Bumps
[@aws-sdk/client-s3](https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/tree/HEAD/clients/client-s3)
from 3.1106.0 to 3.1111.0.
<details>
<summary>Release notes</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/releases">@aws-sdk/client-s3's
releases</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>v3.1111.0</h2>
<h4>3.1111.0(2026-08-14)</h4>
<h5>Chores</h5>
<ul>
<li>upgrade to typescript 7 (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/pull/8264">#8264</a>)
(<a
href="ca81fbb739">ca81fbb7</a>)</li>
<li>remove jest, use vitest for remaining test suites (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/pull/8263">#8263</a>)
(<a
href="3a88aada57">3a88aada</a>)</li>
</ul>
<h5>Documentation Changes</h5>
<ul>
<li><strong>client-redshift:</strong> Amazon Redshift now unlocks a
locked admin user account and resets the failed-login counter when you
update the admin password using the ModifyCluster API. This option is
available only when account lockout security is enabled. (<a
href="b93cb20c99">b93cb20c</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-redshift-serverless:</strong> Amazon Redshift now
unlocks a locked admin user account and resets the failed-login counter
when you update the admin password using the UpdateNamespace API. This
option is available only when account lockout security is enabled. (<a
href="197b4aa616">197b4aa6</a>)</li>
</ul>
<h5>New Features</h5>
<ul>
<li><strong>clients:</strong> update client endpoints as of 2026-08-14
(<a
href="1e7a28061d">1e7a2806</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-bedrock-agentcore-control:</strong> Adds AgentCore
Payments support for CMK, Marketplace Subscriptions and QuickCreate (<a
href="39108eb0d6">39108eb0</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-sagemaker:</strong> Release support for g7.2xlarge,
g7.4xlarge, g7.8xlarge, g7.12xlarge, g7.24xlarge, and g7.48xlarge
instance types for SageMaker HyperPod (<a
href="7198c1938d">7198c193</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-mwaa-serverless:</strong> Adds support for Consuming
code for MWAA Serverless (<a
href="e3edae27dd">e3edae27</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-bedrock-agent-runtime:</strong> Adds
CheckIngestedDocumentAcl and GetIngestedDocumentAcl APIs to Amazon
Bedrock Knowledge Bases. Customers can verify user access to documents
based on ingested ACLs and retrieve full ACL details including allow and
deny entries, enabling validation of ACL ingestion without test
retrievals. (<a
href="e86c42049c">e86c4204</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-observabilityadmin:</strong> CloudWatch Logs
centralization rules now support tag propagation. You can configure a
TagPropagationConfiguration on your centralization rule to automatically
sync resource tags from source to destination log groups, with
configurable conflict resolution strategies. (<a
href="c57d7a4cd3">c57d7a4c</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-bedrock-agentcore:</strong> Add support for the
Machine Payments Protocol (MPP) and x402 upto scheme payments protocol
in Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Payments. Customers can now pay for
MPP-gated resources and also pay services which requires upto scheme in
x402 (<a
href="7fdf457a8a">7fdf457a</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-glue:</strong> Added support for associating glossary
terms with iterable form items, such as table columns. (<a
href="4c2e27d138">4c2e27d1</a>)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>For list of updated packages, view
<strong>updated-packages.md</strong> in
<strong>assets-3.1111.0.zip</strong></p>
<h2>v3.1110.0</h2>
<h4>3.1110.0(2026-08-13)</h4>
<h5>New Features</h5>
<ul>
<li><strong>client-auto-scaling:</strong> Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling now
supports terminating multiple instances in a single
TerminateInstanceInAutoScalingGroup call via the new InstanceIds
parameter, returning an Activities list. LaunchInstances now returns
IdempotentCallInProgressFault for duplicate client tokens. (<a
href="ee707980d2">ee707980</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-cleanrooms:</strong> This release adds support for
minimum aggregation thresholds and comparison controls to the Custom
analysis rule type. (<a
href="1f84f2ae77">1f84f2ae</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-codecommit:</strong> Added the GetBlobDifferences API
operation, which returns line-level diffs between two blob versions
without requiring a local clone. Returns structured hunks with context,
additions, and deletions. Supports pagination for large diffs. (<a
href="f1165c6208">f1165c62</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-securityagent:</strong> Add support for setting a
maximum task-hour budget cap on penetration tests and code reviews, and
for revalidating previously reported findings via a new REVALIDATION job
type. (<a
href="aba75d728b">aba75d72</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-connect:</strong> Adds the StartAssistantContact API
to start chat contacts handled by an AI agent. Adds SegmentAttributes to
StartWebRTCContact, and corrects its error response to now receive
AccessDeniedException (previously returned as an internal server error
due to a missing error declaration). (<a
href="67f9b7bb9b">67f9b7bb</a>)</li>
<li><strong>client-acm:</strong> This change allows customers to update
their existing email-validated certificates to use the DNS validation
method. (<a
href="71c194a467">71c194a4</a>)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>For list of updated packages, view
<strong>updated-packages.md</strong> in
<strong>assets-3.1110.0.zip</strong></p>
<h2>v3.1109.0</h2>
<h4>3.1109.0(2026-08-12)</h4>
<h5>Documentation Changes</h5>
<!-- raw HTML omitted -->
</blockquote>
<p>... (truncated)</p>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Changelog</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/blob/main/clients/client-s3/CHANGELOG.md">@aws-sdk/client-s3's
changelog</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h1><a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/compare/v3.1110.0...v3.1111.0">3.1111.0</a>
(2026-08-14)</h1>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> Version bump only for package
<code>@aws-sdk/client-s3</code></p>
<h1><a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/compare/v3.1109.0...v3.1110.0">3.1110.0</a>
(2026-08-13)</h1>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> Version bump only for package
<code>@aws-sdk/client-s3</code></p>
<h1><a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/compare/v3.1108.0...v3.1109.0">3.1109.0</a>
(2026-08-12)</h1>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> Version bump only for package
<code>@aws-sdk/client-s3</code></p>
<h1><a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/compare/v3.1107.0...v3.1108.0">3.1108.0</a>
(2026-08-11)</h1>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> Version bump only for package
<code>@aws-sdk/client-s3</code></p>
<h1><a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/compare/v3.1106.0...v3.1107.0">3.1107.0</a>
(2026-08-10)</h1>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> Version bump only for package
<code>@aws-sdk/client-s3</code></p>
</blockquote>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li><a
href="c41e9a98d4"><code>c41e9a9</code></a>
Publish v3.1111.0</li>
<li><a
href="ca81fbb739"><code>ca81fbb</code></a>
chore: upgrade to typescript 7 (<a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/tree/HEAD/clients/client-s3/issues/8264">#8264</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="4efe5bc67b"><code>4efe5bc</code></a>
Publish v3.1110.0</li>
<li><a
href="d2ee371d0c"><code>d2ee371</code></a>
Publish v3.1109.0</li>
<li><a
href="26b0eb790f"><code>26b0eb7</code></a>
Publish v3.1108.0</li>
<li><a
href="785d467fbd"><code>785d467</code></a>
chore(codegen): update smithy-ts commit to bring in TS6 change (<a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/tree/HEAD/clients/client-s3/issues/8262">#8262</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="edabd4a522"><code>edabd4a</code></a>
chore: upgrade to typescript 6 (<a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/tree/HEAD/clients/client-s3/issues/8257">#8257</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="d87c82ba20"><code>d87c82b</code></a>
Publish v3.1107.0</li>
<li><a
href="2e4482a678"><code>2e4482a</code></a>
chore(codegen): smithy-aws-typescript-codegen 0.52.0 (<a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/tree/HEAD/clients/client-s3/issues/8255">#8255</a>)</li>
<li>See full diff in <a
href="https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js-v3/commits/v3.1111.0/clients/client-s3">compare
view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip uses issue dependencies to pause work until blockers reach
a ready state.
> - A blocked issue with several blockers can miss its wake when the
final blocker completes.
> - The wake deduplication used a historical per-edge key, so an old
completed wake hid the current ready state.
> - This pull request adds a level-triggered key for the sorted set of
blocker issue ids and uses one helper for all wake paths.
> - The benefit is that the final blocker wake can repair a missed wake,
while repeated reconciliation stays bounded.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8009, #7853, and #6719. These public pull requests cover related
dependency-wake and deduplication behavior. This pull request fixes a
separate multi-blocker state-key gap.
**What happened?**
A blocked issue with multiple blockers received no
`issue_blockers_resolved` wake when the final blocker completed. An
earlier completed per-edge wake suppressed the wake for the current
all-ready state.
**Expected behavior**
The final blocker completion must emit one wake for the current ready
state. A later reconciliation pass must not emit a second wake for the
same state.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a blocked issue with at least two blocker issues.
2. Complete one blocker and record its completed per-edge wake.
3. Complete the final blocker.
4. Run the route-time or reconciliation wake path.
5. Confirm that one level-triggered wake exists for the sorted blocker
set.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`eed1e5cad91a37547e1b521232da04b9ddb316f0`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev from source.
## What Changed
- Add a SHA-256 level-triggered idempotency key from the sorted blocker
issue ids.
- Share one deduplication helper across route-time, finalize-time, and
periodic wake paths.
- Treat state-key rows with idempotent statuses as duplicates.
- Treat legacy per-edge rows as duplicates only while they remain in
flight.
- Record skipped route-time wakes without suppressing later
finalize-time or periodic wakes.
- Add regression coverage for a completed earlier-blocker wake and a
second reconciliation pass.
## Verification
- Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-dependency-wakeups-routes.test.ts`.
- Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts`.
- Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`.
- Run `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts`.
- Run `tsc --noEmit` on the touched files.
## Risks
The change alters wake deduplication for dependency reconciliation. The
new key uses the full sorted blocker set, so a change in that set
permits a new wake. The regression tests cover the missed-final-blocker
case and repeated reconciliation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-use model with code execution and repository
review support.
## 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 runs AI agents through local and remote execution
adapters.
> - Sandbox providers move workspace and asset files before and after
agent runs.
> - Serial file transfers delay startup and teardown when several
operations do not depend on each other.
> - Providers need an opt-in contract so existing providers keep their
serial behavior.
> - This pull request adds a bounded scheduler and routes inbound and
outbound sync operations through it.
> - The benefit is shorter sandbox setup and teardown with stable
errors, clear telemetry, and a safe opt-in path.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above): packages/shared,
packages/adapter-utils, packages/plugins, and server.
**Problem or motivation**
Sandbox sync processes the workspace, assets, and referenced projects in
series. This adds avoidable wait time to agent startup and teardown.
