot captured from the local worktree dev server:
https://files.catbox.moe/ofdpsp.png
- Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master`,
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` is not included in the PR diff,
`ui/package.json` is not included in the PR diff, and `pnpm-lock.yaml`
is not included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium UI integration risk: the Changes tab depends on the plugin slot
and host diff service path.
- Medium dependency risk: this adds `@pierre/diffs` in the plugin
package, but `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally omitted per packaging
instructions because repository automation manages lockfile updates.
- Current CI blocker: downstream frozen installs fail until the
repository policy path for new plugin package dependencies is chosen.
- Diff rendering edge cases are covered for common working-tree and head
diff states, but very large repositories may still expose performance
limits.
- No migrations are included.
> 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 model, tool-enabled local execution
environment. Exact context window was not exposed by the runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent
work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls.
> - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane
reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions,
watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing,
plugin launchers, and small UI polish.
> - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current
`origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow
churn.
> - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the
recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and
splitting would create avoidable conflicts.
> - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest
`origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and
adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification.
> - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and
merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile
limit.
## What Changed
- Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a
dedicated worktree.
- Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry
handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores.
- Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo`
when retrying source-scoped recovery.
- Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex
cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits
from the branch.
- Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit
string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility.
- Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`
changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `npm run install` in
`node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the
local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx`
- First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files
failed before sqlite3 native binding was built.
- After rebuilding sqlite3:
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts`
passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host
guard.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
## Risks
- Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics,
server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces.
- Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI
should provide the stronger database-backed signal.
- UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot
was captured in this PR creation pass.
- This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge
this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than
merging duplicate implementations together.
> 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, tool-enabled local repository
and GitHub workflow, medium reasoning effort.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Scheduled routines are the control-plane path for recurring agent
work.
> - Routines already had dispatch/history, but their runtime environment
did not carry routine-owned secret bindings through execution.
> - Operators need routine-specific secrets that can override
project/agent env without exposing secret values in history, logs, or
access events.
> - This pull request adds the routine env runtime contract, wires it
into execution, and makes the routine UI/history surfaces show safe
secret metadata.
> - The benefit is that routine executions can use scoped secret refs
predictably while preserving company boundaries and auditability.
## What Changed
- Added routine env persistence/runtime support, including
`routines.env`, `routine_runs.routine_revision_id`, revision snapshots,
and idempotent migration `0086_routine_env_runtime_contract`.
- Resolved routine env during heartbeat adapter config assembly with
precedence `agent < project < routine` and secret access events recorded
against the routine consumer.
- Added secret binding synchronization for routine create/update/restore
flows and guarded cross-company, missing, disabled, and deleted secret
cases.
- Added a Secrets tab to routine detail, env/secret history diff
rendering, and Storybook coverage for the new UI states.
- Added server/UI regression tests, including an embedded-Postgres QA
path for routine secret execution and restore behavior.
- Updated implementation/database docs for routine env and
secret-binding behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` after rebasing onto
`public-gh/master` to refresh workspace links for the newly-added
upstream Grok adapter package.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/qa-routine-secrets-e2e.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 92 tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed across the workspace.
- `pnpm build` passed. Vite emitted the existing
large-chunk/dynamic-import warnings.
- UI screenshots were captured locally during QA in
`artifacts/pap-9521/` and `artifacts/pap-9522/`; generated screenshots
are not committed to avoid adding binary artifacts to the repo.
## Risks
- Migration risk is limited by `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for the new
columns, FK, and index, and the migration is ordered as `0086`
immediately after upstream `0085`.
- Runtime behavior changes env precedence for routine executions by
adding routine env as the highest-precedence layer; tests cover
agent/project/routine precedence.
- Secret handling is security-sensitive; tests cover value-free
manifests/events/errors, disabled/missing/deleted secrets, and
cross-company rejection.
- UI history now renders routine env/secret diffs; tests and Storybook
stories cover the main rendering paths.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell/tool use and
medium reasoning effort.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped
issues, comments, and issue documents.
> - Issue documents are the durable place where plans, handoffs, and
other work artifacts are revised over time.
> - Some documents need to be preserved as operator-approved snapshots
while agents continue working on the same issue.
> - Without document locking, a later board or agent write can overwrite
the document key that reviewers expected to remain stable.
> - This pull request adds board-managed issue document locks and makes
agent writes to locked keys create a derived document instead of
mutating the locked document.
> - The benefit is safer document handoffs: approved or frozen issue
documents stay immutable until the board explicitly unlocks them.
## What Changed
- Added `locked_at`, `locked_by_agent_id`, and `locked_by_user_id`
document fields plus migration `0085_tranquil_the_executioner.sql`.
- Added document lock/unlock service behavior, route endpoints, activity
events, and locked-document write protections.
- Made agent document writes to locked keys create a new derived key
such as `plan-2` rather than overwriting the locked document.
- Surfaced lock state through shared issue document types, UI API
methods, document header lock controls, and activity formatting.
- Added server and UI tests for lock/unlock behavior, locked document
immutability, and UI action visibility.
- Updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` with the V1 document lock
contract and endpoints.
## Verification
- `git rebase public-gh/master` completed cleanly after committing the
branch changes.
- `git diff --check` passed before commit.
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-revisions.test.ts` passed: 5 files, 32 tests.
## Risks
- Medium risk because this changes the document persistence contract and
adds a migration.
- The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and guarded foreign-key
creation so it remains safe for users who may have already applied an
earlier copy of the migration.
- Locked documents intentionally reject board edits/deletes/restores
until unlocked; any existing workflows that expected direct overwrite
need to unlock first.
- Agent writes to locked keys now create derived documents, which may
create extra issue documents when agents retry locked writes.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with tool use and local code
execution in the Paperclip worktree.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through
company-scoped issues, comments, approvals, and execution workspaces.
> - Operators need the Inbox to show not only active work, but also
blocked work that may need human or agent attention.
> - The existing inbox experience did not have a dedicated blocked-work
surface, so blocked tasks were harder to triage and resume deliberately.
> - Backend consumers also needed a compact attention signal that
distinguishes actionable blockers from covered or waiting blocker
states.
> - This pull request adds a Blocked Inbox tab backed by issue
blocker-attention metadata, shared validators, and UI helpers.
> - The benefit is a clearer triage path for stalled or blocked
Paperclip work without exposing external wait internals in the
operator-facing UI.
## What Changed
- Added shared issue blocker-attention types, validators, and exports
for the API/UI contract.
- Added backend blocker-attention computation and issue route support
for blocked inbox data.
- Added the Blocked Inbox tab, blocked reason chips, filtering/search
UI, responsive layouts, and Storybook stories.
- Updated inbox helpers and page behavior so toolbar controls only
appear where they apply.
- Added coverage for shared validators, server blocker-attention
behavior, blocked inbox UI helpers/components, and the Inbox page.
- Added a screenshot helper script for the blocked inbox Storybook
stories.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by making urgency sorting deterministic
for null stop times, avoiding full blocked-inbox list enrichment for
counts, and hardening the screenshot helper.
## Verification
- Rebased the branch cleanly onto `public-gh/master`.
- Confirmed the diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Confirmed the diff does not include database migration files.
- Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts
ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx
ui/src/components/BlockedReasonChip.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/blockedInbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`.
- Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck`.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is scoped inbox/operator triage work and
does not duplicate a listed roadmap feature.
- Greptile Review is green on the latest head and all four Greptile
review threads are resolved.
- GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head: policy, security/snyk,
e2e, verify, Canary Dry Run, Greptile Review, and serialized server
suites 1/4 through 4/4.
## Risks
- Medium review surface because this touches the shared issue contract,
server issue services, and the Inbox UI together.
- Blocker-attention classification may need product tuning after
operators use it on real blocked queues.
- UI screenshots were not attached in this PR-opening pass; the branch
includes `scripts/screenshot-blocked-inbox.mjs` and Storybook stories
for visual capture.
> 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 shell, git, GitHub CLI,
GitHub connector, and Paperclip API tool use. Reasoning mode: medium.
Context window: not exposed by the runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work
must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness.
> - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but
source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues,
blockers, and comments.
> - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns
recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue.
> - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class
active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution
outcome.
> - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend
reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions.
> - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source
issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path.
## What Changed
- Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared
types/constants/validators, and an idempotent
`0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master`
migrations.
- Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped
recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid
locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes.
- Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue
detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked,
cancelled, or false-positive outcomes.
- Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class
blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked
without a blocker selection path.
- Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices,
active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage.
- Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership,
races, stale comments, and UI behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
— 5 files, 72 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering check.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec
vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- UI states are available in
`ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot
capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`.
## Risks
- Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership
toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in
new places.
- Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after
`master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for
anyone who previously applied the old branch-local
`0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration.
- Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for
already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be
watched in CI and Greptile review.
> 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 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git,
GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the
runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip’s issue chat is an audit surface: reviewers need to trust
who actually authored a message.
> - Some historical agent comments were persisted with `authorUserId`
and no surviving `createdByRunId`, so the UI rendered real agent output
as if it came from the board user.
> - A pure timestamp-window fallback is too risky because human
reviewers can comment while agents are running.
> - The safe recovery path is to derive attribution only when the server
can prove it from same-issue run logs that include the exact posted
comment id, then let the chat renderer prefer that recovered agent
attribution.
> - This keeps historical threads trustworthy without mutating old
database rows or guessing in ambiguous cases.
## What Changed
- Added shared `IssueComment` fields for derived attribution so server
and UI can carry recovered `derivedAuthorAgentId`,
`derivedCreatedByRunId`, and `derivedAuthorSource` consistently.
- Added server-side attribution recovery in
`server/src/services/issues.ts` that reads same-issue run logs and only
derives agent authorship when a run log contains the exact `comment id:
...` emitted during posting.
- Updated issue chat rendering in `ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.ts` to
prefer direct agent authorship, then activity-log `runAgentId`, then the
server-derived attribution.
- Removed the unsafe UI-only run-window fallback from
`ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.tsx` so human comments posted during an active
run are not silently relabeled as agent output.
- Added regression coverage for both the run-log derivation path and the
chat-rendering fallback behavior.
- Bounded server-side run-log enrichment to 8 concurrent reads per
request and removed the unused `issueCommentSchema` declaration during
PR cleanup.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm test:run:general`
- Live validation on May 12, 2026 in `PAPA-322`: confirmed the
previously misattributed historical comments on `PAPA-316` now render as
Claude-authored on `http://goldie.gerbil-company.ts.net:3100`.
- Reviewer check: open `PAPA-316` in the running instance and confirm
historical comments such as `## Investigation: exe.dev 422 + codex
re-test` render under Claude instead of the board user.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is scoped to comment attribution recovery and
rendering.
- Derived attribution is intentionally conservative: if there is no
exact run-log proof, the comment remains user-authored instead of
guessing.
- Run-log recovery depends on retained same-issue logs, so older
comments without that evidence remain unchanged.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via the Paperclip `codex_local` adapter (GPT-5-class
coding agent with tool use in the local Paperclip runtime; the exact
deployment/model ID is not surfaced by this workspace).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - There are many adapter types, one per agent-runtime product (Claude,
Codex, OpenCode, Cursor local CLI, etc.)