**Proposed solution**
Add a fail-closed provider capability named concurrentSyncOperations.
Use a bounded scheduler with a limit of four operations. Preserve
operation order for error reporting. Keep non-opted-in providers on the
serial path.
**Alternatives considered**
Increase the serial transfer speed or add provider-specific schedulers.
Those options do not provide one shared contract or stable behavior
across providers.
**Roadmap alignment**
ROADMAP.md lists cloud and sandbox agents as a product area. This change
improves sandbox execution without changing the control-plane contract.
**Additional context**
The Daytona provider opts in. Board trials on this commit showed overlap
for inbound sync and outbound restore, with no referenced-project
staging failures.
## What Changed
- Add the concurrentSyncOperations sandbox capability and fail-closed
parsing.
- Add a bounded settle-all scheduler with stable input-order errors.
- Parallelize inbound workspace, asset, and referenced-project sync
operations when the provider opts in.
- Parallelize outbound workspace and asset restore operations when the
provider opts in.
- Surface referenced-project failure text in run logs and server
telemetry.
- Add Daytona sync spans and the capability declaration.
- Preserve in-flight upload scratch tarballs during workspace wipe.
- Add unit and regression tests for the scheduler, coordinators,
provider behavior, telemetry, and wipe race.
## Verification
- Run the adapter-utils and server type checks.
- Run the targeted adapter-utils, server, and Daytona test suites.
- Run the full automated sweep.
- Review six cold Daytona trials, with three serial and three parallel
runs.
- Confirm that parallel trials show inbound overlap and outbound restore
overlap.
- Confirm that providers without the capability keep serial behavior.
## Risks
- Providers must opt in only when their file operations can run safely
at the same time.
- A provider that declares the capability incorrectly can expose
transfer races.
- The scheduler keeps a limit of four to bound resource use.
- Providers without the capability keep the prior serial behavior.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 in the Codex runtime. The model used tool calls, code
inspection, and GitHub workflow support. The model did not author the
implementation commits.
## 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 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>
Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master.
This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml.
Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Sandbox agents need a safe login path for each supported adapter
> - Codex device login and Claude setup-token login used separate
session stores and route logic
> - Separate stores made session lookup, expiry, and login capability
checks harder to keep consistent
> - This pull request unifies both flows on one session table and one
capability contract
> - The benefit is one company-scoped login model with public session
identifiers and shared lifecycle rules
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Problem or motivation**
Codex and Claude sandbox login used separate session stores and
different route paths. This split increased the risk of inconsistent
company scoping, session lookup, and cleanup.
**Proposed solution**
Use `adapter_auth_sessions` for both login flows. Use public session
identifiers for API access. Select login behavior from projected adapter
capability data. Share the route spine, lease arguments, runner
lifecycle, and reaper rules.
**Alternatives considered**
Keep two session tables and add matching fixes to both routes. This
keeps duplicate logic and does not provide one capability contract, so
this pull request uses shared infrastructure.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone in
`ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- Unify Codex device login and Claude setup-token login on
`adapter_auth_sessions`.
- Return and look up sessions with company-scoped public session
identifiers.
- Enforce one active session for each company, owner, and adapter.
- Share the login route spine, sandbox lease arguments, runner
lifecycle, and missing-auth check.
- Add a standalone setup-token reaper with adapter-specific row
selection.
- Add optional login capability projection for adapters and drive route
and UI selection from that data.
- Rename the provider flag to `supportsLoginPty` and validate its
deprecated alias.
- Remove the old Claude setup-token session table and add the required
migrations.
## Verification
- Server typecheck passed with `tsc`.
- Database typecheck passed.
- UI typecheck passed with `tsc -b`.
- Codex login service and route suites passed.
- Setup-token session, route, and reaper suites passed.
- Adapter session schema, plugin validator, capability projection, UI
render, and Daytona suites passed.
- GitHub Actions must confirm the complete CI gate after pull request
creation.
## Risks
- The migrations remove short-lived in-flight login rows during
deployment. A login that spans the migration can continue until its
provider lease expires.
- The Codex credential store remains company-scoped. A cross-owner
credential race remains a documented, board-accepted risk.
- API clients that use internal session row identifiers no longer work.
The API accepts only public session identifiers.
## Model Used
Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID not exposed in this handoff, large
context window, reasoning, and repository tool use. The implementing
engineer produced the code with AI assistance.
## 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>
[//]: # (dependabot-start)
⚠️ **Dependabot is rebasing this PR** ⚠️
Rebasing might not happen immediately, so don't worry if this takes some
time.
Note: if you make any changes to this PR yourself, they will take
precedence over the rebase.
---
[//]: # (dependabot-end)
Bumps [react-i18next](https://github.com/i18next/react-i18next) from
17.0.10 to 17.0.11.
<details>
<summary>Changelog</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a
href="https://github.com/i18next/react-i18next/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md">react-i18next's
changelog</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>17.0.11</h2>
<ul>
<li>chore: <code>html-parse-stringify</code> updated to
<code>^4.0.1</code>. The parser powering <code><Trans></code> is
now actively maintained under the i18next org (<a
href="https://github.com/i18next/html-parse-stringify">i18next/html-parse-stringify</a>)
after years without upstream releases. 4.x brings modern dual ESM/CJS
packaging with an <code>exports</code> map, zero runtime dependencies,
reworked TypeScript types and a long list of parser fixes (literal
<code><</code> in text, multiline/CRLF attribute values, comments
containing <code>></code>, doctype handling, quote-aware bracket
handling).</li>
<li>refactor(Trans): the internal <code>escapeLiteralLessThan</code>
scanner (~80 lines) is replaced by the parser's new
<code>allowedTags</code> option with identical semantics: only numbered
tags, kept basic HTML tags and known component names are parsed as
markup, any other tag-shaped sequence in the translation stays literal
text. Rendered output is unchanged (all 493 tests pass, including the <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/i18next/react-i18next/issues/1880">#1880</a>
and <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/i18next/react-i18next/issues/1893">#1893</a>
escaping cases).</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li><a
href="274e2e6078"><code>274e2e6</code></a>
17.0.11</li>
<li><a
href="3c4c563115"><code>3c4c563</code></a>
build</li>
<li><a
href="1e7ccae22a"><code>1e7ccae</code></a>
chore: html-parse-stringify ^4.0.1 + 17.0.11 changelog</li>
<li><a
href="4412e25621"><code>4412e25</code></a>
html-parse-stringify ^4.0.0: replace escapeLiteralLessThan with the
parser's ...</li>
<li><a
href="5787979e38"><code>5787979</code></a>
ci: types-compat falls back to latest when no <code>@types/react</code>
pre-release tag ex...</li>
<li>See full diff in <a
href="https://github.com/i18next/react-i18next/compare/v17.0.10...v17.0.11">compare
view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Bumps [tsx](https://github.com/privatenumber/tsx) from 4.23.1 to
4.23.12.
<details>
<summary>Release notes</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a
href="https://github.com/privatenumber/tsx/releases">tsx's
releases</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>v4.23.12</h2>
<h2><a
href="https://github.com/privatenumber/tsx/compare/v4.23.11...v4.23.12">4.23.12</a>
(2026-08-10)</h2>
<h3>Bug Fixes</h3>
<ul>
<li>shim <code>import.meta</code> when tokens are split by comments or
newlines (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/privatenumber/tsx/issues/829">#829</a>)
(<a
href="ed9d33046a">ed9d330</a>),
closes <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/privatenumber/tsx/issues/828">#828</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>This release is also available on:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.npmjs.com/package/tsx/v/4.23.12"><code>npm
package (@latest dist-tag)</code></a></li>
</ul>
<h2>v4.23.11</h2>
<h2><a
href="https://github.com/privatenumber/tsx/compare/v4.23.10...v4.23.11">4.23.11</a>
(2026-08-07)</h2>
<h3>Bug Fixes</h3>
<ul>
<li>preserve async ESM require fallback (<a
href="55cbecef8e">55cbece</a>)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>This release is also available on:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.npmjs.com/package/tsx/v/4.23.11"><code>npm
package (@latest dist-tag)</code></a></li>
</ul>
<h2>v4.23.10</h2>
<h2><a
href="https://github.com/privatenumber/tsx/compare/v4.23.9...v4.23.10">4.23.10</a>
(2026-08-07)</h2>
<h3>Bug Fixes</h3>
<ul>
<li>support nyc coverage discovery (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/privatenumber/tsx/issues/710">#710</a>)
(<a
href="ec1bcd5f71">ec1bcd5</a>)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>This release is also available on:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.npmjs.com/package/tsx/v/4.23.10"><code>npm
package (@latest dist-tag)</code></a></li>
</ul>
<h2>v4.23.9</h2>
<h2><a
href="https://github.com/privatenumber/tsx/compare/v4.23.8...v4.23.9">4.23.9</a>
(2026-08-06)</h2>
<h3>Bug Fixes</h3>
<ul>
<li>map Node test locations (<a
href="2f55884195">2f55884</a>)</li>
<li>support data URLs in tsImport (<a
href="b94f46f6b6">b94f46f</a>)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>This release is also available on:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.npmjs.com/package/tsx/v/4.23.9"><code>npm
package (@latest dist-tag)</code></a></li>
</ul>
<h2>v4.23.8</h2>
<!-- raw HTML omitted -->
</blockquote>
<p>... (truncated)</p>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li><a
href="ed9d33046a"><code>ed9d330</code></a>
fix: shim <code>import.meta</code> when tokens are split by comments or
newlines (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/privatenumber/tsx/issues/829">#829</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="651f5bec70"><code>651f5be</code></a>
test: cover CommonJS TypeScript import.meta paths</li>
<li><a
href="bd3bc6448e"><code>bd3bc64</code></a>
test: cover CommonJS loader source fallback</li>
<li><a
href="55cbecef8e"><code>55cbece</code></a>
fix: preserve async ESM require fallback</li>
<li><a
href="6c5ba85f7a"><code>6c5ba85</code></a>
docs: document CommonJS default interop</li>
<li><a
href="ec1bcd5f71"><code>ec1bcd5</code></a>
fix: support nyc coverage discovery (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/privatenumber/tsx/issues/710">#710</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="b6e5b48a7b"><code>b6e5b48</code></a>
docs: clarify CommonJS default imports</li>
<li><a
href="2f55884195"><code>2f55884</code></a>
fix: map Node test locations</li>
<li><a
href="de935d588b"><code>de935d5</code></a>
docs: document Node source-map stack formatting</li>
<li><a
href="b94f46f6b6"><code>b94f46f</code></a>
fix: support data URLs in tsImport</li>
<li>Additional commits viewable in <a
href="https://github.com/privatenumber/tsx/compare/v4.23.1...v4.23.12">compare
view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Bumps [ws](https://github.com/websockets/ws) from 8.21.1 to 8.21.3.
<details>
<summary>Release notes</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a
href="https://github.com/websockets/ws/releases">ws's
releases</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>8.21.3</h2>
<h1>Bug fixes</h1>
<ul>
<li>The server now correctly rejects permessage-deflate offers if the
incoming
<code>client_max_window_bits</code> parameter value is smaller than its
configured
<code>clientMaxWindowBits</code> (e97a20ea).</li>
</ul>
<h2>8.21.2</h2>
<h1>Bug fixes</h1>
<ul>
<li>Fixed a test for <a href="https://github.com/nodejs/citgm">CITGM</a>
(2eb3be0b).</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li><a
href="c791e707ea"><code>c791e70</code></a>
[dist] 8.21.3</li>
<li><a
href="e97a20eaa6"><code>e97a20e</code></a>
[fix] Reject offers with <code>client_max_window_bits</code> below
config</li>
<li><a
href="787ebf22ce"><code>787ebf2</code></a>
[dist] 8.21.2</li>
<li><a
href="b4d62ebad4"><code>b4d62eb</code></a>
Revert "[ci] Trust Coveralls Homebrew tap"</li>
<li><a
href="e4bb883723"><code>e4bb883</code></a>
[security] Use GitHub PVR as main reporting channel</li>
<li><a
href="2eb3be0bff"><code>2eb3be0</code></a>
[test] Skip test on Node.js versions where it does not apply</li>
<li>See full diff in <a
href="https://github.com/websockets/ws/compare/8.21.1...8.21.3">compare
view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Dependabot keeps the project dependencies current.
> - The npm update rule groups all major updates into one pull request.
> - One blocked major update can stop that grouped pull request.
> - This pull request gives each major update its own pull request.
> - The higher limit keeps the initial major updates and normal updates
visible.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Dependabot grouped all npm major updates into one weekly pull request. A
blocked upgrade stopped the grouped pull request and hid other ready
updates.
**Expected behavior**
Dependabot should open one pull request for each npm major update.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Read the npm entry in `.github/dependabot.yml`.
2. Run the weekly Dependabot update.
3. Inspect the pull requests for major npm updates.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at the base commit for this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Not applicable. This change affects repository configuration.
**Installation method**
Not applicable. This change affects repository configuration.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (repository configuration).
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Additional context**
The grouped major update included a blocked `js-yaml` upgrade. Separate
pull requests let other major updates proceed independently.
## What Changed
- Remove the `major-updates` group from the npm Dependabot entry.
- Raise the npm `open-pull-requests-limit` from 10 to 20.
- Keep the GitHub Actions Dependabot entry unchanged.
## Verification
- Run `python3 -c "import yaml;
yaml.safe_load(open('.github/dependabot.yml'))"`.
- Confirm the diff changes only `.github/dependabot.yml`.
- Confirm CI passes on this pull request.
## Risks
This change can open more Dependabot pull requests. The limit of 20
bounds the number of open npm update pull requests. No application code
changes.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5. Tool use and code repository inspection assisted this
change.
## 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 manages agent work in isolated execution workspaces.
> - Workspace operations record operation metadata and command-result
metadata separately.
> - Runtime provisioning records its provision kind in the operation
metadata.
> - One merged regression test checked that value in the command-result
metadata.
> - The production behavior was correct, but the test failed.
> - This pull request checks the provision kind in the operation
metadata.
> - The benefit is that the regression test now matches the recorder
contract.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related pull request: #11706
**What happened?**
The runtime provisioning regression test expected `provisionKind` in
`result.metadata`. The recorder stores this value in the operation's
top-level `metadata`. The command-result metadata is `null` for this
case.
**Expected behavior**
The test must check `metadata.provisionKind`. It must continue to check
`result.status`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Check out commit `e1df4c6068fea684a1e9714ebd64bce95f3db19a`.
2. Run the focused runtime provisioning test.
3. Observe that the assertion checks the wrong metadata object.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`e1df4c6068fea684a1e9714ebd64bce95f3db19a`
**Deployment mode**
Local development.
## What Changed
- Move the `provisionKind` assertion from `result.metadata` to the
operation's top-level `metadata`.
- Keep the `result.status` assertion unchanged.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "keeps an explicit command
matching the built-in seed command as runtime provisioning"`
- Result: 1 test passed and 125 tests skipped.
## Risks
- Low risk. This pull request changes one test assertion and does not
change production code.
> 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, high-reasoning mode, with repository, shell, Git,
GitHub, and code execution tools. The runtime does not expose a
context-window value.
## 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 manages agent work in isolated execution workspaces.
> - A workspace depends on a valid database seed before it can run.
> - Deferred seed failures were hidden behind a successful provision
status.
> - The seed restore also had two possible owners for the embedded
PostgreSQL process.
> - That allowed the target database to stop while the restore was still
running.
> - This pull request makes seed failures visible and gives the seed
process sole lifecycle ownership.
> - The benefit is that workspace provisioning reports the real result
and does not stop its own target database.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related: #11684
**What happened?**
Initial worktree provisioning could report success before its deferred
database seed completed. The seed restore could also reuse a target
embedded PostgreSQL process with another shutdown owner. This could stop
the target database during the restore.
**Expected behavior**
Workspace status must show a failed deferred seed as a failure. The seed
restore must own the target embedded PostgreSQL process until restore,
migration, and validation finish.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Provision a worktree with deferred database seeding.
2. Make the seed manifest end in a failed state while the command exits
with code 0.
3. Observe that the provision status remains successful on `master`.
4. Start a seed restore against an already-running target embedded
PostgreSQL process.
5. Observe that another lifecycle owner can stop the target during
restore.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`51a843e135`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with execution workspaces and embedded PostgreSQL.
## What Changed
- Add a first-class `workspace_seed` operation for deferred database
seeds.
- Require terminal, verified seed evidence before the seed operation
succeeds.
- Surface the seed phase and failure metadata in workspace status and UI
state.
- Give the seed process exclusive lifecycle ownership of the target
embedded PostgreSQL process.
- Suppress imported embedded-Postgres exit hooks without removing
existing host listeners.
- Record a credential-safe shutdown diagnostic in failed seed manifests.
## Verification
- The original deferred-seed commit passed 4 server tests, 24
workspace-status UI tests, shared/server/UI typechecks, and the UI token
gate.
- The original PostgreSQL-lifecycle commit passed 3 lifecycle tests, 3
ownership/diagnostic tests, 1 real embedded-Postgres seed integration,
and the affected package typechecks.
- No local tests were rerun after the clean cherry-pick because the
operator requested the shortest landing path.
- Review the automatic PR checks for the clean `origin/master` replay.
## Risks
- A live target database now causes an early error instead of being
reused. The error includes recovery guidance.
- Workspace consumers must handle the new `workspace_seed` operation
type. Shared types and UI state handling are updated in this pull
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, high-reasoning mode, with repository, shell, and
GitHub tool use. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment
suffix or context-window value.
## 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
> - Worktree provisioning clones a source database into an isolated
workspace
> - Source validation must accept a migration journal that matches a
prefix of the checkout journal
> - Long-lived instances can apply migrations in a different order after
migration files are renumbered
> - The validator compared application order with filename order and
rejected a valid source
> - This pull request compares the resolved migration names as a set and
records the checkout-prefix revision
> - The benefit is that valid renumbered migration histories can pass
source validation without allowing divergent histories
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Worktree seed source validation compared applied migrations in database
application order with available migration files in filename order. A
current source with the same migration set failed with `Migration
journal is not a prefix` after migration files were renumbered.
**Expected behavior**
Source validation must accept a source when its resolved applied
migration set equals a prefix of the checkout migration files. It must
still reject a source that contains a resolved migration outside that
prefix.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Apply migrations before a migration-file renumber operation.
2. Update the checkout so the same migration files have a different
filename order.
3. Run worktree seed source validation against the long-lived source.
4. Observe that positional comparison rejects the source even though the
sets are equal.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The bug reproduces on the master-equivalent worktree-seeding
implementation before this commit.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with embedded PostgreSQL.
## What Changed
- Compare resolved applied migration names with the expected checkout
prefix as an order-independent set.
- Derive the reported source revision from the checkout prefix instead
of database application order.
- Add unit and embedded-PostgreSQL regressions for shuffled application
order, stale unresolved rows, lagging sources, and true divergence.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` — 54 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed.
- The focused suite includes the real embedded-PostgreSQL seed path.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is limited to source migration-prefix validation.
- The validator still rejects missing or unknown resolved migrations.
- Duplicate resolved names remain set-equivalent by design. Raw stale
journal rows remain tolerated.
- Existing documentation already specifies order-independent
checkout-prefix behavior, so no documentation change is required.
> 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-5.6-sol`. The Codex runtime manages
the context window. The model used reasoning, shell tools, code
execution, 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 (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>
Bumps [@cursor/sdk](https://github.com/cursor/cursor) from 1.0.24 to
1.0.28.
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li>See full diff in <a
href="https://github.com/cursor/cursor/commits">compare view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Managed worktree services run isolated Paperclip instances with
cloned databases.
> - A reachable service was reported as ready even when its database,
runtime identity, or login path was not usable.
> - The first candidate added verified database seeding and managed
repair in #11665.
> - This pull request consolidates that candidate with signed login
handoff and a complete readiness contract.
> - Post-QA fixes close five defects in repair identity, repair
responses, UI retry, seed journal handling, and seed-source trust.
> - The benefit is a workspace that either opens safely or reports one
accurate recovery action.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the problem is described
here.
**What happened**
Managed workspace URLs could return HTTP 200 and report ready while
login failed. QA also found cases where repair used the wrong instance
identity, returned a generic error, left the UI stuck, rejected a safe
journal lag, or trusted a mutable workspace manifest.
**Expected behavior**
Opening a ready workspace signs the board user in to the correct
isolated instance. Provisioning and repair use a registered source and
report a structured recovery state.
**Actual behavior**
Entry depended on a password copied into the clone. Several failure
paths could publish stale readiness, hide the repair precondition, or
trust state that the workspace could modify.
**Additional context**
This pull request includes the commits first published in #11665. That
pull request keeps the original base head for review history. This
consolidated pull request is the merge candidate. Related open readiness
work includes #11575 and #11621.