> - Cursor shipped a public TypeScript SDK on 2026-04-29 that exposes
Cursor's full hosted-agent platform (cloud VMs, harness, MCP, skills,
hooks)
> - Paperclip had no first-class adapter for this — agents that wanted
to use Cursor's managed cloud runtime had to fall back to the local CLI
adapter, which loses the cloud session, streaming, and durable run model
> - This PR adds a new `cursor_cloud` adapter built directly on
`@cursor/sdk`, with Paperclip's heartbeat mapped to Cursor's
durable-agent + per-run model
> - The benefit is that any Paperclip agent can now drive a Cursor cloud
agent across heartbeats with native session reuse, streaming, and
cancellation, while Paperclip remains the source of truth for issue/task
state
## What Changed
- New built-in adapter package `packages/adapters/cursor-cloud` (15
files, ~1.7k LOC) backed by `@cursor/sdk` ^1.0.12
- `src/server/execute.ts` — SDK-first lifecycle: `Agent.create` /
`Agent.resume` / `Agent.getRun` / `agent.send` / `run.stream` /
`run.wait`, with session reuse keyed on the (runtime env type, env name,
repo set) tuple
- `src/server/session.ts` — codec for `cursorAgentId` + `latestRunId` +
repo metadata, persisted in `runtime.sessionParams`
- `src/server/test.ts` — environment probe via `Cursor.me()` and
optional model validation via `Cursor.models.list()`
- `src/ui/parse-stdout.ts` + `src/cli/format-event.ts` — normalize
Cursor SDK message types (`status`, `thinking`, `assistant`, `user`,
`tool_call`, `tool_result`, `result`) into Paperclip transcript events
for the UI and CLI
- Registrations: `packages/shared/src/constants.ts`,
`packages/adapter-utils/src/session-compaction.ts`,
`server/src/adapters/{registry,builtin-adapter-types}.ts`,
`ui/src/adapters/{registry,adapter-display-registry}.ts` +
`ui/src/adapters/cursor-cloud/index.ts`, `cli/src/adapters/registry.ts`,
plus workspace deps in `cli`/`server`/`ui` `package.json`
- `ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.tsx` — hide local-Cursor
`mode`/thinking-effort field for `cursor_cloud` (different config
surface)
- 11 vitest tests covering execute paths (fresh create, matching-resume,
active-run reattach, non-finished result), session codec round-trip,
transcript parsing, and config building
## Verification
Reviewer steps:
```bash
pnpm install
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-cursor-cloud typecheck # → clean
pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/cursor-cloud # → 11/11 passing
```
End-to-end check against a real Cursor cloud agent (requires
`CURSOR_API_KEY` and Cursor GitHub-app install on the target repo):
1. Create a `cursor_cloud` agent in Paperclip with `repoUrl` set to the
test repo, `repoStartingRef: main`, and `env.CURSOR_API_KEY` set
2. Trigger a heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.create({ cloud: { env: {
type: "cloud" }, repos: [...] } })`, streams events, terminates on
`finished`
3. Trigger a second heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.resume` or
`agent.send` follow-up depending on prior-run state, reusing
`cursorAgentId`
4. The Paperclip UI/CLI transcript reflects Cursor `status` / `thinking`
/ `assistant` events as they stream
5. Cancellation from Paperclip maps to `run.cancel()` or Cloud API v1
`cancelRun` for cross-heartbeat cancellation
A direct-SDK smoke run against a real repo (devinfoley/my_test_project @
main) confirmed: `Cursor.me()` ok → `Agent.create` → `agent.send` →
`run.stream()` (30 events) → terminal status `finished` in ~11s.
## Risks
- **New adapter, additive only.** No existing adapter or registry is
replaced; current `cursor` local-CLI adapter is untouched. Default
behavior of any existing agent is unchanged.
- **External dependency on `@cursor/sdk`.** Cursor's SDK is v1.0.x and
may evolve. Mocked unit tests cover the public surface used here; if the
SDK breaks compatibility we update the adapter independently.
- **Cost/budget.** `cursor_cloud` runs on Cursor's billed cloud VMs;
operators must understand they are spending money outside Paperclip's
budget controls when they enable this adapter. Same shape as other
API-billed adapters.
- **No webhook support in V1.** The SDK already provides
stream/wait/cancel/reattach, so V1 does not require a public callback
URL. If a future use case needs out-of-band wakes, we add a Cloud API v1
webhook bridge as a separate change. This is called out in the issue
plan document.
- **Lockfile.** Per repo policy, `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally not
in this PR — CI's lockfile workflow will update it on merge given the
manifest changes.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic Claude (via Claude Code / Paperclip `claude_local`
adapter)
- Model: `claude-opus-4-7` (Claude Opus 4.7), knowledge cutoff January
2026
- Mode: standard tool-use with extended reasoning
- Context: ~200k token window
- Capabilities used: code generation, multi-file edits, shell/test
execution, GitHub PR workflow
## 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 run tests locally and they pass (11/11 in
`packages/adapters/cursor-cloud`)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (4 new test files,
11 cases)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (the only UI change is hiding the local-Cursor mode field on
the `cursor_cloud` adapter — happy to attach a screenshot if the
reviewer wants one)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (issue
plan document supersedes the pre-SDK design; tracked in PAPA-203)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system needs host contracts and runtime support before
large plugins can integrate cleanly.
> - The source branch mixed the LLM Wiki package with supporting
host/runtime work, managed plugin skills, root-level storage spaces, and
a bookmarks reference plugin.
> - [PAP-9173](/PAP/issues/PAP-9173) asked for the current branch to be
split by file boundary: plugin package separately from everything else.
> - [PAP-9188](/PAP/issues/PAP-9188) clarified that LLM Wiki may have
plugin-local spaces, but Paperclip core should not reorganize top-level
local storage into spaces.
> - Follow-up review clarified that the bookmarks example should not
ship in this PR either.
> - This pull request contains the
non-`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` host/runtime work, keeps runtime
state under the selected Paperclip instance root, and no longer includes
the bookmarks example.
## What Changed
- Added/updated plugin host contracts, SDK types, worker RPC plumbing,
managed plugin skill support, and related server tests.
- Removed the bookmarks example plugin package and its
bundled-example/workspace references.
- Removed the root-level local spaces CLI/migration surface and restored
instance-root runtime defaults for config, db, logs, storage, secrets,
workspaces, projects, and adapter homes.
- Replaced shared root `space-paths` helpers with `home-paths` helpers
for core runtime storage.
- Tightened stranded recovery unique-conflict detection so concurrent
recovery scans reuse the raced recovery issue when Postgres errors are
wrapped.
- Kept `packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` out of this PR diff;
plugin-local spaces remain in the stacked plugin-only PR.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/data-dir.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/home-paths.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts
packages/shared/src/home-paths.test.ts
packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-instructions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "reuses the
raced stranded recovery issue"` skipped locally because embedded
Postgres did not initialize on this macOS temp host; the code path was
typechecked and is covered by Linux CI.
- Boundary check: no core references remain for `PAPERCLIP_SPACE_ID`,
`spaces migrate-default`, `@paperclipai/shared/space-paths`,
`registerSpacesCommands`, or the removed bookmarks example.
- Previous PR head `4f23e034` had green GitHub checks: `verify`, all
four serialized server shards, `e2e`, `Canary Dry Run`, `policy`, Snyk,
and `Greptile Review`. Current head `582f466d` is re-running checks
after the bookmarks deletion.
## Risks
- Plugin host changes touch shared runtime paths, so regressions would
most likely appear in adapter startup, plugin loading, or local dev path
defaults.
- Removing the bookmarks example also removes one demonstration of
plugin database namespaces plus local-folder persistence; remaining
plugin examples still cover bundled example discovery and plugin host
flows.
- The plugin package itself is intentionally deferred to the stacked
plugin-only PR, where LLM Wiki plugin-local spaces live.
- Existing installs that tested the transient root-level spaces CLI
should stop using it; this PR intentionally removes that unsupported
migration surface before merge.
> 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 Codex via Codex CLI, tool use and local code execution
enabled; context window not exposed.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass, except where noted above
for host-specific embedded Postgres initialization
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Stacked follow-up: PR #5592 contains only
`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` and targets this branch.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling
to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent
execution.
> - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane:
database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets
settings UI.
> - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not
manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without
exposing plaintext.
> - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets
Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding
context, and audit trails.
> - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated
lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current
`public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings.
> - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed
secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import
conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing
behavior.
## What Changed
- Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider
config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage,
access events, and remote import preview/commit.
- Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing,
bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime
credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext
reads.
- Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus
CLI/API documentation for setup and operations.
- Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH
environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification.
- Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift,
monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted
secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults,
soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards,
managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK
credential client churn.
- Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and
force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch.
## Verification
- `git fetch public-gh master`
- `git rebase public-gh/master`
- `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep
'^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR
diff.
- Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`;
this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and
`0083_company_secret_provider_configs`.
- Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT
EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column
additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits.
- `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile
follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under
parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`,
`cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun
(`24/24`).
- `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite
reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings.
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck` passed.
- Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual
review.
- Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites
1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`
pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child
checks.
- Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all
Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review`
check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added.
## Screenshots
Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on
`master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.
## Risks
- Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends
existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering
and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade
behavior carefully.
- Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests
cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace
guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and
service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains
deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than
an unverified merge blocker in this local branch.
- UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces;
screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection.
- Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit
parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed
when rerun directly.
- Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads;
operators must understand that imported external references resolve at
runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change.
> 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 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the
Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the
runtime.
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so issue
threads are a core operator surface for reviewing work.
> - The issue detail page is the place where humans read agent messages,
user comments, and execution context together.
> - That thread originally rendered oldest-first, which made recent
activity harder to see during active review.
> - Reversing the thread order changes navigation expectations,
timestamp placement, and the "Jump to latest" affordance, so the UI
behavior needed to move as a coherent set.
> - Because this is a visible core-product behavior shift, it also
needed a safe rollout path instead of becoming the default immediately.
> - This pull request adds the newest-first issue thread behavior behind
an Experimental setting, updates the thread UI to match that mode, and
keeps the legacy oldest-first experience unchanged by default.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can opt into a more recent-first issue
workflow without forcing a global behavior change on every Paperclip
instance.
## What Changed
- Reversed issue thread rendering so the newest comments and messages
appear first when the experiment is enabled.
- Moved the plain comment timestamp into the card header in newest-first
mode and kept the legacy timestamp placement for oldest-first mode.
- Moved the `Jump to latest` control to the bottom of the thread in
newest-first mode while leaving the existing top placement for the
legacy mode.
- Added the `Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` experimental instance
setting and wired issue detail to read that toggle.
- Added regression coverage for thread order, timestamp placement,
jump-button placement, and the issue-detail experiment toggle behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- Focused checks that also passed during issue review:
- `pnpm vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` in `ui/`
- `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` in
`server/`
- Manual review path:
- Enable `Instance Settings > Experimental > Enable Newest-First Issue
Thread`
- Open an issue with comments/messages and confirm newest activity
renders first, timestamps move into the header, and `Jump to latest`
sits below the thread
- Disable the experiment and confirm the legacy oldest-first behavior
returns
## Risks
- Low risk: the behavioral change is gated behind an instance-level
experimental toggle and defaults off.
- The main regression risk is thread navigation drift between the two
modes, especially around anchor scrolling and the `Jump to latest`
affordance.
- There is some UI coupling between issue-detail query state and
experimental settings fetches, so future changes in that area should
keep both modes covered.
- Screenshots are not attached in this PR body; verification is
described with automated coverage and manual steps instead.
> I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This is a scoped issue-thread UX
improvement and rollout gate, not a duplicate of a roadmap-level planned
core feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via the local `codex_local` Paperclip adapter,
GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and local code execution
in this repository worktree.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned
work is executable or parked
> - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently
land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake
path
> - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to
agree on that execution semantic
> - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`,
flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board
> - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and
visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls
## What Changed
- Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults.
- Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted
while preserving explicit `backlog` parking.
- Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators.
- Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned
backlog blockers.
- Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for
assigned backlog blockers.
- Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the
assigned-backlog behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped.
- Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo
skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check
the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.`
- Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed
without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary
worktree.
- Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states:
[light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png),
[dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png).
- Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter
/mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest
run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component
tests.
- Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server
shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all
passed.
## Risks
- Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the
caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and
server/shared tests cover both paths.
- Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention
labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog
state.
> 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 coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled
Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning
mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue operators need clear controls for execution settings, model
overrides, and recovery retries
> - Existing issue properties hid useful adapter override state and did
not expose a board-triggered retry for scheduled heartbeat recovery
> - Scheduled retries also need to respect the same safety gates as
normal execution instead of bypassing budget, review, pause, dependency,
or terminal-state checks
> - This pull request adds the issue property controls and retry-now
surfaces together because they share the issue details/properties UI
> - The benefit is that operators can inspect and adjust issue execution
settings and safely trigger pending scheduled recovery without hidden
control-plane behavior
## What Changed
- Adds editable issue assignee model override controls in
`IssueProperties`, with focused coverage.
- Removes the stale workspace tasks link from issue properties.
- Adds a scheduled retry `retry-now` backend path and shared response
types.
- Adds main-pane and properties-pane scheduled retry UI, backed by a
shared `useRetryNowMutation` hook.
- Adds suppression coverage for budget hard stops, review participant
changes, subtree pause holds, unresolved blockers, terminal issues, and
company scoping.
- Updates the `IssueProperties` test harness with toast actions required
by the retry-now hook.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueScheduledRetryCard.test.tsx` — 31 passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-scheduled-retry-routes.test.ts` — exited 0,
but this host skipped the embedded Postgres route tests with: `Postgres
init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info.
The data directory might already exist.`
- Pairwise merge check against the assigned-backlog PR branch completed
without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary
worktree.
### Visual verification screenshots
Storybook story: `Product/Issue Scheduled retry surfaces /
ScheduledRetrySurfaces`.
## Risks
- Medium: this touches issue execution/retry behavior, so CI should run
the embedded Postgres route tests on a host that can initialize
Postgres.
- Low-to-medium UI risk around duplicated retry-now entry points; both
surfaces share one mutation hook to keep behavior consistent.
> 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 coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled
Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning
mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The issue thread is the operator's durable audit trail for what
changed and why
> - Workspace changes and stale disposition notices need to be visible
in that same timeline without noisy or misleading rendering
> - The local branch already contained backend activity details,
timeline conversion, and UI rendering work for those events
> - This pull request isolates the issue-thread activity work into a
standalone branch against `origin/master`
> - The benefit is a focused audit-trail PR that can merge independently
of the sidebar/operator UI polish branch
## What Changed
- Adds readable workspace-change activity details to issue update
activity events.
- Surfaces workspace-change events in issue chat/timeline rendering.
- Makes the existing issue comment migration idempotent.
- Folds and renders stale disposition notices inline so they match
activity-log styling and spacing.
- Adds focused route, timeline, and issue-thread system notice coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` — 3 files
passed, 22 tests passed.
- Confirmed the PR changes 9 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`
or `.github/workflows/*`.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-closed-workspace-routes.test.ts` — 1 file
passed, 4 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 5 files passed, 54 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` after adding the Storybook
screenshot fixture.
- Captured Storybook screenshots for the new UI rendering paths:
- Collapsed stale notice + workspace-change row:
`docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-collapsed.png`
- Expanded stale notice details:
`docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-expanded.png`
### Screenshots
Collapsed stale notice with workspace-change row:
Expanded stale notice details:
## Risks
- Moderate risk: this touches issue activity serialization and
issue-thread rendering, both of which are central operator surfaces.
- Migration risk is low: the only migration change makes an existing
migration idempotent.
- No new migrations are introduced, so there is no cross-PR migration
ordering requirement.
> 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 coding agent, shell/tool-use enabled, used to
split the existing branch, verify the isolated PR branch, and create
this PR.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board
users and agents coordinate execution.
> - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead
of immediate implementation work.
> - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution
comments from planning-oriented issue work.
> - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI
affordances for standard vs planning mode.
> - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed,
discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing
the normal issue workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB,
shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and
adapter heartbeat payloads.
- Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for
`issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations.
- Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction
behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested
follow-up issues.
- Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail
composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles.
- Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual
verification spec for planning-mode surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable
planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts`
## Screenshots
Desktop planning detail:
Desktop planning row:
Desktop staged standard toggle:
Mobile planning detail:
Mobile planning row:
## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The
migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied
an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final
numbered migration safely.
- Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter
heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by
defaulting missing values to `standard`.
- UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused
component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning
display and toggle behavior.
> 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 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with
shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this
runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators need to find work, documents, agents, projects, comments,
and activity across a company without jumping through separate surfaces.
> - The existing Command-K flow was useful for fast navigation but not
enough for deeper company-wide discovery.
> - Search also needs company-scoped backend contracts, query cost
controls, and indexed document matching so it stays safe as company data
grows.
> - This pull request adds a full company search API and a dedicated
board search page that Command-K can hand off to.
> - The benefit is a single searchable control-plane surface with richer
result context, recents, highlights, and test coverage across server and
UI behavior.
## What Changed
- Added a company-scoped search endpoint/service with query validation,
rate limiting, text matching, fuzzy title matching, and result typing
shared through `@paperclipai/shared`.
- Added idempotent search migrations for document search indexes and
fuzzy matching support.
- Added the full `/companies/:companyKey/search` UI, search result row
components, highlighted snippets, recent searches, and sidebar/Command-K
handoff.
- Added Storybook coverage for search surfaces and Vitest coverage for
server search behavior, rate limiting, route generation, Command-K
behavior, and the search page.
- Addressed Greptile findings by renaming the no-match SQL helper,
applying search pagination after cross-type merge sorting, and
lazy-initializing the default search service so unrelated route-test
mocks do not need to know about it.
- Merged current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the search migrations
behind upstream `0078_white_darwin`: search indexes are now
`0079_company_search_document_indexes` and fuzzy matching is
`0080_company_search_fuzzystrmatch`.
## Verification
- `git fetch public-gh master`
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | rg '^pnpm-lock\.yaml$'
|| true` produced no output before opening the PR.
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Search.test.tsx ui/src/components/CommandPalette.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts` passed: 5 files, 25 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
&& pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts && pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after Greptile pagination
fixes.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the CI mock fix.
- After resolving the migration conflict with current
`public-gh/master`: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm
exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts && pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- DB migration numbering check passed as part of `@paperclipai/db`
typecheck.
- UI states are covered by the added Storybook stories in
`ui/storybook/stories/search.stories.tsx`.
- GitHub reports the PR merge state as `CLEAN` on head `18e54fa8`.
- GitHub PR checks are green on head `18e54fa8`: policy, verify,
serialized server shards 1/4 through 4/4, e2e, canary dry run, Snyk, and
Greptile Review.
## Risks
- Search ranking and snippets are new user-facing behavior, so reviewers
should check whether result ordering feels right on real company data.
- Search touches broad company data, so company scoping and query
cost/rate-limit behavior should be reviewed carefully.
- The migrations add search indexes/extensions; they are idempotent with
`IF NOT EXISTS` for users who may have applied an earlier branch
migration number.
> ROADMAP.md checked. This PR adds a focused board search surface and
does not duplicate an open roadmap item.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub CLI
session with medium reasoning effort. Existing branch commits were
produced across prior agent sessions; this packaging pass verified,
opened the PR, addressed Greptile findings, resolved migration conflicts
after upstream PRs landed, and got PR checks green.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane operators use repeatedly to supervise
agent companies.
> - Common operator workflows depend on fast scanning of inboxes, issue
sidebars, workspaces, cost totals, and runtime services.
> - Several small UI and service gaps made those workflows slower or
less clear.
> - This pull request groups the operator-facing QoL changes that can
stand alone from recovery and adapter work.
> - The benefit is a denser, clearer board experience for issue triage
and workspace operation.
## What Changed
- Added inbox assignee/project grouping and issue list token/runtime
totals.
- Improved issue properties with removable blocker chips and workspace
task links.
- Improved execution workspace layout, runtime controls, issues tab
default, and stopped-port reuse behavior.
- Added mobile markdown/routine dialog fixes, page title company names,
sidebar polish, and dashboard run task label cleanup.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium UI risk because this touches several operator surfaces. The
branch is intentionally grouped around workflow/QoL files and keeps the
file count below the Greptile limit.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Agent runs can end productively while the source issue still lacks a
durable final disposition.
> - That leaves the control plane unsure whether to resume, escalate, or
close the work.
> - Issue comments also need a presentation contract so system-authored
recovery notices can render as first-class thread messages without
overloading normal comments.
> - This pull request adds successful-run handoff recovery, comment
presentation metadata, and system notice rendering.
> - The benefit is stricter task liveness with clearer operator-facing
recovery state.
## What Changed
- Added successful-run handoff decisions, wake payloads, escalation
behavior, and recovery tests.
- Added issue comment presentation metadata with migration
`0078_white_darwin.sql` and shared/server/company portability support.
- Rendered recovery/system notices in issue chat with dedicated UI
components, fixtures, tests, and storybook/lab coverage.
- Included the current recovery model-profile hint patch so automatic
recovery follow-ups use the cheap profile.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
ui/src/components/SystemNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/system-notice-comment.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Migration-bearing PR: merge this before any other branch that might
later add a migration.
- The branch touches both recovery services and issue-thread rendering,
so review should pay attention to recovery wake idempotency and comment
metadata compatibility.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Routines are the scheduled/recurring work surface that keeps a
company operating without manual kicks.
> - Operators need routine edits to be auditable and recoverable,
especially when routines control assignments, prompts, triggers, and
webhook secrets.
> - Documents already have revision-style safety, but routines did not
have equivalent history or restore semantics.
> - This pull request adds append-only routine revisions across the
database, shared contracts, server routes, and board UI.
> - The benefit is safer routine iteration: users can inspect history,
compare changes, restore older definitions, and avoid overwriting newer
edits.
## What Changed
- Added `routine_revisions` storage, latest revision pointers on
routines, shared types, validators, and API docs for routine revision
history.
- Added server service/route support for listing routine revisions,
conflict-aware routine saves, and append-only restore operations.
- Added a History tab on routine detail with revision preview,
structured change summaries, description line diffs, dirty-edit
blocking, restore confirmation, and restored webhook secret surfacing.
- Extracted the line diff helper from `DocumentDiffModal` into
`ui/src/lib/line-diff.ts` for reuse.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the
routine revision migration to `0077_unusual_karnak` after upstream
`0076_useful_elektra`.
- Made the `0077` routine revision migration idempotent so installs that
already applied the branch-local `0076_unusual_karnak` can safely
advance.