## What Changed
- Adds a short-lived, signed, single-use login ticket. It binds the
user, workspace, instance, and runtime origin.
- Exchanges the ticket through Better Auth. It creates the session and
cookie through the supported adapter path.
- Adds protected workspace readiness fields for the database, clone
data, login handoff, seed phase, and runtime identity.
- Fails readiness closed when the guest has no company or
execution-workspace binding.
- Binds ticket issuance to the exact cloned user and active company
membership selected for the handoff.
- Verifies every current active board identity through the exact-user
handoff before publication or reuse.
- Gates managed runtime publication on the readiness contract and the
recorded worktree instance identity.
- Refreshes runtime work products from the live runtime row after a port
change.
- Adds one workspace access card with ready, degraded, repairing, and
failed states.
- Uses the runtime response identity for repair. It returns structured
repair precondition errors.
- Lets a valid source journal lag converge during provisioning.
- Binds seed and repair manifests to a source registered outside the
agent-writable worktree.
- Clears recovered UI errors so a successful retry can open the
workspace.
- Makes runtime tests register canonical sources and avoid ports owned
by live host listeners.
- Keeps Vitest on source suites when compiled `dist` trees exist.
- Isolates CLI and adapter tests from ambient AWS and runtime API
environment variables.
- Preserves a 404 response for cross-company workspace ID lookups before
runtime authorization.
- Makes concurrent single-flight coverage independent of
path-canonicalization scheduling order.
## Verification
The following checks passed on the integrated head:
```sh
pnpm -r typecheck
pnpm build
pnpm check:token-gates
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations
```
- The server source lane passed 420 files and 4,953 tests. Five tests
were skipped.
- The CLI lane passed 57 files and 385 tests.
- The database lane passed 26 files and 97 tests.
- The shared package passed 58 files and 506 tests.
- The adapter utility lane passed 640 tests. Four tests were skipped.
- The Claude adapter passed 220 tests. One test was skipped.
- The Codex adapter passed 323 tests.
- The OpenClaw adapter passed 13 tests.
- The OpenCode adapter passed 42 tests.
- The plugin SDK passed 45 tests.
- The workspace runtime suite passed 124 tests.
- The caller-scoped readiness and handoff suite passed 52 tests.
- The workspace provisioning shell suite passed 7 tests.
- The runtime exposure suite passed 17 tests while live host mappings
occupied fixed test ports.
- `git diff --check` passed and the worktree is clean.
The serialized route lane will run in GitHub CI with its normal shards.
No deployment or active-workspace migration was performed.
## Risks
- This is a medium-risk authentication and runtime-readiness change.
- The login ticket uses exact origin, workspace, instance, and user
binding. It has a short expiry and a one-time nonce.
- Runtime publication is stricter. A real readiness, identity, per-user
handoff, or control-plane database disagreement now blocks publication.
- This pull request supersedes #11665 as the merge candidate. Close
#11665 after this pull request merges.
- No new database migration is included. The lockfile and workflow files
are unchanged.
- Deployment and active-workspace migration are intentionally outside
this pull 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
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5[1m]`), 1M context, extended thinking, tool
use, and code execution produced the main candidate. OpenAI GPT-5
(`gpt-5`) through Codex, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution, integrated the post-QA fixes and hardened the test gates. The
Codex context-window size was 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 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
> - Stable release notes are drafted per release from the commit range
since the previous stable
> - Features evolve across consecutive releases, so a correct range
still produces entries that re-describe what the previous notes already
introduced
> - The first channel-train draft did exactly that for four themes, and
review caught it against the published previous changelog
> - This pull request adds the missing framing rule to the changelog
skill and mirrors it in the Discord skill
> - The benefit is that consecutive releases read as a progression
instead of repeating themselves
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The authoring guidance in `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`
and `.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`.
**Current behavior**
The skills define the range and the sections but say nothing about
features the previous stable's notes already introduced. A draft for a
follow-up release naturally re-describes them as if they debuted
(observed in the v2026.821.0 draft: the chat conversation view, sandbox
output streaming, the raised import cap, and the channel system — all
already announced in v2026.817.0's notes).
**Proposed behavior**
The changelog skill instructs the author to read the previous stable's
notes first and phrase already-introduced features as deltas ("last
release introduced X; this release makes it the default"), demoting
follow-through themes out of Highlights. The Discord skill's highlight
guidance mirrors the rule.
**Reason and benefit**
Consecutive changelogs read as a progression; readers of both releases
never see the same debut twice.
## What Changed
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`: a "describe deltas, not
repeats" guideline in Step 4, with the read-the-previous-notes
instruction and the headline-demotion rule.
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`: one
mirrored bullet in the template notes.
## Verification
- Docs-only; proofread. The rule matches the fix applied to the live
v2026.821.0 draft (#11661), which is the worked example of what it
prevents.
## Risks
- None; docs-only.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release channels promote a soaked beta to stable, and the
promotion reads the stable's release notes from
`releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` on master
> - Beta `2026.818.0-beta.1` is soaking now, and the release workflow
auto-drafted its notes skeleton on this branch at publish time
> - This pull request rewrites that skeleton into the finished changelog
for the upcoming stable
> - The stable preflight fails without this file on master, so this PR
must merge before promotion day
> - The benefit is release notes reviewed during the soak instead of
written at the gate
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The release-notes flow for the upcoming stable (planned `v2026.821.0`,
promoting beta `2026.818.0-beta.1`, source `664052f8e`).
**Current behavior**
The branch holds the machine-generated skeleton: grouped commit subjects
for the 172-commit range from v2026.817.0's content baseline
(`8f7b8b3fd`).
**Proposed behavior**
The finished changelog in the established release voice: verified
Breaking Changes, Highlights, Improvements, Fixes, an Upgrade Guide
covering migrations 0212–0222 and the new environment variables, and a
verified community contributor list.
**Reason and benefit**
Notes get real review during the soak; the promotion just reads the
merged file.
## What Changed
- Rewrite `releases/beta/v2026.818.0-beta.1.md` from skeleton to
finished notes. Headline themes: chat-style tasks as the default
experience, Tailscale HTTPS managed runtime exposure, sandbox capability
contract with live output streaming, in-product Claude/Codex sign-in,
chunked resumable company imports, and the completed release-channel
automation.
- Five verified breaking/behavior changes, including the
`enableTaskChatRedesign` → `enableClassicTaskInterface` toggle inversion
and migration `0218`'s conservative resolver-policy remap.
- Contributors: 172 commits from 32 non-bot authors; 22 verified
community handles listed (founders/core excluded per the canonical list;
4 authors omitted as unverifiable rather than guessed).
## Verification
- Every cited PR number resolves to a commit subject in the range.
- No internal ticket identifiers.
- Handles verified via noreply emails, co-author trailers, or `gh api
users/<name>`.
- The version/date header says the planned promotion (`v2026.821.0`,
2026-08-21); if promotion slips, only that header needs a touch-up — the
beta-keyed filename is date-independent.
## Risks
- Docs-only. If a newer beta supersedes `2026.818.0-beta.1` before
promotion, this file stays as history and the new beta gets its own
draft.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
---------
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip can create a worktree and seed it with data from another
instance.
> - A full seed copied active runtime state and live process claims into
the new database.
> - The copied state could make the new instance restart or adopt
services that belong to the source instance.
> - A stale process identifier, port, or URL could then make the
worktree page fail to load after a restart.
> - This pull request makes cloned runtime state inactive before the new
instance starts.
> - The benefit is that each instance starts with clear service
ownership and no stale live claims.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- [x] I searched open and closed issues and pull requests. I found no
duplicate report.
**What happened?**
`paperclipai worktree init --full` copied project and execution
workspace runtime records without changing their active state. The new
database could contain `running` desired state, `running` service state,
and provider references that identify processes from the source
instance. After a host restart, the cloned instance could try to recover
services that it did not own. The browser then showed a load failure at
a stale or moved service URL.
**Expected behavior**
A cloned database must not claim that source-instance runtime processes
are live. Project and execution workspace services must start as stopped
in the clone. An operator can start them explicitly after the clone is
ready.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a managed worktree runtime in a source Paperclip instance.
2. Create a full worktree seed from that instance.
3. Start Paperclip with the seeded database.
4. Observe that the copied database can retain active desired state and
live process, port, and URL claims.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `master` at `d1cd9c37f4`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with managed worktree services.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core worktree seed bug.
**Database mode**
External PostgreSQL source data copied into the isolated worktree
database.
**Access context**
Board operator.
**Privacy checklist**
I reviewed this description and removed private instance URLs, internal
task identifiers, credentials, and user paths.
## What Changed
- Stop cloned project and execution workspace runtime desired state
during a full or minimal seed.
- Change copied service states from `running` to `stopped`.
- Clear copied process, provider, port, URL, owner, and starter claims.
- Keep unrelated runtime metadata intact.
- Add regression tests for project services, execution workspace
services, unrelated metadata, and the live-work preservation option.
- Document runtime quarantine in the worktree development guide.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` passes 43
tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- `pnpm test:run` passes 4,304 tests. One unrelated timing test timed
out during the loaded run and passed alone. Ten unrelated exposure tests
could not use their fixed ports because host Tailscale listeners already
owned ports 42000 and 52000.
- A managed worktree restart completes with a healthy source runtime and
one authoritative service owner.
- An authenticated clone inspection shows the copied runtime as stopped
with no live provider, process, port, or URL claim.
## Risks
- A cloned service no longer starts only because the source service was
running. An operator must start the cloned service explicitly. This is
the intended ownership boundary.
- `--preserve-live-work` keeps the old behavior for operators who
explicitly request live runtime state.
- The change does not alter schema or source-instance runtime records.
> 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. The runtime does not expose a more specific
deployment ID or context-window size. The model used high-reasoning
mode, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub review tools.
## 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
> - Managed workspaces run local web services and embedded PostgreSQL
databases
> - A listening process could return an unhealthy response and still be
reused
> - Embedded PostgreSQL failures had no bounded restart owner
> - Cleanup inferred ownership from a branch slug instead of exact
persisted instance data
> - This pull request validates runtime health, supervises database
recovery, and uses exact cleanup ownership
> - The benefit is reliable replacement of degraded services without
deleting active instances
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Workspace reconciliation could reuse a degraded Paperclip process after
any successful HTTP response. Embedded PostgreSQL could stop without
bounded recovery. Cleanup could infer database ownership from a branch
slug and select the wrong instance.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must require a semantic healthy response from the assigned
loopback listener. It must replace degraded processes. It must supervise
embedded PostgreSQL with bounded restarts. Cleanup must use exact
persisted worktree and instance-root ownership.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a managed workspace runtime.