- Updated the plugin SDK test harness routine fixture with the new
revision fields required by the shared `Routine` contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/lib/line-diff.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx`
passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` passed after
updating the SDK test harness fixture.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` passed; this refreshed
local generated SDK output needed by plugin example typechecks.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds routine revision storage and
backfills existing routines. The migration is ordered after upstream
`0076` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards to tolerate
earlier branch-local migration application.
- Restore behavior intentionally appends a new revision instead of
mutating history; callers expecting an in-place rollback need to follow
the new latest revision pointer.
- Restoring webhook triggers recreates webhook secret material, so users
must copy newly surfaced secrets after restore.
- Conflict-aware saves now reject stale routine edits when the client
sends an older `baseRevisionId`.
> 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 shell/tool use in a local
git worktree. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Screenshots: not attached in this draft PR; the new UI flow is covered
by component tests listed above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The plugin system is the extension boundary for optional product
capabilities
> - Rich plugins need more than a worker entrypoint: they need scoped
database storage, local project folders, managed agents/routines, host
navigation, and reusable UI components
> - The LLM Wiki work exposed those missing host surfaces while keeping
plugin code outside the core control plane
> - This pull request expands the core plugin host, SDK, server APIs,
and UI bridge so plugins can declare and use those surfaces
> - The benefit is that future plugins can integrate with Paperclip
through documented, validated contracts instead of bespoke server or UI
imports
## What Changed
- Added plugin-managed database namespaces and migration tracking,
including Drizzle schema/migration files and SQL validation for
namespace isolation.
- Added server support for plugin local folders, managed agents, managed
routines, scoped plugin APIs, and plugin operation visibility.
- Expanded shared plugin manifest/types/validators and SDK
host/testing/UI exports for richer plugin surfaces.
- Added reusable UI pieces for file trees, managed routines, resizable
sidebars, route sidebars, and plugin bridge initialization.
- Updated plugin docs and example plugins to use the expanded host and
SDK surface.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts
ui/src/api/plugins.test.ts ui/src/components/FileTree.test.tsx
ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` passed:
11 files, 67 tests.
- Confirmed this PR changes 89 files and does not include
`pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`.
## Risks
- Medium: this expands plugin host contracts across db/shared/server/ui
and includes a new core migration (`0076_useful_elektra.sql`).
- The plugin database namespace validator is intentionally restrictive;
plugin authors may need follow-up affordances for SQL patterns that
remain blocked.
- Merge this before the LLM Wiki plugin PR so the plugin can resolve the
new SDK and host APIs.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub
workflow. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Summary
- Allow Cloud tenant issue identifiers with alphanumeric prefixes, such
as `PC1897-1`, to normalize as issue references.
- Resolve those identifiers through issue detail/update routes, active
run/live run polling, activity, costs, and `issueService.getById`.
- Keep UI issue-link parsing aligned so tenant links normalize back to
`/issues/<IDENTIFIER>`.
## Root Cause
Cloud tenant issue prefixes include digits from the stack-id hash. The
app-side route normalization still accepted only all-letter prefixes, so
`/api/issues/PC1897-1` skipped identifier lookup and fell through as a
non-UUID id.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-identifier-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work
must stay observable, governable, and recoverable.
> - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue
state transitions, and visible recovery behavior.
> - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when
the assignee still owns a future check.
> - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state
for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad
hoc comments.
> - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the
owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior.
> - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when
to use monitors versus `blocked`.
> - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits
without weakening single-assignee task ownership.
## What Changed
- Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and
an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state.
- Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds,
activity logging, and external-ref redaction.
- Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child
monitor scheduling.
- Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity
card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces.
- Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in
`doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in
skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy:
"board"`.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts`
- First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because
the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency.
- After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites
successfully.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
&& pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Storybook screenshot captured from
`http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces`
with Playwright.
## Screenshots
## Risks
- Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled
external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or
recovery issue creation.
- Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue
monitor columns and index.
- External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are
intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads.
> 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 coding agent with repository tool use and terminal
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 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 or Storybook review surfaces
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Agent heartbeat settings control how much parallel work one employee
can run
> - The previous default of 5 concurrent runs was too restrictive for
active local agent teams
> - The shared default, heartbeat clamp, docs, and route/import/UI
expectations need to agree
> - This pull request raises the default heartbeat concurrency to 20
while keeping explicit headroom up to 50 for power users
> - The benefit is higher throughput for agent teams without each new
agent needing manual runtime config edits
## What Changed
- Raised `AGENT_DEFAULT_MAX_CONCURRENT_RUNS` from 5 to 20.
- Raised the heartbeat service max clamp from 10 to 50, keeping the new
default below the ceiling.
- Updated V1 implementation docs and tests that assert default
imported/exported runtime config.
- Updated the new-agent UI runtime config test to assert the shared
default constant instead of duplicating the numeric value.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium risk: new agents can consume more local execution capacity by
default. The heartbeat scheduler still respects configured max
concurrency and budget/pause controls, and operators can lower or raise
the per-agent cap within the `1..50` clamp.
> 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 coding agent, tool use and local command
execution. Exact context window was not exposed in the runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through a control plane
that can start, supervise, and recover agent runs.
> - Local adapters are the bridge between Paperclip issues and concrete
agent runtimes such as Claude, Codex, and other ACP-compatible tools.
> - The roadmap calls out broader “bring your own agent” and claw-style
agent support, and ACPX gives Paperclip one path to normalize multiple
ACP agents behind a single adapter.
> - The branch needed to become one reviewable PR against current
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`, without carrying stale base conflicts or
generated lockfile churn.
> - This pull request adds an experimental built-in `acpx_local`
adapter, integrates it through the server/CLI/UI adapter surfaces, and
adds regression coverage for runtime execution, skill sync, stream
parsing, diagnostics, and log redaction.
> - The benefit is that Paperclip can run Claude/Codex/custom ACP agents
through ACPX while keeping operator configuration, skills, logging, and
transcript rendering inside the existing adapter model.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/adapter-acpx-local` with server execution, config
schema, ACPX session handling, CLI formatting, UI config helpers, and
stdout parsing.
- Registered `acpx_local` across CLI, server, shared constants, UI
adapter metadata, adapter capabilities, and agent creation/editing
surfaces.
- Added ACPX runtime execution support with persistent sessions,
local-agent JWT environment handling, skill snapshots, runtime skill
materialization, and isolation/security regressions.
- Added ACPX adapter diagnostics and marked the adapter experimental in
the UI.
- Added command/env secret redaction for resolved command metadata in
adapter-utils, server event storage, and the Agent Detail invocation UI.
- Added Storybook coverage for ACPX config, transcript rendering, and
skill states, plus PR screenshots under `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2944/`.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master`; `pnpm-lock.yaml`
is intentionally not included and there are no migration/schema changes.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/execute.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/test.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/cli/format-event.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/redaction.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-skill-sync.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-adapter-environment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts
ui/src/adapters/metadata.test.ts` — 12 files, 87 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-acpx-local typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Confirmed PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`, database schema
files, or migrations.
Screenshots:
## Risks
- Medium risk: this introduces a new built-in adapter package and
touches runtime execution, adapter registration, agent config, skills,
and transcript rendering.
- ACPX and ACP agent behavior can vary by installed tool versions; the
adapter is marked experimental to set operator expectations.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is excluded per repository PR policy, so dependency
lock refresh must be handled by the repo’s automation or maintainers.
- No database migration risk: no schema or migration files changed.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, git operations, and local verification. Exact hosted
context window was not exposed in this environment.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where
adapters are the boundary between the board, agents, and execution
runtimes.
> - Local adapters currently expose a primary runtime configuration, but
operators often need a cheaper model lane for routine or low-risk work.
> - That cheap lane has to stay adapter-owned: runtime profile settings
should not mutate the primary adapter config or bypass existing
auth/secret mediation.
> - Issue creation also needs an ergonomic way to request primary,
cheap, or custom model behavior for a selected assignee.
> - This pull request adds a first-class `cheap` model profile contract
across adapter capabilities, heartbeat config resolution, agent
configuration, and issue creation.
> - The benefit is cheaper task execution can be configured and
requested explicitly while preserving adapter boundaries, secret
handling, and audit visibility.
## What Changed
- Added adapter model-profile capability metadata and a `cheap` profile
contract for supported local adapters.
- Applied `runtimeConfig.modelProfiles.cheap.adapterConfig` during
heartbeat config resolution, including requested/applied/fallback run
metadata.
- Added agent configuration UI for cheap model profile settings without
writing those settings into primary `adapterConfig`.
- Added New Issue assignee model lane controls for Primary / Cheap /
Custom and request payload handling.
- Added run ledger profile badges and Storybook stories for the new
cheap-lane UI states.
- Added tests for validators, heartbeat model profile application,
permission/secret mediation, UI payload helpers, and run ledger
rendering.
- Added committed UI verification screenshots under
`docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`.
- Addressed Greptile review feedback around cheap-profile defaults,
shared profile types, and fallback test data.
## Verification
Local:
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-registry.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-assignee-overrides.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` — passed, 8 files / 103
tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` — passed after
Greptile/rebase follow-up, 2 files / 17 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after
Greptile/rebase follow-up.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — did not complete successfully in this local
worktree: it stopped in pre-existing `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`
sandbox/SSH fixture suites outside this PR diff. Failures were 5s local
timeouts plus `git init -b` unsupported by this machine's Git 2.21.0.
The branch-specific targeted suites above passed.
- Branch was fetched/rebased onto `public-gh/master`; `git rev-list
--left-right --count public-gh/master...HEAD` reports `0 9`.
Remote PR checks on latest head
`e30bf399146451c86cee98ed528d51d33fa5af5a`:
- `policy` — passed.
- `verify` — passed.
- `e2e` — passed.
- `Greptile Review` — passed, confidence score 5/5; Greptile review
threads resolved.
- `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` — passed.
Screenshots:
- [New issue cheap lane
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-cheap-desktop.png)
- [New issue custom lane
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-custom-desktop.png)
- [New issue unsupported adapter
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-unsupported-desktop.png)
- [Run ledger model profile badges
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/runledger-profile-badges-desktop.png)
- Mobile variants are also in `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`.
## Risks
- Medium: heartbeat config mediation now merges runtime model profiles
into adapter configs, so adapter secret normalization and host-command
restrictions must keep covering nested config paths.
- Medium: the UI adds another issue creation choice; unsupported
adapters must keep hiding the cheap lane and preserve primary behavior.
- Low migration risk: no database migration is included.
> 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 coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with repo tool use
and command execution. Exact served model/context window was not exposed
by the runtime.
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run
history, and cost telemetry.
> - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be
visible at the issue level.
> - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database
backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish.
> - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a
reviewable slice.
> - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions
and summarizing issue-tree costs.
> - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave
activity with run ledger rows.
## What Changed
- Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result
shape for question interactions.
- Added the board-only `POST
/issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service
implementation.
- Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and
`/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route.
- Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost
summaries.
- Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components
for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run
interleaving.
- Added focused server and component regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed.
- UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable
components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout.
## Risks
- Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch
exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`.
- Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be
watched on unusually large issue trees.
- Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board
QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow.
> 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-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Agents run inside environments (local, SSH, E2B sandbox)
> - Operators need to configure and manage these environments
> - But environment settings were buried inside the general company
settings page, making them hard to find
> - Additionally, when testing an agent from the configuration form, the
test always ran locally regardless of which environment was selected
> - This PR moves environments into a dedicated top-level company
settings section and wires the "Test Environment" button to run inside
the selected environment
> - The benefit is operators can find and manage environments more
easily, and the test button now validates the actual environment the
agent will use
## What Changed
- Added a dedicated `CompanyEnvironments` settings page with its own
route and sidebar entry
- Updated `CompanySettingsSidebar` and `CompanySettingsNav` to include
the new environments section
- Modified the agent test route (`POST /agents/:id/test`) to accept an
optional `environmentId` parameter
- Updated all adapter `test.ts` handlers to resolve and use the
specified execution target environment
- Added `resolveTestExecutionTarget` to `execution-target.ts` for remote
environment test resolution with cwd fallback
- Moved the "Test Environment" button and its feedback display into the
`NewAgent` page footer for better UX flow
## Verification
- `pnpm test` — all existing and new tests pass
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean
- Manual: navigate to Company Settings, confirm "Environments" appears
as a top-level section
- Manual: configure an agent with a non-local environment, click "Test
Environment", confirm the test runs inside that environment
## Risks
- Low risk. UI-only routing change for the settings page. The
test-in-environment change adds an optional parameter with a local
fallback, so existing behavior is preserved when no environment is
specified.
## Model Used
Codex GPT 5.4 high via Paperclip.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so
backend task ownership, recovery, review visibility, and company-scoped
limits need to stay enforceable without UI-only coupling.
> - Closed PR #4692 bundled those backend changes with UI workflow,
docs, skills, workflow, and lockfile churn.
> - PAP-2694 asks for a clean backend/control-plane slice from that
closed branch.
> - This branch starts from current `master` and mines only the `cli`,
`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server` contracts/tests needed
for the backend behavior.
> - It explicitly excludes UI workflow/performance work,
`.github/workflows/pr.yml`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, docs, skills,
package-script, adapter UI build-config, and perf fixture script
changes; the only UI files are fixture/test updates required by the
tightened shared `Company` contract.
> - The benefit is a smaller reviewable PR that preserves the
control-plane fixes while staying under Greptile s 100-file review
limit.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped attachment-size limits through DB
schema/migrations, shared company portability contracts, CLI
import/export coverage, and server attachment upload enforcement.
- Added productivity review service/API behavior for no-comment streak,
long-active, and high-churn review issues, including request-depth
clamping and issue summary exposure.
- Hardened issue ownership and recovery/control-plane paths: peer-agent
mutation denial, issue tree pause/resume behavior, stranded recovery
origins, and related activity/test coverage.
- Preserved related backend contract updates for routine timestamp
variables and managed agent instruction bundles because they live in
shared/server contracts from the source branch.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by making `Company.attachmentMaxBytes`
non-optional, simplifying review request-depth clamping, fixing the
migration final newline, and enforcing the process-level attachment cap
as the final ceiling for uploads.
- Added minimal company fixtures needed for repo-wide typecheck/build
and kept the PR to 66 changed files with forbidden/non-slice paths
excluded.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`
- `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD | wc -l` -> 66 files
- `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD -- .github/workflows/pr.yml
pnpm-lock.yaml package.json doc skills .agents scripts
packages/adapters` -> no output
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts
packages/shared/src/adapter-types.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` -> 12 files, 147 tests
passed
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` -> 3 files, 18
tests passed
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` -> 1 file, 6 tests
passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/ui build`
## Risks
- Includes migrations `0073_shiny_salo.sql` and
`0074_striped_genesis.sql`; merge ordering matters if another PR adds
migrations first.
- This is intentionally backend-only apart from fixture/test updates
forced by shared type correctness; UI affordances from PR #4692 are not
present here and should land in separate UI slices.
- The worktree install emitted plugin SDK bin-link warnings for unbuilt
plugin packages, but the targeted tests and package typechecks completed
successfully.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub
workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Heartbeat liveness recovery decides when stalled issue trees need
manager-visible follow-up.
> - Automatic recovery issue creation is useful, but operators need
instance-level controls for how aggressive it is.
> - Without controls, recovery behavior is harder to tune for local
development, production operations, and noisy edge cases.
> - This pull request adds configurable liveness auto-recovery settings
across shared contracts, API routes, services, and the instance
experimental settings UI.
> - The benefit is that operators can keep liveness findings advisory or
enable bounded recovery automation with explicit intervals and lookback
windows.
## What Changed
- Added shared types and validators for liveness auto-recovery settings.
- Extended instance settings routes and services to persist and validate
the new controls.
- Wired heartbeat/recovery services to honor enablement, minimum
interval, and lookback settings.
- Added UI controls for liveness recovery under instance experimental
settings.
- Covered the new server behavior with instance settings and liveness
escalation tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
## Risks
- Moderate behavioral risk because recovery automation timing changes
when enabled; defaults keep existing advisory behavior unless the
setting is turned on.
- No database migration in this PR; settings are stored through the
existing instance settings 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`, coding model with tool use and local command
execution; context window not exposed by the runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, so agent
metadata is part of the platform's governance and audit surface.
> - The shared agent taxonomy in `@paperclipai/shared` is the source of
truth for allowed agent roles and their UI labels.
> - The current taxonomy lacks a `security` role, which causes Security
Engineer hires to collapse into `engineer`.
> - That breaks separation-of-duties evidence in telemetry and weakens
role-level audit fidelity even though it does not directly change
permissions.
> - This pull request adds `security` as a first-class shared role and
covers the prior rejection path with a regression test.
> - The benefit is that Security Engineer agents can now be persisted
and rendered under the correct role without schema or permission churn.
## What Changed
- Added `security` to `AGENT_ROLES` in
`packages/shared/src/constants.ts`.
- Added the `Security` display label to `AGENT_ROLE_LABELS` so existing
UI consumers render the new role automatically.
- Added a shared validator regression test proving `createAgentSchema`
accepts `role: "security"` and that the label stays stable.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run
src/adapter-types.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low risk. This is a shared enum expansion with no database migration
and no permission-model change.
- Residual risk: this PR does not backfill existing agents already
persisted as `engineer`; it only fixes new validations and labels going
forward.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`/`doc` for overlap and did not find an existing
planned item covering this taxonomy fix.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.4 via the Codex local adapter, with tool use and local
code execution enabled. The runtime did not surface a separate
context-window identifier in agent metadata.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane, so optional execution providers should
sit at the plugin edge instead of hardcoding provider-specific behavior
into core shared/server/ui layers.
> - Sandbox environments are already first-class, and the fake provider
proves the built-in path; the remaining gap was that real providers
still leaked provider-specific config and runtime assumptions into core.
> - That coupling showed up in config normalization, secret persistence,
capabilities reporting, lease reconstruction, and the board UI form
fields.
> - As long as core knew about those provider-shaped details, shipping a
provider as a pure third-party plugin meant every new provider would
still require host changes.
> - This pull request generalizes the sandbox provider seam around
schema-driven plugin metadata and generic secret-ref handling.
> - The runtime and UI now consume provider metadata generically, so
core only special-cases the built-in fake provider while third-party
providers can live entirely in plugins.
## What Changed
- Added generic sandbox-provider capability metadata so plugin-backed
providers can expose `configSchema` through shared environment support
and the environments capabilities API.
- Reworked sandbox config normalization/persistence/runtime resolution
to handle schema-declared secret-ref fields generically, storing them as
Paperclip secrets and resolving them for probe/execute/release flows.
- Generalized plugin sandbox runtime handling so provider validation,
reusable-lease matching, lease reconstruction, and plugin worker calls
all operate on provider-agnostic config instead of provider-shaped
branches.
- Replaced hardcoded sandbox provider form fields in Company Settings
with schema-driven rendering and blocked agent environment selection
from the built-in fake provider.
- Added regression coverage for the generic seam across shared support
helpers plus environment config, probe, routes, runtime, and
sandbox-provider runtime tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest --run packages/shared/src/environment-support.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-config.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-probe.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/sandbox-provider-runtime.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
## Risks
- Plugin sandbox providers now depend more heavily on accurate
`configSchema` declarations; incorrect schemas can misclassify
secret-bearing fields or omit required config.
- Reusable lease matching is now metadata-driven for plugin-backed
providers, so providers that fail to persist stable metadata may
reprovision instead of resuming an existing lease.
- The UI form is now fully schema-driven for plugin-backed sandbox
providers; provider manifests without good defaults or descriptions may
produce a rougher operator experience.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via `codex_local`
- Model ID: `gpt-5.4`
- Reasoning effort: `high`
- Context window observed in runtime session metadata: `258400` tokens
- Capabilities used: terminal tool execution, git, and local code/test
inspection
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The run ledger surfaces stale-run watchdog evaluation issues and
recovery actions
> - Viewer-level board users should be able to inspect status without
getting controls that the server will reject
> - The UI also needs enough board-access context to know when to hide
those decision actions
> - This pull request exposes board memberships in the current board
access snapshot and gates watchdog action controls for known viewer
contexts
> - The benefit is clearer least-privilege UI behavior around recovery
controls
## What Changed
- Included memberships in `/api/cli-auth/me` so the board UI can
distinguish active viewer memberships from operator/admin access.
- Added the stale-run evaluation issue assignee to output silence
summaries.
- Hid stale-run watchdog decision buttons for known non-owner viewer
contexts.
- Surfaced watchdog decision failures through toast and inline error
text.
- Threaded `companyId` through the issue activity run ledger so access
checks are company-scoped.
- Added IssueRunLedger coverage for non-owner viewers.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
## Risks
- Medium-low risk. This is a UI gating change backed by existing server
authorization.
- Local implicit and instance-admin board contexts continue to show
watchdog decision controls.
- No migrations.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled with
shell/GitHub/Paperclip API access. Context window was not reported by
the runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The board and agent APIs accept multiline issue, approval,
interaction, and document text
> - Some callers accidentally send literal escaped newline sequences
like `\n` instead of JSON-decoded line breaks
> - That makes comments, descriptions, documents, and approval notes
render as flattened text instead of readable markdown
> - This pull request centralizes multiline text normalization in shared
validators
> - The benefit is newline-preserving API behavior across issue and
approval workflows without route-specific fixes
## What Changed
- Added a shared `multilineTextSchema` helper that normalizes escaped
`\n`, `\r\n`, and `\r` sequences to real line breaks.
- Applied the helper to issue descriptions, issue update comments, issue
comment bodies, suggested task descriptions, interaction summaries,
issue documents, approval comments, and approval decision notes.
- Added shared validator regressions for issue and approval multiline
inputs.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/approval.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
## Risks
- Low risk. This only changes text fields that are explicitly multiline
user/operator content.
- If a caller intentionally wanted literal backslash-n text in these
fields, it will now render as a real line break.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled with
shell/GitHub/Paperclip API access. Context window was not reported by
the runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The environment/runtime layer decides where agent work executes and
how the control plane reaches those runtimes.
> - Today Paperclip can run locally and over SSH, but sandboxed
execution needs a first-class environment model instead of one-off
adapter behavior.
> - We also want sandbox providers to be pluggable so the core does not
hardcode every provider implementation.
> - This branch adds the Sandbox environment path, the provider
contract, and a deterministic fake provider plugin.
> - That required synchronized changes across shared contracts, plugin
SDK surfaces, server runtime orchestration, and the UI
environment/workspace flows.
> - The result is that sandbox execution becomes a core control-plane
capability while keeping provider implementations extensible and
testable.
## What Changed
- Added sandbox runtime support to the environment execution path,
including runtime URL discovery, sandbox execution targeting,
orchestration, and heartbeat integration.
- Added plugin-provider support for sandbox environments so providers
can be supplied via plugins instead of hardcoded server logic.