2. Make its health endpoint return HTTP 200 with an unhealthy status, or
stop its embedded PostgreSQL process.
3. Reconcile the workspace or run instance cleanup.
4. Observe that the old implementation can reuse the degraded runtime or
infer ownership from its branch slug.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with managed workspace services.
## What Changed
- Require `{ "status": "ok" }` from the assigned loopback health
endpoint before runtime reuse or adoption.
- Refresh persisted runtime health and replace degraded managed
processes.
- Add bounded embedded PostgreSQL restart supervision with coordinated
shutdown and hot-restart support.
- Stop the unhealthy web process when PostgreSQL recovery is exhausted
so reconciliation can replace it.
- Require exact persisted instance-root ownership before cleanup can
reclaim an embedded database.
- Add focused regression tests for degraded HTTP responses, ownership
mismatches, bounded recovery, active instance preservation, and
confirmed orphan reclamation.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test --
src/embedded-postgres-supervisor.test.ts
src/services/workspace-instance-cleanup.test.ts
src/services/workspace-runtime.test.ts
src/services/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check`
- The full local stable test runner also found host-owned listeners on
ports 42000 and 52000. Those listeners conflict with the exposure test
fixture. The focused changed suites pass, and CI runs on a clean host.
## Risks
- A custom process that returns HTTP 2xx without the Paperclip health
contract is now degraded by design.
- Restart exhaustion terminates the managed web process. The runtime
reconciler then starts a clean process.
- Cleanup now fails closed when persisted ownership is missing. This can
retain an ambiguous orphan for manual 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 GPT-5 Codex. The exact serving revision and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, 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)
- [ ] 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 release workflow drafts the upcoming stable's notes skeleton at
beta publish, ranging from the last stable to the beta's source commit
> - Stables cut from candidate branches leave their tag off master's
lineage, so the ancestor-only baseline rule skips them and falls back a
whole release too far
> - The first live draft did exactly that: it ranged from v2026.722.0
instead of the just-shipped v2026.817.0 and re-included everything
already released
> - This pull request replaces the baseline rule with a merge-base walk
over stable tags and adds a candidate-branch regression fixture
> - The benefit is a correct draft range for every stable lineage:
master-cut, candidate-cut, and promoted-older-source
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The first `draft_stable_notes` run (for beta `2026.818.0-beta.1`)
generated `releases/beta/v2026.818.0-beta.1.md` with the range
`v2026.722.0..664052f8e` — 311-commits-worth of already-shipped
v2026.817.0 content re-included.
**Expected behavior**
The draft ranges from the point the shipped stable's content diverges
from the beta source. For v2026.817.0 (cut from
`candidate/release-2026.817.0`) that is the promoted source commit
`8f7b8b3fd`, giving the 172 commits of genuinely-new work.
**Steps to reproduce**
Ship a stable from a candidate branch (tag lands off master's lineage),
then publish a beta from master and read the generated skeleton's range
line.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at `664052f8e`.
Related (not duplicates): #11567 introduced the generator; its
ancestor-only rule was itself a review fix for the newest-by-version
rule, and this PR is the second iteration with the lineage case the
first fix missed.
## What Changed
- `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh`: the range start comes from walking
stable tags newest-first and taking the first whose merge-base with the
beta source is a proper ancestor of the source. Candidate-cut stables
resolve to the promoted commit, master-lineage stables to the tag
itself, and tags containing the source are skipped (an older-source
promotion cannot produce an empty range). The skeleton header prints a
runnable short-sha range with the stable tag as a labeled baseline.
- `scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs`: new regression fixture with the
stable tag on an unmerged candidate branch; the existing older-source
and fallback fixtures still pass unchanged.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs` — 8 pass, including
the new fixture.
- Regenerated the live `2026.818.0-beta.1` draft against the real
repository: range start resolves to `v2026.817.0 (merge-base
8f7b8b3fd)`, 172 commits, shipped-in-stable subjects absent, post-beta
subjects present.
- `bash -n` on the script.
## Risks
- Low risk: the script only produces a draft file; publishes are
untouched. The live skeleton branch for `2026.818.0-beta.1` is
regenerated with the corrected output (machine-owned branch, force-push
by design).
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Mine inbox combines tasks, failed runs, approvals, and access
requests
> - Each item needs a consistent action that removes it from the inbox
> - Task rows keep the Archive action separate from the unread marker
> - Other rows used one slot for both actions, so an unread marker hid
Archive
> - This pull request gives every Mine inbox row the same Archive action
> - The benefit is consistent hover and swipe cleanup for every inbox
item type
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Unread failed runs, approvals, and join requests showed a blue unread
marker but no Archive button. The user had to mark the item as read
before the old leading Archive control became available.
**Expected behavior**
Every Mine inbox item shows Archive on hover. Every item also keeps its
swipe-to-archive behavior.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the Mine inbox.
2. Add an unread failed run, approval, or join request.
3. Hover the new item.
4. Observe that Archive is missing before this change.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` at `0e9b03832d`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development from source.
**Additional context**
PR #1860 improves the accessibility of the existing swipe gesture. PR
#9704 changes server-side archive resurfacing rules. Neither PR adds the
missing hover action to unread non-task rows.
## What Changed
- Reused the task-row Archive action for failed runs, approvals, and
join requests.
- Kept the unread marker visible in its own leading slot.
- Kept retry, approve, and reject actions beside the new trailing
Archive action.
- Added regression coverage for hover Archive and swipe wrappers on
every non-task Mine row type.
- Updated a test comment so the repository token gate does not treat
documented color literals as UI source.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx
src/components/SwipeToArchive.test.tsx` — 46 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — 4,284 tests passed. Ten unrelated runtime-exposure
tests cannot claim fixed ports 42000 and 52000 because host Tailscale
listeners already own them.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- GitHub CI on the latest head — all required checks passed.
- Greptile — 5/5 confidence with no open review threads.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only affects Mine inbox row actions and
regression tests.
- The server archive and dismiss APIs do not change.
- Retry, approve, and reject behavior does not change.
- No documentation change is required because this fix restores the
expected inbox 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 based on GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model
ID or context-window size. Reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution,
and GitHub integration 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 an agent runs through the Hermes gateway adapter, its stdout is
parsed line-by-line into transcript entries that the issue chat renders
(the UI fetches the adapter's `./ui-parser` from
`/api/adapters/:type/ui-parser.js` and runs `parseStdoutLine`
client-side)
> - Reasoning-capable models emit a `reasoning.available` gateway event
carrying the model's reasoning text, and the chat renders `thinking`
parts as expandable chain-of-thought
> - The gateway parser mapped `reasoning.available` to a hardcoded
`"Hermes reasoning available"` string and discarded the event payload,
so the "thinking" part had no real content — the indicator looked static
and expanding it revealed nothing (#9209)
> - This pull request extracts the actual reasoning text from the event
payload and uses it as the `thinking` part's text, keeping the old
string only as a fallback for payloads that carry no text
> - The benefit is that the "Hermes reasoning available" indicator now
surfaces the model's real reasoning, which the existing
expandable-thinking UI can display
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes: #9209
## What Changed
- `packages/adapters/hermes/src/gateway/ui/parse-stdout.ts`: the
`reasoning.available` handler now extracts the reasoning text from the
event `data` via a small helper (`extractReasoningText`), checking the
plausible field names (`reasoning`, `reasoning_text`, `thinking`,
`text`, `summary`, `content`) and recursing one level into nested `data`
/ `payload` records, with ANSI stripped. The prior `"Hermes reasoning
available"` string is kept only as a fallback when no text field is
present.
- `packages/adapters/hermes/gateway-ui-parser.cjs`: applied the
identical logical change to the committed CommonJS mirror (exported as
`./gateway/ui-parser`), keeping the two files in sync.
- `packages/adapters/hermes/src/gateway/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts` (new):
unit tests for the gateway parser (there were none) covering
direct-field, `summary`, nested `data`/`payload` extraction, the no-text
fallback, and regression guards for `message.delta` and plain stdout.
## Verification
Ran from `packages/adapters/hermes`:
- `node_modules/.bin/vitest run src/gateway/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts` →
**8/8 passed**.
- Negative control: stashed the source changes and re-ran the same test
file against the current (pre-patch) parser → **4/8 failed** (exactly
the reasoning-extraction assertions), then restored — confirming the
tests are discriminating, not vacuous.
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p .` → clean.
Real-behavior proof (driving the actual shipped `gateway-ui-parser.cjs`
`parseStdoutLine`) is in the block below.
## Risks
- **Low risk.** Behavior is unchanged for events that carry no
recognizable text field — the `"Hermes reasoning available"` fallback is
preserved (verified). Only the `reasoning.available` branch changed;
`message.delta`, `run.failed`/`run.error`, and the generic/system/stdout
branches are untouched.
- The exact field name in a real `reasoning.available` payload is
defined by the external Hermes gateway and is not present anywhere in
this repo, so the extraction is intentionally defensive across several
plausible field names rather than pinned to one. If the real event nests
the text differently than `data` / `payload`, it will fall back to the
existing placeholder (i.e. no regression vs. today). Happy to tighten
the field list against real gateway traffic if a maintainer can share a
sample.
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 5 (`claude-sonnet-5`) via Claude Code, with tool use and
local test execution (ran vitest/tsc against the change). Planning, code
review, and the real-behavior proof were done with Claude (Opus 4.8) in
the same session.
## Real behavior proof
**Behavior addressed:** A `reasoning.available` Hermes gateway event now
produces a `thinking` transcript part containing the model's real
reasoning text, instead of a static `"Hermes reasoning available"`
placeholder with no content behind it (#9209).
**Real environment tested:** Drove the actual shipped production
artifact — `packages/adapters/hermes/gateway-ui-parser.cjs`, the exact
module the UI loads via `/api/adapters/hermes-gateway/ui-parser.js` and
runs to parse gateway stdout — on Node v24.16.0, macOS. The input is a
raw stdout line in the exact format emitted by
`packages/adapters/hermes/src/gateway/server/execute.ts`
(`[hermes-gateway:event] run=… event=reasoning.available data=…`). Only
the external gateway boundary (the raw line) is synthesized; the parser
code path is the real one.