- Added the fake sandbox provider plugin with deterministic behavior
suitable for local and automated testing.
- Updated shared types, validators, plugin protocol definitions, and SDK
helpers to carry sandbox provider and workspace-runtime contracts across
package boundaries.
- Updated server routes and services so companies can create sandbox
environments, select them for work, and execute work through the sandbox
runtime path.
- Updated the UI environment and workspace surfaces to expose sandbox
environment configuration and selection.
- Added test coverage for sandbox runtime behavior, provider seams,
environment route guards, orchestration, and the fake provider plugin.
## Verification
- Ran locally before the final fixture-only scrub:
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- Ran locally after the final scrub amend:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/runtime-api.test.ts`
- Reviewer spot checks:
- create a sandbox environment backed by the fake provider plugin
- run work through that environment
- confirm sandbox provider execution does not inherit host secrets
implicitly
## Risks
- This touches shared contracts, plugin SDK plumbing, server runtime
orchestration, and UI environment/workspace flows, so regressions would
likely show up as cross-layer mismatches rather than isolated type
errors.
- Runtime URL discovery and sandbox callback selection are sensitive to
host/bind configuration; if that logic is wrong, sandbox-backed
callbacks may fail even when execution succeeds.
- The fake provider plugin is intentionally deterministic and
test-oriented; future providers may expose capability gaps that this
branch does not yet cover.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent on a GPT-5-class backend in the
Paperclip/Codex harness. Exact backend model ID is not exposed
in-session. Tool-assisted workflow with shell execution, file editing,
git history inspection, and local 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and
follow-up work with active runs
> - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review
handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent
work
> - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and
navigation clunkier than necessary
> - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker
presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing
together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice
> - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the
broader task model
## What Changed
- restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue
thread
- folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit
thread scrolling behavior
- surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee
notices on the issue detail view
- tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList`
- added loose review-request handoffs through the issue
execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces
executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the
return assignee with execution_changes_requested"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
## Visual Evidence
- UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component
and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not
attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should
use the running preview for final visual confirmation.
## Risks
- Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience
in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as
thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff behavior
> 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 tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI environment
## 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 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 or documented the visual verification path
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Company skills are part of the control plane for distributing
reusable capabilities
> - Board flows that inspect company skill detail should stay responsive
because they are operator-facing control-plane reads
> - The existing detail path was doing broader work than needed for the
specific detail screen
> - This pull request narrows that company-skill detail loading path and
adds a regression test around it
> - The benefit is faster company skill detail reads without changing
the external API contract
## What Changed
- tightened the company-skill detail loading path in
`server/src/services/company-skills.ts`
- added `server/src/__tests__/company-skills-detail.test.ts` to verify
the detail route only pulls the required data
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-detail.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low risk: this only changes the company-skill detail query path, but
any missed assumption in the detail consumer would surface when loading
that screen
> 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 tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI environment
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The environments subsystem already models execution environments,
but before this branch there was no end-to-end SSH-backed runtime path
for agents to actually run work against a remote box
> - That meant agents could be configured around environment concepts
without a reliable way to execute adapter sessions remotely, sync
workspace state, and preserve run context across supported adapters
> - We also need environment selection to participate in normal
Paperclip control-plane behavior: agent defaults, project/issue
selection, route validation, and environment probing
> - Because this capability is still experimental, the UI surface should
be easy to hide and easy to remove later without undoing the underlying
implementation
> - This pull request adds SSH environment execution support across the
runtime, adapters, routes, schema, and tests, then puts the visible
environment-management UI behind an experimental flag
> - The benefit is that we can validate real SSH-backed agent execution
now while keeping the user-facing controls safely gated until the
feature is ready to come out of experimentation
## What Changed
- Added SSH-backed execution target support in the shared adapter
runtime, including remote workspace preparation, skill/runtime asset
sync, remote session handling, and workspace restore behavior after
runs.
- Added SSH execution coverage for supported local adapters, plus remote
execution tests across Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, OpenCode, and Pi.
- Added environment selection and environment-management backend support
needed for SSH execution, including route/service work, validation,
probing, and agent default environment persistence.
- Added CLI support for SSH environment lab verification and updated
related docs/tests.
- Added the `enableEnvironments` experimental flag and gated the
environment UI behind it on company settings, agent configuration, and
project configuration surfaces.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-hire-payload.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Manual verification on a branch-local dev server:
- enabled the experimental flag
- created an SSH environment
- created a Linux Claude agent using that environment
- confirmed a run executed on the Linux box and synced workspace changes
back
## Risks
- Medium: this touches runtime execution flow across multiple adapters,
so regressions would likely show up in remote session setup, workspace
sync, or environment selection precedence.
- The UI flag reduces exposure, but the underlying runtime and route
changes are still substantial and rely on migration correctness.
- The change set is broad across adapters, control-plane services,
migrations, and UI gating, so review should pay close attention to
environment-selection precedence and remote workspace lifecycle
behavior.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip's local Codex adapter, GPT-5-class coding
model with tool use and code execution in the local repo workspace. The
local adapter does not surface a more specific public model version
string in this branch workflow.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> 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 coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Every heartbeat run needs a concrete place where the agent's adapter
process executes.
> - Today that execution location is implicitly the local machine, which
makes it hard to track, audit, and manage as a first-class runtime
concern.
> - The first step is to represent the current local execution path
explicitly without changing how users experience agent runs.
> - This pull request adds core Environment and Environment Lease
records, then routes existing local heartbeat execution through a
default `Local` environment.
> - The benefit is that local runs remain behavior-preserving while the
system now has durable environment identity, lease lifecycle tracking,
and activity records for execution placement.
## What Changed
- Added `environments` and `environment_leases` database tables, schema
exports, and migration `0065_environments.sql`.
- Added shared environment constants, TypeScript types, and validators
for environment drivers, statuses, lease policies, lease statuses, and
cleanup states.
- Added `environmentService` for listing, reading, creating, updating,
and ensuring company-scoped environments.
- Added environment lease lifecycle operations for acquire, metadata
update, single-lease release, and run-wide release.
- Updated heartbeat execution to lazily ensure a company-scoped default
`Local` environment before adapter execution.
- Updated heartbeat execution to acquire an ephemeral local environment
lease, write `paperclipEnvironment` into the run context snapshot, and
release active leases during run finalization.
- Added activity log events for environment lease acquisition and
release.
- Added tests for environment service behavior and the local heartbeat
environment lifecycle.
- Added a CI-follow-up heartbeat guard so deferred issue comment wakes
are promoted before automatic missing-comment retries, with focused
batching test coverage.
## Verification
Local verification run for this branch:
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-local-environment.test.ts --pool=forks`
Additional reviewer/CI verification:
- Confirm `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not modified.
- Confirm `pnpm test:run` passes in CI.
- Confirm `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true pnpm run test:e2e` passes in CI.
- Confirm a local heartbeat run creates one active `Local` environment
when needed, records one lease for the run, releases the lease when the
run finishes, and includes `paperclipEnvironment` in the run context
snapshot.
Screenshots: not applicable; this PR has no UI changes.
## Risks
- Migration risk: introduces two new tables and a new migration journal
entry. Review should verify company scoping, indexes, foreign keys, and
enum defaults are correct.
- Lifecycle risk: heartbeat finalization now releases environment leases
in addition to existing runtime cleanup. A finalization bug could leave
stale active leases or mark a failed run's lease incorrectly.
- Behavior-preservation risk: local adapter execution should remain
unchanged apart from environment bookkeeping. Review should pay
attention to the heartbeat path around context snapshot updates and
final cleanup ordering.
- Activity volume risk: each heartbeat run now logs lease acquisition
and release events, increasing activity log volume by two records per
run.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5.4 via Codex CLI. Capabilities used: repository inspection,
TypeScript implementation review, local test/build execution, and
PR-description drafting.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [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: no UI changes)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A:
no user-facing docs or commands changed)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> 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 runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat
runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state
> - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient
adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without
stranding work
> - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across
heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and
operator-facing run state
> - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts,
migrations, and runtime status semantics
> - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can
merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work
> - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls,
and more predictable recurring execution behavior
## What Changed
- Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and
Codex transient failure recovery handling.
- Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue
comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and
activity/dashboard bounds.
- Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue
workspace runtime management.
- Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and
`0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`.
- Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared
types synchronized.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server`
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch,
which are central execution paths.
- Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge
this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields.
- Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator
smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed.
> 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 runtime, shell/git tool use
enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in
this Paperclip heartbeat environment.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators and agents coordinate through company-scoped issues,
comments, documents, and task relationships.
> - Issue text can mention other tickets, but those references were
previously plain markdown/text without durable relationship data.
> - That made it harder to understand related work, surface backlinks,
and keep cross-ticket context visible in the board.
> - This pull request adds first-class issue reference extraction,
storage, API responses, and UI surfaces.
> - The benefit is that issue references become queryable, navigable,
and visible without relying on ad hoc text scanning.
## What Changed
- Added shared issue-reference parsing utilities and exported
reference-related types/constants.
- Added an `issue_reference_mentions` table, idempotent migration DDL,
schema exports, and database documentation.
- Added server-side issue reference services, route integration,
activity summaries, and a backfill command for existing issue content.
- Added UI reference pills, related-work panels, markdown/editor mention
handling, and issue detail/property rendering updates.
- Added focused shared, server, and UI tests for parsing, persistence,
display, and related-work behavior.
- Rebased `PAP-735-first-class-task-references` cleanly onto
`public-gh/master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes are included.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-references-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRelatedWorkPanel.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Medium risk because this adds a new issue-reference persistence path
that touches shared parsing, database schema, server routes, and UI
rendering.
- Migration risk is mitigated by `CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS`, guarded
foreign-key creation, and `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` statements so
users who have applied an older local version of the numbered migration
can re-run safely.
- UI risk is limited by focused component coverage, but reviewers should
still manually inspect issue detail pages containing ticket references
before merge.
> 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, tool-using shell workflow with
repository inspection, git rebase/push, typecheck, and focused Vitest
verification.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The REST API is the control-plane boundary for companies, agents,
plugins, adapters, costs, invites, and issue mutations.
> - Several routes still relied on broad board or company access checks
without consistently enforcing the narrower actor, company, and
active-checkout boundaries those operations require.
> - That can allow agents or non-admin users to mutate sensitive
resources outside the intended governance path.
> - This pull request hardens the route authorization layer and adds
regression coverage for the audited API surfaces.
> - The benefit is tighter multi-company isolation, safer plugin and
adapter administration, and stronger enforcement of active issue
ownership.
## What Changed
- Added route-level authorization checks for budgets, plugin
administration/scoped routes, adapter management, company import/export,
direct agent creation, invite test resolution, and issue mutation/write
surfaces.
- Enforced active checkout ownership for agent-authenticated issue
mutations, while preserving explicit management overrides for permitted
managers.
- Restricted sensitive adapter and plugin management operations to
instance-admin or properly scoped actors.
- Tightened company portability and invite probing routes so agents
cannot cross company boundaries.
- Updated access constants and the Company Access UI copy for the new
active-checkout management grant.
- Added focused regression tests covering cross-company denial, agent
self-mutation denial, admin-only operations, and active checkout
ownership.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and fixed validation
fallout from the rebase: heartbeat-context route ordering and a company
import/export e2e fixture that now opts out of direct-hire approval
before using direct agent creation.
- Updated onboarding and signoff e2e setup to create seed agents through
`/agent-hires` plus board approval, so they remain compatible with the
approval-gated new-agent default.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by removing a duplicate company export API
alias, avoiding N+1 reporting-chain lookups in active-checkout override
checks, allowing agent mutations on unassigned `in_progress` issues, and
blocking NAT64 invite-probe targets.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-test-resolution-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-adapter-validation-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/invite-test-resolution-route.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter ui typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:e2e -- tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts
tests/e2e/signoff-policy.spec.ts`
- `pnpm test:e2e -- tests/e2e/signoff-policy.spec.ts`
- `pnpm test:run` was also run. It failed under default full-suite
parallelism with two order-dependent failures in
`plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` and `routines-e2e.test.ts`; both files
passed when rerun directly together with `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this changes authorization behavior across multiple
sensitive API surfaces, so callers that depended on broad board/company
access may now receive `403` or `409` until they use the correct
governance path.
- Direct agent creation now respects the company-level board-approval
requirement; integrations that need pending hires should use
`/api/companies/:companyId/agent-hires`.
- Active in-progress issue mutations now require checkout ownership or
an explicit management override, which may reveal workflow assumptions
in older automation.
> 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 coding agent, tool-using workflow with local shell,
Git, GitHub CLI, and repository tests.
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents inside execution and project
workspaces
> - Workspace runtime services can be controlled manually by operators
and reused by agent runs
> - Manual start/stop state was not preserved consistently across
workspace policies and routine launches
> - Routine launches also needed branch/workspace variables to default
from the selected workspace context
> - This pull request makes runtime policy state explicit, preserves
manual control, and auto-fills routine branch variables from workspace
data
> - The benefit is less surprising workspace service behavior and fewer
manual inputs when running workspace-scoped routines
## What Changed
- Added runtime-state handling for manual workspace control across
execution and project workspace validators, routes, and services.
- Updated heartbeat/runtime startup behavior so manually stopped
services are respected.
- Auto-filled routine workspace branch variables from available
workspace context.
- Added focused server and UI tests for workspace runtime and routine
variable behavior.
- Removed muted gray background styling from workspace pages and cards
for a cleaner workspace UI.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx`
- Result: 55 tests passed, 21 skipped. The embedded Postgres routines
tests skipped on this host with the existing PGlite/Postgres init
warning; workspace-runtime and UI tests passed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches runtime service start/stop policy and
heartbeat launch behavior.
- The focused tests cover manual runtime state, routine variables, and
workspace runtime reuse paths.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, tool-enabled local shell and
GitHub workflow, exact runtime context window 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 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, or documented why targeted component/service verification
is sufficient here
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip gives operators a live view of agent work across
dashboards, transcripts, and run activity charts
> - Those views consume live run updates and aggregate run activity from
backend dashboard data
> - Missing or partial run data could make charts brittle, and live
transcript updates were heavier than needed
> - Operators need dashboard data to stay stable even when recent run
payloads are incomplete
> - This pull request hardens dashboard run aggregation, guards chart
rendering, and lightens live run update handling
> - The benefit is a more reliable dashboard during active agent
execution
## What Changed
- Added dashboard run activity types and backend aggregation coverage.
- Guarded activity chart rendering when run data is missing or partial.
- Reduced live transcript update churn in active agent and run chat
surfaces.
- Fixed issue chat avatar alignment in the thread renderer.
- Added focused dashboard, activity chart, and live transcript tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/dashboard-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ActivityCharts.test.tsx
ui/src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.test.tsx`
- Result: 8 tests passed, 1 skipped. The embedded Postgres dashboard
service test skipped on this host with the existing PGlite/Postgres init
warning; UI chart and transcript tests passed.
## Risks
- Medium-low risk: aggregation semantics changed, but the UI remains
guarded around incomplete data.
- The dashboard service test is host-skipped here, so CI should confirm
the embedded database 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, tool-enabled local shell and
GitHub workflow, exact runtime context window 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 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, or documented why targeted component tests are sufficient
here
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is the extension path for optional capabilities
that should not require core product changes for every integration.
> - Plugins need scoped host APIs for issue orchestration, documents,
wakeups, summaries, activity attribution, and isolated database state.
> - Without those host APIs, richer plugins either cannot coordinate
Paperclip work safely or need privileged core-side special cases.
> - This pull request adds the plugin orchestration host surface, scoped
route dispatch, a database namespace layer, and a smoke plugin that
exercises the contract.
> - The benefit is a broader plugin API that remains company-scoped,
auditable, and covered by tests.
## What Changed
- Added plugin orchestration host APIs for issue creation, document
access, wakeups, summaries, plugin-origin activity, and scoped API route
dispatch.
- Added plugin database namespace tables, schema exports, migration
checks, and idempotent replay coverage under migration
`0059_plugin_database_namespaces`.
- Added shared plugin route/API types and validators used by server and
SDK boundaries.
- Expanded plugin SDK types, protocol helpers, worker RPC host behavior,
and testing utilities for orchestration flows.
- Added the `plugin-orchestration-smoke-example` package to exercise
scoped routes, restricted database namespaces, issue orchestration,
documents, wakeups, summaries, and UI status surfaces.
- Kept the new orchestration smoke fixture out of the root pnpm
workspace importer so this PR preserves the repository policy of not
committing `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Updated plugin docs and database docs for the new orchestration and
database namespace surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master`, resolved conflicts, and
removed `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the final PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/client.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-scoped-api-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-sdk-orchestration-contract.test.ts`
- From `packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example`:
`pnpm exec vitest run --config ./vitest.config.ts`
- `pnpm --dir
packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example run
typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- PR CI on latest head `293fc67c`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, and
`security/snyk` all passed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this expands plugin host authority, so route auth,
company scoping, and plugin-origin activity attribution need careful
review.
- Medium risk: database namespace migration behavior must remain
idempotent for environments that may have seen earlier branch versions.
- Medium risk: the orchestration smoke fixture is intentionally excluded
from the root workspace importer to avoid a `pnpm-lock.yaml` PR diff;
direct fixture verification remains listed above.
- Low operational risk from the PR setup itself: the branch is rebased
onto current `master`, the migration is ordered after upstream
`0057`/`0058`, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the final diff.
> 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`.
Roadmap checked: this work aligns with the completed Plugin system
milestone and extends the plugin surface rather than duplicating an
unrelated planned core feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in a tool-enabled CLI
environment. Exact hosted model build and context-window size are not
exposed by the runtime; reasoning/tool use were enabled for repository
inspection, editing, testing, git operations, and PR creation.
## 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 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: no core UI screen change; example plugin UI contract
is covered by tests)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The heartbeat runtime, agent import path, and agent configuration
defaults determine whether work is dispatched safely and predictably.
> - Several accumulated fixes all touched agent execution recovery, wake
routing, import behavior, and runtime concurrency defaults.
> - Those changes need to land together so the heartbeat service and
agent creation defaults stay internally consistent.
> - This pull request groups the runtime/governance changes from the
split branch into one standalone branch.
> - The benefit is safer recovery for stranded runs, bounded high-volume
reads, imported-agent approval correctness, skill-template support, and
a clearer default concurrency policy.
## What Changed
- Fixed stranded continuation recovery so successful automatic retries
are requeued instead of incorrectly blocking the issue.
- Bounded high-volume issue/log reads across issue, heartbeat, agent,
project, and workspace paths.
- Fixed imported-agent approval and instruction-path permission
handling.
- Quarantined seeded worktree execution state during worktree
provisioning.
- Queued approval follow-up wakes and hardened SQL_ASCII heartbeat
output handling.
- Added reusable agent instruction templates for hiring flows.
- Set the default max concurrent agent runs to five and updated related
UI/tests/docs.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- Split integration check: merged this branch first, followed by the
other [PAP-1614](/PAP/issues/PAP-1614) branches, with no merge
conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: touches heartbeat recovery, queueing, and issue list
bounds in central runtime paths.
- Imported-agent and concurrency default behavior changes may affect
existing automation that assumes one-at-a-time default runs.
- No database migrations are included.
> 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-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip agents do real work in project and execution workspaces.
> - Operators need workspace state to be visible, navigable, and
copyable without digging through raw run logs.
> - The branch included related workspace cards, navigation, runtime
controls, stale-service handling, and issue-property visibility.
> - These changes share the workspace UI and runtime-control surfaces
and can stand alone from unrelated access/profile work.
> - This pull request groups the workspace experience changes into one
standalone branch.
> - The benefit is a clearer workspace overview, better metadata copy
flows, and more accurate runtime service controls.
## What Changed
- Polished project workspace summary cards and made workspace metadata
copyable.
- Added a workspace navigation overview and extracted reusable project
workspace content.
- Squared and polished the execution workspace configuration page.
- Fixed stale workspace command matching and hid stopped stale services
in runtime controls.
- Showed live workspace service context in issue properties.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/project-workspaces-tab.test.ts
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/workspace-commands.test.ts
--config /dev/null` because the root Vitest project config does not
currently include `packages/shared` tests.
- Split integration check: merged after runtime/governance,
dev-infra/backups, and access/profiles with no merge conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: touches workspace navigation, runtime controls, and issue
property rendering.
- Visual layout changes may need browser QA, especially around smaller
screens and dense workspace metadata.
- No database migrations are included.
> 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-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is moving from a solo local operator model toward teams
supervising AI-agent companies.
> - Human access management and human-visible profile surfaces are part
of that multiple-user path.
> - The branch included related access cleanup, archived-member removal,
permission protection, and a user profile page.
> - These changes share company membership, user attribution, and
access-service behavior.
> - This pull request groups those human access/profile changes into one
standalone branch.
> - The benefit is safer member removal behavior and a first profile
surface for user work, activity, and cost attribution.
## What Changed
- Added archived company member removal support across shared contracts,
server routes/services, and UI.
- Protected company member removal with stricter permission checks and
tests.
- Added company user profile API, shared types, route wiring, client
API, route, and UI page.
- Simplified the user profile page visual design to a neutral
typography-led layout.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/user-profile-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanyAccess.test.tsx --hookTimeout=30000`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/user-profile-routes.test.ts
--testTimeout=30000 --hookTimeout=30000` after an initial local
embedded-Postgres hook timeout in the combined run.
- Split integration check: merged after runtime/governance and
dev-infra/backups with no merge conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: changes member removal permissions and adds a new user
profile route with cross-table stats.
- The profile page is a new UI surface and may need visual follow-up in
browser QA.
- No database migrations are included.
> 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-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution
window.
> - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still
holding useful next-step state.
> - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path
to be durable and visible.
> - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation
summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers.
> - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with
clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff.
## What Changed
- Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking,
and an idempotent `0058` migration.
- Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation
summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill.
- Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context
through shared adapter utilities.
- Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness
continuation state.
- Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run
ledger, with component tests.
- Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance,
onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation
behavior.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run,
excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence,
importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts,
documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness
backfill off the request path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts
server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a
plan document update"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity
service|treats a plan document update"`
- Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and
Snyk all passed.
- Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after
fetching `public-gh master`.
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff.
- Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after
`0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application.
- Greptile inline review threads are resolved.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery,
activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI.
- Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent
guards.
- Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger
response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the
background backfill completes.
- UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass;
validation is currently through focused component tests.
> 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-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git,
GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API access.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR
packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests
listed above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - V1 needs to stay local-first while also supporting shared,
authenticated deployments.
> - Human operators need real identities, company membership, invite
flows, profile surfaces, and company-scoped access controls.