**Exact steps or command run after this patch:**
```
# BEFORE = git show HEAD:…/gateway-ui-parser.cjs ; AFTER = patched artifact
node proof.cjs # requires each parser build and calls parseStdoutLine(line, ts)
# line = [hermes-gateway:event] run=run-abc123 event=reasoning.available \
# data={"text":"Checking whether the cache key includes the tenant id before I refactor the lookup."}
```
**Evidence after fix:**
```
===== BEFORE (master / old code) =====
[ { "kind": "thinking", "ts": "…", "text": "Hermes reasoning available" } ]
thinking part carries real reasoning text? -> NO (static placeholder, nothing for the UI to expand)
===== AFTER (this patch) =====
[ { "kind": "thinking", "ts": "…",
"text": "Checking whether the cache key includes the tenant id before I refactor the lookup." } ]
thinking part carries real reasoning text? -> YES
```
Additional cases through the same shipped artifact after the patch:
```
-- nested payload (data.payload.reasoning) --
{"kind":"thinking","ts":"…","text":"Weighing two migration orders."}
-- bare signal, no text field (regression guard) --
{"kind":"thinking","ts":"…","text":"Hermes reasoning available"} # fallback preserved
-- message.delta still works (regression guard) --
{"kind":"assistant","ts":"…","text":"Hello","delta":true}
```
**Observed result after fix:** The `reasoning.available` event yields a
`thinking` part carrying the model's real reasoning text (top-level or
nested), which the existing expandable-thinking rendering in the chat
can display. Events with no text field still yield the original
placeholder, and unrelated events are unaffected.
**What was not tested:** I did not run against a live Hermes gateway —
Paperclip's Hermes gateway binary and its credentials aren't available
on this machine, and no captured real `reasoning.available` payload
exists in the repo, so the exact wire field name is inferred (hence the
defensive multi-field extraction + safe fallback). I also did not render
the full React chat component in jsdom; the change is confined to the
parser, and the chat's expandable `thinking` rendering already exists
(`ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`). CI / unit tests here are
supplemental to the runtime proof above.
## 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 (searched `9209 in:body` and keyword variants — none found)
- [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
(`fix/hermes-reasoning-available-payload`) 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 (no
user-facing docs describe this behavior; none needed)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (will confirm once CI runs on the
PR)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(will address on review)
- [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
> - Paperclip environments can use captured custom images for agent runs
> - A configuration fingerprint change can detach a valid custom-image
template
> - Operators need a safe way to confirm that the image still matches
the boot source
> - This pull request adds a guarded relink action with drift
classification and audit logging
> - The benefit is a deliberate relink without a new sandbox boot or
provider snapshot
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting environment, server, and UI behavior.
**Problem or motivation**
A custom-image template detaches when the environment configuration
fingerprint changes. The runtime then uses the base image, even when the
boot source did not change. The only prior remedy required a full
re-capture.
**Proposed solution**
Add an operator-triggered relink action. Classify configuration drift
from a server-owned boot-relevant snapshot. Relink knob-only drift
without confirmation. Require explicit confirmation for boot-source or
unclassified drift. Guard the route for instance administrators and
record a safe activity event.
**Alternatives considered**
Keep requiring a full re-capture. This adds a sandbox boot and provider
snapshot for cases where the image remains correct.
**Roadmap alignment**
The roadmap has no matching custom-image relink item. This change
addresses an environment operation gap.
**Additional context**
The relink response exposes raw drift values only in the transient 409
response to the instance administrator. The service never persists or
logs fingerprints or configuration values. Reserved identity-path
segments fail closed.
## What Changed
- Add `relinkActiveTemplate` with drift classification and conditional
fingerprint update.
- Persist a server-owned boot-relevant configuration snapshot during
capture.
- Add the guarded relink route with strict request validation and
activity logging.
- Add the relink action and confirmation flow to the environment page.
- Add service, route, UI, and OpenAPI coverage.
## Verification
- Run the focused service suite: `pnpm vitest run
server/src/services/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`.
- Run the focused route suite: `pnpm vitest run
server/src/routes/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts`.
- Run the focused UI suite: `pnpm vitest run
ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx`.
- Run server and UI TypeScript checks.
- Confirm the OpenAPI snapshot matches the new route.
- Confirm all required GitHub checks pass on commit
`e46fdcfe94a719be854adf8849d30714e5b70b93`.
- Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved review threads.
## Risks
The relink action can keep an image after configuration drift. The
service requires explicit confirmation for boot-source or unclassified
drift. Reserved path segments produce a safe unresolved marker and never
enter stored values.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The model used repository inspection, GitHub
operations, and PR preparation with tool use and code execution. The
runtime did not expose a context-window value or a separate
reasoning-mode value.
## 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 an open source app that manages AI agents for work.
> - The server manages execution workspaces and their worktrees.
> - The terminal workspace reaper removes a workspace when its issue
tree reaches a terminal state.
> - Immediate removal prevents a person from reopening recently
completed work.
> - This pull request adds a configurable cooldown before the reaper
archives the workspace.
> - The cooldown keeps recent work available and keeps immediate cleanup
available with value `0`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #7790
**Problem**
The reaper archives an execution workspace and deletes its worktree as
soon as the issue tree becomes terminal. A person cannot reopen recent
work without extra effort.
**Expected behavior**
The reaper should keep a recently completed workspace during a
configurable cooldown window. It should archive older work and support
immediate cleanup when the value is `0`.
**Proposed solution**
Read the cooldown from `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_REAPER_COOLDOWN_DAYS`. Use a
seven-day default. Use the latest terminal timestamp in the source issue
tree as the cooldown anchor.
## What Changed
- Add `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_REAPER_COOLDOWN_DAYS` with a seven-day
default.
- Treat `0` as no cooldown and use the default for negative or
non-numeric values.
- Use the latest `completedAt` or `cancelledAt` value in the source
issue tree.
- Use `updatedAt` when a terminal timestamp is null.
- Skip candidates inside the cooldown and report them in
`skippedCooldown`.
- Recheck the cutoff during the guarded archive operation.
- Document the environment variable and add focused tests.
## Verification
- Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`.
- Confirm that the test run passes 66 tests.
- Confirm that the tests cover a recent tree, an old tree, value `0`,
and a null terminal timestamp.
- Confirm that the changed files pass `tsc --noEmit`.
## Risks
The default changes terminal workspace cleanup from immediate removal to
a seven-day delay. A value of `0` preserves immediate cleanup. The
guarded archive check limits race risk during concurrent lifecycle
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.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. This model assisted
with the implementation review and PR preparation.
## 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: greptile-apps[bot] <165735046+greptile-apps[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - At run finalize, the host imports the sandbox git history and
reconciles it with the local worktree in `integrateImportedGitHead`
> - Transported workspaces are depth-1 shallow clones, so the boundary
commit reads as parentless inside the sandbox
> - A `git commit --amend` there rewrites the boundary commit into a
root commit, and the re-imported history no longer connects to the host
history
> - `git merge-tree` has no common base to merge against, so the sync
throws "Failed to merge concurrent remote git histories" and the run
fails with its work stranded in the sandbox
> - This pull request grafts the imported tree onto the current head as
a single commit instead of failing
> - The benefit is that a history rewrite inside the sandbox can no
longer lose a run's work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue found. I searched issues and PRs for "unrelated
histories", "Failed to merge concurrent", and "shallow". Depends on
#11637 (merged; the graft commit reuses its identity constant). This PR
is now rebased onto `master`.
**What happened?**
An agent run amended a commit inside its sandbox workspace to address
review feedback. The sandbox clone is depth-1 shallow, so git treated
the boundary commit as parentless and the amend produced a root commit.
At finalize, the host-side sync failed with `Failed to merge concurrent
remote git histories for <sha>` and the run was marked failed. A
follow-up run had to repair the branch by hand: fetch the true parent
from origin and rebuild the commit with `git commit-tree`.
**Expected behavior**
The sync must never strand completed work. When the imported history
shares no ancestor with the local one, the imported tree should still
land on the current head, with the imported message preserved and the
graft recorded.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a run whose workspace transport uses the shallow clone path
(`withShallowGitWorkspaceClone`, depth 1).
2. Inside the sandbox workspace, run `git commit --amend` on the
boundary commit. The result is a parentless root commit.
3. Finish the run. The host-side `integrateImportedGitHead` finds no
merge base, `merge-tree` fails, and the run fails.
## What Changed
- `git-workspace-sync.ts`: new exported
`createUnrelatedHistoryGraftCommit` helper. It reads the imported head's
tree and message, and creates one commit on top of the current head with
the deterministic sync identity and a trailer that records the graft and
both shas.
- `integrateImportedGitHead` (both the remote-git-sync version and the
SSH copy in `ssh.ts`): when `merge-base` reports no common ancestor,
graft instead of throwing. The ref update keeps the same
compare-and-swap and concurrent-retry semantics as the merge path.
- The graft is gated on `git merge-base` exiting with status 1 — the
no-ancestor signal. Operational failures (timeout, missing object,
repository error) keep the loud merge failure instead of rewriting the
tip.
- New regression tests: one builds the exact shallow-amend shape (a root
commit rebuilt from the base tree) and asserts the graft lands on the
current head with the imported tree, subject, and graft trailer; one
integrates a well-formed sha the repository does not hold and asserts
the integration still throws with the branch tip unchanged.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts` — 19/19 pass
(includes the new graft test and the merge-base failure-discrimination
test).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` — clean.
- Full `pnpm vitest run packages/adapter-utils`: every file passes
except `local-process-sandbox.test.ts`, which fails identically on an
untouched `master` checkout on macOS (bubblewrap-dependent,
pre-existing, unrelated).
## Risks
- Behavioral shift: unrelated imported histories previously failed the
integration; now they land as a squash-graft. In this degenerate case
there is no base to merge against, so the imported tree is taken
wholesale and concurrent local-only tree changes are superseded at the
tip. The local commits keep their place in the graft's ancestry, and the
trailer records both shas, so nothing is unrecoverable. The old behavior
lost the imported work instead, which is the worse failure for an
autonomous run.
- The graft reuses the imported head's commit message, so branch history
still reads naturally after a sandbox rewrite.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, via Claude Code
CLI (tool use for code exploration, test runs, and 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 (no
doc surface describes this internal sync path)
- [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
> - Runs execute in transported workspaces; at finalize, the host syncs
the sandbox git history back into the local worktree
> - When both sides advanced, `integrateImportedGitHead` reconciles them
with `git merge-tree` plus `git commit-tree` on the host
> - Execution hosts are often containers with no git config and no
resolvable hostname, so `commit-tree` fails with "Author identity
unknown"
> - That one local command failure marks the whole run as failed, even
though the run's work succeeded
> - This pull request gives sync-created merge commits an explicit,
deterministic identity at the call site
> - The benefit is that workspace finalize no longer depends on ambient
host git configuration
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue found. I searched issues and PRs for "Author identity
unknown", "unrelated histories", and "commit-tree identity".