> - Agents and operators also need the existing issue, inbox, workspace,
approval, and plugin flows to keep working under those authenticated
boundaries.
> - This branch accumulated the multi-user implementation, follow-up QA
fixes, workspace/runtime refinements, invite UX improvements,
release-branch conflict resolution, and review hardening.
> - This pull request consolidates that branch onto the current `master`
branch as a single reviewable PR.
> - The benefit is a complete multi-user implementation path with tests
and docs carried forward without dropping existing branch work.
## What Changed
- Added authenticated human-user access surfaces: auth/session routes,
company user directory, profile settings, company access/member
management, join requests, and invite management.
- Added invite creation, invite landing, onboarding, logo/branding,
invite grants, deduped join requests, and authenticated multi-user E2E
coverage.
- Tightened company-scoped and instance-admin authorization across
board, plugin, adapter, access, issue, and workspace routes.
- Added profile-image URL validation hardening, avatar preservation on
name-only profile updates, and join-request uniqueness migration cleanup
for pending human requests.
- Added an atomic member role/status/grants update path so Company
Access saves no longer leave partially updated permissions.
- Improved issue chat, inbox, assignee identity rendering,
sidebar/account/company navigation, workspace routing, and execution
workspace reuse behavior for multi-user operation.
- Added and updated server/UI tests covering auth, invites, membership,
issue workspace inheritance, plugin authz, inbox/chat behavior, and
multi-user flows.
- Merged current `public-gh/master` into this branch, resolved all
conflicts, and verified no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is included in this
PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-validators.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authz-company-access.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/sidebar-preferences-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openclaw-invite-prompt-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/auth-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanyAccess.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm db:generate`
- `npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list`
- Confirmed branch has no uncommitted changes and is `0` commits behind
`public-gh/master` before PR creation.
- Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is staged or present in the PR
diff.
## Risks
- High review surface area: this PR contains the accumulated multi-user
branch plus follow-up fixes, so reviewers should focus especially on
company-boundary enforcement and authenticated-vs-local deployment
behavior.
- UI behavior changed across invites, inbox, issue chat, access
settings, and sidebar navigation; no browser screenshots are included in
this branch-consolidation PR.
- Plugin install, upgrade, and lifecycle/config mutations now require
instance-admin access, which is intentional but may change expectations
for non-admin board users.
- A join-request dedupe migration rejects duplicate pending human
requests before creating unique indexes; deployments with unusual
historical duplicates should review the migration behavior.
- Company member role/status/grant saves now use a new combined
endpoint; older separate endpoints remain for compatibility.
- Full production build was not run locally in this heartbeat; CI should
cover the full matrix.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-based model, CLI/tool-use
environment. Exact deployed model identifier and context window were not
exposed by the runtime.
## 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Note on screenshots: this is a branch-consolidation PR for an
already-developed multi-user branch, and no browser screenshots were
captured during this heartbeat.
---------
Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Operators rely on issue, inbox, and routine views to understand what
the company is doing in real time
> - Those views need to stay fast and readable even when issue lists,
markdown comments, and run metadata get large
> - The current branch had a coherent set of UI and live-update
improvements spread across issue search, issue detail rendering, routine
affordances, and workspace lookups
> - This pull request groups those board-facing changes into one
standalone branch that can merge independently of the heartbeat/runtime
work
> - The benefit is a faster, clearer issue and routine workflow without
changing the underlying task model
## What Changed
- Show routine execution issues by default and rename the filter to
`Hide routine runs` so the default state no longer looks like an active
filter.
- Show the routine name in the run dialog and tighten the issue
properties pane with a workspace link, copy-on-click behavior, and an
inline parent arrow.
- Reduce issue detail rerenders, keep queued issue chat mounted, improve
issues page search responsiveness, and speed up issues first paint.
- Add inbox "other search results", refresh visible issue runs after
status updates, and optimize workspace lookups through summary-mode
execution workspace queries.
- Improve markdown wrapping and scrolling behavior for long strings and
self-comment code blocks.
- Relax the markdown sanitizer assertion so the test still validates
safety after the new wrap-friendly inline styles.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/pages/Issues.test.tsx
ui/src/context/BreadcrumbContext.test.tsx
ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/api/execution-workspaces.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts`
## Risks
- This touches several issue-facing UI surfaces at once, so regressions
would most likely show up as stale rendering, search result mismatches,
or small markdown presentation differences.
- The workspace lookup optimization depends on the summary-mode route
shape staying aligned between server and UI.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment.
Exact backend model deployment ID was not exposed in-session.
Tool-assisted editing and shell execution were 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The control plane depends on authenticated routes enforcing company
boundaries and role permissions correctly
> - This branch also touches the issue detail and markdown editing flows
operators use while handling advisory and triage work
> - Partial issue cache seeds and fragile rich-editor parsing could
leave important issue content missing or blank at the moment an operator
needed it
> - Blocked issues becoming actionable again should wake their assignee
automatically instead of silently staying idle
> - This pull request rebases the advisory follow-up branch onto current
`master`, hardens authenticated route authorization, and carries the
issue-detail/editor reliability fixes forward with regression tests
> - The benefit is tighter authz on sensitive routes plus more reliable
issue/advisory editing and wakeup behavior on top of the latest base
## What Changed
- Hardened authenticated route authorization across agent, activity,
approval, access, project, plugin, health, execution-workspace,
portability, and related server paths, with new cross-tenant and
runtime-authz regression coverage.
- Switched issue detail queries from `initialData` to placeholder-based
hydration so list/quicklook seeds still refetch full issue bodies.
- Normalized advisory-style HTML images before mounting the markdown
editor and strengthened fallback behavior when the rich editor silently
fails or rejects the content.
- Woke assigned agents when blocked issues move back to `todo`, with
route coverage for reopen and unblock transitions.
- Rebasing note: this branch now sits cleanly on top of the latest
`master` tip used for the PR base.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issueDetailQuery.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts`
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not part of the PR diff.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` before publishing.
## Risks
- Broad authz tightening may expose existing flows that were relying on
permissive board or agent access and now need explicit grants.
- Markdown editor fallback changes could affect focus or rendering in
edge-case content that mixes HTML-like advisory markup with normal
markdown.
- This verification was intentionally scoped to touched regressions and
did not run the full repository suite.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment
with tool use for terminal, git, and GitHub operations. The exact
runtime model identifier is not exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, it is behavior-only and does not
need before/after screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes, or no
documentation changes were needed for these internal fixes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Routines are recurring tasks that trigger agents on a schedule or
via webhook
> - Routine triggers store their schedule as a `cronExpression` +
`timezone` in the database
> - The `GET /companies/:companyId/routines` list endpoint is the
primary way API consumers (and the UI) discover all routines and their
triggers
> - But the list endpoint was silently dropping `cronExpression` and
`timezone` from each trigger object — the DB query fetched them, but the
explicit object-construction mapping only forwarded seven other fields
> - This PR fixes the mapping to include `cronExpression` and
`timezone`, and extends the `RoutineListItem.triggers` type to match
> - The benefit is that API consumers can now see the actual schedule
from the list endpoint, and future UI components reading from the list
cache will get accurate schedule data
## What Changed
- **`server/src/services/routines.ts`** — Added `cronExpression` and
`timezone` to the explicit trigger object mapping inside
`routinesService.list()`. The DB query (`listTriggersForRoutineIds`)
already fetched all columns via `SELECT *`; the values were being
discarded during object construction.
- **`packages/shared/src/types/routine.ts`** — Extended
`RoutineListItem.triggers` `Pick<RoutineTrigger, ...>` to include
`cronExpression` and `timezone` so the TypeScript type contract matches
the actual runtime shape.
- **`server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`** — Added assertions to
the existing schedule-trigger E2E test that verify both `cronExpression`
and `timezone` are present in the `GET /companies/:companyId/routines`
list response.
## Verification
```bash
# Run the route + service unit tests
npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
# → 21 tests pass
# Confirm cronExpression appears in list response
curl /api/companies/{id}/routines | jq '.[].triggers[].cronExpression'
# → now returns the actual cron string instead of undefined
```
Manual reproduction per the issue:
1. Create a routine with a schedule trigger (`cronExpression: "47 14 * *
*"`, `timezone: "America/Mexico_City"`)
2. `GET /api/companies/{id}/routines` — trigger object now includes
`cronExpression` and `timezone`
## Risks
Low risk. The change only adds two fields to an existing response shape
— no fields removed, no behavior changed. The `cronExpression` is `null`
for non-schedule trigger kinds (webhook, etc.), consistent with
`RoutineTrigger.cronExpression: string | null`. No migration required.
## Model Used
- **Provider:** Anthropic
- **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`)
- **Context window:** 200k tokens
- **Mode:** Extended thinking + tool use (agentic)
- Secondary adversarial review: OpenAI Codex (via codex-companion
plugin)
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (API-only fix; no UI rendering change)
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no
doc changes needed)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - That operator experience depends not just on issue chat, but also on
how workspaces, inbox groups, and navigation state behave over
long-running sessions
> - The current branch included a separate cluster of workspace-runtime
controls, inbox grouping, sidebar ordering, and worktree lifecycle fixes
> - Those changes cross server, shared contracts, database state, and UI
navigation, but they still form one coherent operator workflow area
> - This pull request isolates the workspace/runtime and navigation
ergonomics work into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is better workspace recovery and navigation persistence
without forcing reviewers through the unrelated issue-detail/chat work
## What Changed
- Improved execution workspace and project workspace controls, request
wiring, layout, and JSON editor ergonomics
- Hardened linked worktree reuse/startup behavior and documented the
`worktree repair` flow for recovering linked worktrees safely
- Added inbox workspace grouping, mobile collapse, archive undo,
keyboard navigation, shared group-header styling, and persisted
collapsed-group behavior
- Added persistent sidebar order preferences with the supporting DB
migration, shared/server contracts, routes, services, hooks, and UI
integration
- Scoped issue-list preferences by context and added targeted UI/server
tests for workspace controls, inbox behavior, sidebar preferences, and
worktree validation
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/sidebar-preferences-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx
ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx
ui/src/api/workspace-runtime-control.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` was attempted, but
the embedded Postgres suite self-skipped/hung on this host after
reporting an init-script issue, so it is not counted as a local pass
here
## Risks
- Medium: this branch includes migration-backed preference storage plus
worktree/runtime behavior, so merge review should pay attention to state
persistence and worktree recovery semantics
- The sidebar preference migration is standalone, but it should still be
watched for conflicts if another migration lands first
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Replace single retentionDays with a three-tier BackupRetentionPolicy:
- Daily: keep all backups (presets: 3, 7, 14 days; default 7)
- Weekly: keep one per calendar week (presets: 1, 2, 4 weeks; default 4)
- Monthly: keep one per calendar month (presets: 1, 3, 6 months; default 1)
Pruning sorts backups newest-first and applies each tier's cutoff,
keeping only the newest entry per ISO week/month bucket. The Instance
Settings General page now shows three preset selectors (no icon, matches
existing page design). Remove Database icon import.
Compress database backups with gzip (.sql.gz), reducing file size ~83%.
Add backup retention configuration to Instance Settings UI with preset
options (7 days, 2 weeks, 1 month). The backup scheduler now reads
retention from the database on each tick so changes take effect without
restart. Default retention changed from 30 to 7 days.
Michael Nguyen
Dotta
Nicky Leach
Jannes Stubbemann
Devin Foley
scotttong
dependabot[bot]
MrBob
Dotta
Aron Prins
Lempkey
dotta