**What happened?**
A run finished its work, but workspace finalize failed. The host-side
sync ran `git commit-tree <tree> -p <localHead> -p <importedHead> -m
"Paperclip remote git sync merge <sha>"`. Git exited with `Author
identity unknown ... fatal: unable to auto-detect email address (got
'node@<container-id>.(none)')`. The adapter recorded the whole run as
failed, and the host worktree kept the stale head. Any container
deployment without a global gitconfig reproduces this; I observed it on
a Paperclip Cloud stack.
**Expected behavior**
Commits that the sync machinery itself creates must not depend on
ambient host git configuration. The merge commit is machine-authored, so
it should carry a deterministic Paperclip identity.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the Paperclip server in a container with no
`user.name`/`user.email` git config and a hostname git cannot turn into
an email.
2. Let a run's sandbox branch diverge from the host worktree, so both
sides advance.
3. Workspace finalize calls `integrateImportedGitHead`. The `git
commit-tree` step fails with "Author identity unknown" and the run
fails.
## What Changed
- `git-workspace-sync.ts`: new exported `GIT_SYNC_COMMIT_IDENTITY_ARGS`
(`-c user.name=Paperclip -c user.email=noreply@paperclip.ing`), applied
to the `commit-tree` call in `integrateImportedGitHead`.
- `ssh.ts`: the SSH-sync copy of `integrateImportedGitHead` applies the
same identity args to its `commit-tree` call.
- New regression test: builds divergent histories in a repo with no
configured identity and asserts the sync merge commit is created with
the deterministic identity, correct parents, and merged tree.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts` — 18/18 pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` — clean.
- Negative proof: with the source fix stashed, the new test fails on the
identity assertion.
- Full `pnpm vitest run packages/adapter-utils`: every file passes
except `local-process-sandbox.test.ts`, which fails identically on an
untouched `master` checkout on macOS (bubblewrap-dependent,
pre-existing, unrelated).
## Risks
Low risk. The change only adds `-c` identity flags to two
machine-generated commit invocations. `GIT_AUTHOR_*` / `GIT_COMMITTER_*`
environment variables still take precedence over `-c` when an operator
sets them, so existing deployments that configure an identity keep their
behavior.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, via Claude Code
CLI (tool use for code exploration, test runs, and 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 (no
doc surface describes this internal sync path)
- [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 run orchestrator prepares an execution environment before an
agent starts
> - A sandbox driver creates a remote folder before the adapter uploads
repository content
> - The orchestrator ran the host `provisionCommand` in that empty
folder
> - The command failed with exit 127 before the adapter could run its
`stage.sync` step
> - This pull request skips host provisioning for sandbox drivers and
keeps the existing local and SSH behavior
> - The benefit is that sandbox runs reach the adapter sync step without
an empty-folder setup failure
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A sandbox environment ran the host `provisionCommand` before the adapter
uploaded repository content. The command ran in an empty remote folder
and failed with exit 127.
**Expected behavior**
The orchestrator should skip host provisioning for a sandbox driver. The
adapter should upload the provisioned tree during its `stage.sync` step.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Configure an environment with the `sandbox` driver and a host
`provisionCommand`.
2. Start a run that uses this environment.
3. Observe that the command runs in the empty sandbox folder and the run
fails with `setup_failed`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on the current `master` commit before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with a sandbox environment.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core bug). The sandbox adapter syncs the tree
after environment setup.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Additional context**
Related context:
[#11091](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11091) changes
provision behavior for reused workspaces. This pull request covers the
separate sandbox ordering failure.
## What Changed
- Skip the orchestrator provision step when `environment.driver` is
`sandbox`.
- Keep the existing skip for `local` and the provision step for `ssh`.
- Log one info message when a sandbox skip drops a present command.
- Keep the existing `plugin` path because it has no `stage.sync` step
and runs against the host filesystem.
- Add tests for sandbox, local, SSH, plugin, logging, and provision
failures.
## Verification
- Run `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run
server/src/__tests__/environment-run-orchestrator.test.ts`.
- Confirm that the test run passes all 10 tests.
- Confirm that CI checks pass on this pull request.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects only the provision gate for sandbox
drivers.
- SSH and local behavior stays unchanged.
- The plugin driver stays on its current path.
- The new log line makes a sandbox skip visible to operators.
## Model Used
OpenAI, GPT-5, exact runtime model `gpt-5`, with tool use and code
review support. The implementation author used this model to inspect
code, edit source and tests, and run the targeted test suite.
## 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 (no exact duplicate found; related PR #11091 reviewed)
- [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 (no
documentation change applies to this internal gate correction)
- [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 need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely.
> - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name
without an internal secret identifier.
> - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not
create an issue-thread approval path.
> - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the
binding was created.
> - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with
safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards.
> - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a
clear failure without exposing secret material.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related prerequisite: #11482.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database
proposal schema, and issue-thread UI.
**Problem or motivation**
An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name.
The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The
existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only
appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance
without executing the binding.
**Proposed solution**
Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config
paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the
checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under
the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after
card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card.
Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention
resolver.
**Alternatives considered**
A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry,
authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment
would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An
agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change
uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload
instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent
access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited
resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate
issue or pull request.
## What Changed
- Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved
user-secret ownership checks.
- Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database
migration.
- Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned
`secretProposal` metadata.
- Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees.
- Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock
before execution.
- Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment
when no binding was created.
- Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection,
withdrawal, and expiry in both directions.
- Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes.
- Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed,
rejected, withdrawn, and expired states.
- Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical
justification, expiry, and safe failure code.
- Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the
stitched server result.
- Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests.
- Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API
and agent behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build-storybook`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142
passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI
AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential
variables unset.
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses
idempotent guards.
- The accept route performs a governed write after it records card
acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as
rejected.
- Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use
proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct
approval against card rejection.
- The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent
bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints.
- The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include
secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers.
- The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover
immediate cache replacement and every terminal state.
> This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub
duplicate search returned no other open related work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its
context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools 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
> - Agent adapters run agent sessions through the ACPX engine
> - The ACPX engine handled one run attempt as a long implicit procedure
> - That shape made resource ownership, cleanup order, and failure
behavior hard to verify
> - This pull request gives the attempt a coordinator, a typed resource
ledger, separate run sites, and explicit turn and settlement sequences
> - The benefit is clear ownership, one cleanup path, safer session
reuse, and testable failure behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The ACPX engine manages startup, turn execution, session reuse, and
cleanup inside one large run procedure.
**Current behavior**
The run procedure owns several resources through implicit control flow.
Cleanup and session reuse behavior depend on lane-specific branches and
error paths.
**Proposed behavior**
The coordinator owns the run attempt. A typed ledger records six
resources and their states. Host and sandbox run sites own lane-specific
acquisition. Turn and settlement sequences expose typed outcomes. The
engine emits allowlisted phase telemetry.
**Reason and benefit**
Explicit ownership makes cleanup and failure behavior easier to inspect.
The fault matrix and characterization tests protect the external result
while the refactor reduces hidden control flow.
**Breaking changes**
None to the public adapter contract. The host warm-save path now closes
and relaunches the runtime because a transferred runtime could retain a
run-scoped credential. A cold session-handshake failure now closes the
created runtime.
**Additional context**
This pull request contains the ACPX engine lifecycle refactor, its
tests, and the lifecycle document.
## What Changed
- Add a run coordinator for startup, turn execution, settlement, and
result reproduction.
- Add a typed resource ledger with open, sealed, and consumed states.
- Add host and sandbox run sites for lane-specific resource acquisition.
- Replace separate runtime maps with a generic session reuse store.
- Split session fingerprint identity from the outer session key.
- Add typed turn and settlement sequences with one cleanup owner.
- Add a closed allowlist for phase telemetry.
- Add characterization tests and a 17-case fault matrix.
- Add `doc/acp-run-lifecycle.md`.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/` passes 18
files and 286 tests at the submitted commit.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` reports 0 errors
at the submitted commit.
- Run the full pull request checks after GitHub starts CI.
- Run Greptile review after the pull request opens.
## Risks
- The refactor changes internal control flow across the ACPX engine.
- Host warm-save behavior now closes and relaunches the runtime.
- Settlement changes the handling of a cold session-handshake failure
from a leak to a close.
- The characterization baselines and fault matrix reduce the risk of an
external behavior change.
> Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> The adapter layer runs agent sessions through the ACPX engine
> The engine needs explicit lifecycle ownership for reliable cleanup
> This pull request adds coordinator-owned phases and a typed resource
ledger
> The result makes lifecycle behavior easier to test and review
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. Exact model ID: GPT-5. The model used tool
execution, repository inspection, and code review support. The
implementation author supplied the submitted 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. `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 report their work in task chat, and that chat renders
markdown through `MarkdownBody`
> - Agents post shell commands, API payloads and diffs, so a fenced code
block is one of the most frequent things a person reads in the product
> - The rendered code block was pinned to two literal colors, so it
stayed dark in light mode and was the only dark surface on a light page
> - The `prose` and the `prose-invert` variables held the same two
values, so the theme could not change the block at all
> - This pull request binds the block to the theme tokens that already
exist and already carry a `.dark` override
> - The benefit is that a code block now matches the page in both modes,
and it follows any future change to the theme automatically
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. The problem is described below.
**What happened?**
A fenced code block in rendered markdown is always dark. It uses the
background `#1e1e2e` and the text color `#cdd6f4` in light mode and in
dark mode. In light mode the block is the only dark surface on the page.
The rule is in `ui/src/index.css`. The variables `--tw-prose-pre-bg` and
`--tw-prose-invert-pre-bg` are set to the same literal value, so
`prose-invert` cannot change it.
**Expected behavior**
A code block uses a light surface with dark text in light mode. It uses
a dark surface with light text in dark mode. It follows the theme like
every other surface in the app.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start the app and open a task that contains a fenced code block in
its chat.
2. Set the theme to light.
3. Look at the code block. The block is dark. The page is light.
4. Set the theme to dark. The block does not change.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `master` at `4af55ba6b`.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core bug). The defect is in the UI render path.
**Deployment mode**
Local development server.
## What Changed
- Bind `.paperclip-markdown pre` to `--muted`, `--foreground`,
`--border` and `--radius-lg` in `ui/src/index.css`. Remove the `#1e1e2e`
and `#cdd6f4` literals.
- Set the four `--tw-prose-*-pre-*` variables to the same tokens, so
`prose` and `prose-invert` both follow the theme.
- Apply the same four tokens to `.paperclip-mdxeditor-content pre`.
- Change the fill of the copy button and the wrap button to
`--background` in `ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.tsx`. The old fill was
`color-mix(in oklab, var(--muted) 92%, var(--background) 8%)`. That
value is almost equal to the block's new `--muted` surface, so the
buttons would nearly disappear.
- Update the stale comment above the rule. The comment said "Dark theme
code blocks".
- Add `ui/src/components/MarkdownCodeBlockStyles.test.ts`. It fails if a
literal color returns to any themed code surface.
- Export `codeBlockActionStyle` from `MarkdownBody.tsx` so the new test
can read it.
No new design token is added. Every token used here is already defined
in `ui/src/index.css`, and each one already has a `.dark` override.
## Verification
Automated:
```bash
cd ui && npx vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/components/MarkdownCodeBlockStyles.test.ts src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx src/components/MarkdownBody.wrap.test.tsx src/components/MarkdownAccentStyles.test.ts
```
59 tests pass.
`MarkdownCodeBlockStyles.test.ts` is new. It guards the defect directly.
It reads `index.css` and asserts that each themed code surface rides a
token and holds no hex, `rgb()` or `hsl()` literal. I confirmed the test
fails on the original defect: restoring `#1e1e2e` and `#cdd6f4` fails 2
of the 5 tests.
Manual. Open a task that has a fenced code block in its chat. Read the
computed style of `.paperclip-markdown pre` in the browser. The measured
values are:
| Property | Light | Dark |
| --- | --- | --- |
| background | `oklch(0.97 0 0)` | `oklch(0.269 0 0)` |
| color | `oklch(0.145 0 0)` | `oklch(0.985 0 0)` |
| border | `oklch(0.922 0 0)` | `oklch(1 0 0 / 0.1)` |
| radius | `8px` | `8px` |
These values are `--muted`, `--foreground`, `--border` and `--radius-lg`
for each mode. Toggle the theme and confirm the block changes with the
page.
## Risks
Low risk. The change is CSS and one inline style value. There is no
migration and no schema change.
Two behavioral notes for the reviewer:
1. The corner radius changes from `calc(var(--radius) - 3px)` (5px) to
`var(--radius-lg)` (8px). This matches the approved design and removes
an arbitrary offset. It is a small visual change on every code block.
2. The CodeMirror theme inside the MDXEditor still uses the Catppuccin
literals (`ui/src/index.css`, the `.paperclip-mdxeditor .cm-editor`
rules). That surface is an editor, not a rendered snippet, and a change
there needs a full light CodeMirror theme. A code block therefore looks
light when it is rendered and dark while a person edits it. This is
intentional in this pull request. Tell me if you want it in scope.
Syntax highlighting, line numbers and diff rows are not in this pull
request. The repository has no highlighter dependency and no syntax or
diff tokens. Those are separate changes.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), via Claude Code. Extended thinking was
on. Tool use was on, with file edit, shell, browser automation and the
Paper design tool. The design was produced first in Paper, then read
back through the design tool for exact token values rather than from
screenshots.
## 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
Notes on the unchecked boxes:
- Branch name. The branch is
`claude/paperclip-code-snippet-styling-202f7d`. It describes the change,
but the `202f7d` suffix comes from the local worktree name. It carries
no ticket id. I did not rename it, because the branch was already named
when this work was requested. Tell me if you want it renamed before
review.
- CI and Greptile. Not yet run at the time of opening.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server authenticates each agent request in `actorMiddleware`
before it attributes chat comments
> - When an agent bearer token failed verification, the middleware
called `next()` with no error and the request continued without an agent
actor
> - The request then fell back to the local user actor, so the server
stored agent replies as user comments
> - The task chat UI renders user comments in blue bubbles, so agent
messages appeared as blue user bubbles
> - This pull request rejects invalid agent credentials with 401 instead
of a silent downgrade
> - The benefit is that agent messages keep agent attribution, and
broken credentials fail loudly with a clear retry message
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A user cancelled an onboarding question card. The agent posted a
follow-up reply. The reply appeared in a blue bubble, which the UI
reserves for human messages. The agent run held an expired local agent
JWT. The auth middleware could not verify the token, called `next()`
without an actor, and the request fell back to the local user identity.
The server stored the agent comment as a user comment.
**Expected behavior**
Agent messages always render as agent bubbles. A request with invalid
agent credentials must fail with 401 so the adapter can refresh
credentials and retry. It must not post content under a human identity.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a local Paperclip instance.
2. Give an agent run an expired or malformed agent JWT.
3. Let the agent post an issue comment through the API bridge.
4. Before this change: the comment is stored with the local user
identity and renders as a blue bubble. After this change: the request
fails with 401 and a message that tells the caller to obtain fresh
credentials.
## What Changed
- `server/src/middleware/auth.ts`: a bearer token that fails
verification now produces a 401 `unauthorized` error instead of a silent
fall-through to the anonymous/local-user actor.
- The 401 message states the cause: expired token, unverifiable token,
empty bearer token, missing agent record, agent record in another
company, terminated agent, or agent pending approval.
- The API-key path now also rejects an agent record whose company does
not match the key.
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target.ts`: the bridge proxy now
writes a `comment id: <id>` marker to the run log for each posted issue
comment, so misattributed comments can be traced to a run.
- `ui/src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts`: a regression
test asserts that a recovered `local-board` comment with a derived agent
author renders as an agent bubble, not a user bubble.
- `server/src/__tests__/agent-auth-middleware.test.ts` and
`packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts`: new tests
cover each rejection path and the log marker.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/agent-auth-middleware.test.ts` in
`server/` — 14 tests pass.
- Run `pnpm vitest run execution-target-sandbox` at the repo root — 44
tests pass.
- Run `pnpm vitest run
src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts` in `ui/` — 4 tests
pass.
- Manual check: post an issue comment with an expired agent JWT; the API
returns 401 with a retry message and no comment is stored.
## Risks
- Behavioral shift: requests that previously continued as anonymous or
local-user actors after a failed agent-token verification now receive
401. Any caller that relied on the silent downgrade must refresh its
credentials. This is the intended fix, and the adapters already handle
401 with a credential refresh.
- No schema or migration changes. Low risk otherwise.
> 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 (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, via Claude Code with
extended thinking and tool use (agent harness with shell, file, and git
tools).
## 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
- [x] 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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release channel system promotes builds canary → nightly → beta →
stable, and stable releases publish a GitHub Release from
`releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`
> - The stable lane requires that notes file to exist inside the
promoted source commit, but the file is named for the promotion date,
which is unknown when the source commit is created
> - A promoted beta can therefore never pass the notes check: every
happy-path stable is forced through the candidate-branch fix path, with
a soak-gate justification, for a notes-only change
> - This pull request drafts the notes automatically when the beta is
published and lets the stable promotion read them from `master`
> - The benefit is a walkable stable happy path: the soak gate stays
exact, notes get a real review window during the soak, and the
justification path returns to its real purpose (cherry-picked fixes)
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The stable promotion path in the release channel system (`release.yml`,
`scripts/release.sh`).
**Current behavior**
`release.sh stable` requires `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` in the
checked-out source tree, and `publish_stable` checks out the exact
promoted SHA. The soak gate requires a `beta/v*` tag to point at that
same SHA. No commit can satisfy both for a promoted beta, so a stable
promotion must cut a candidate branch with a notes-only commit and
bypass the soak gate with a written justification. Release notes are
also written at promotion time, under time pressure, with no review
window.
**Proposed behavior**
When a beta publishes, a `draft_stable_notes` job generates a grouped
notes skeleton at `releases/beta/v<beta-version>.md` and pushes it to a
machine-owned branch; a human opens the PR and edits it during the 3-day
soak. The stable preflight resolves notes before the `npm-stable`
approval gate: source-tree notes first (the candidate fix path,
unchanged), then the merged beta-keyed file on `master`; it fails early
with the missing path named when neither exists. After the stable ships,
a canonicalization job pushes a branch that moves the file to
`releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`.
Related (not duplicates): #11006 and #11008 introduced the nightly and
beta lanes this builds on; older changelog PRs (for example #10669)
authored notes manually at promotion time, which is the flow this
replaces.
**Reason and benefit**
The happy path becomes: promote the exact soaked SHA, no justification,
notes reviewed during the soak instead of written at the gate. The
`releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` invariant still holds durably via the
canonicalization PR.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release.sh`: new `--notes-file PATH` (stable only) overrides
where the pre-publish notes check looks, so notes can live outside the
source checkout without dirtying the worktree.
- `scripts/create-github-release.sh`: same `--notes-file` override for
the GitHub Release body.
- `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh` (new): deterministic skeleton
generator — commit subjects from the newest stable tag (falling back to
the previous beta, then full history) to the beta's source commit,
grouped into Features / Fixes / Other.
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`:
- `draft_stable_notes` job after `publish_beta`: runs the generator and
force-pushes `release-notes/v<beta-version>`; the job summary links the
compare page. It recreates the beta tag locally if the tag push was
rejected (the known workflows-permission case), so drafting is not
blocked on manual tag recovery.
- `preflight_stable`: computes the target stable version (`release.sh
stable --print-version`) and resolves the notes source (`source_tree` →
`master_beta` → fail early / warn on dry run); new outputs.
- `publish_stable`: materializes `master`-side notes into `RUNNER_TEMP`
and passes `--notes-file` to both scripts; outputs the published stable
version.
- `canonicalize_stable_notes` job: pushes the `git mv` branch after a
stable that used `master`-side notes.
- `doc/RELEASING.md`, `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`: document the
drafted-notes flow, the preflight resolution order, and the
canonicalization step; the LLM changelog flow now targets the draft
branch during the soak.
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`,
`.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`: the
notes-authoring skills now describe this flow — range ends at the beta
source commit (not `HEAD`), the file is beta-keyed on the
`release-notes/v<beta-version>` branch (seeded with
`scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh` for betas that predate the automation),
and the canonicalization link caveat is called out for announcements.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs` — 6 tests, temp
git-repo fixtures: grouping, stable-tag range, previous-beta and
full-history fallbacks, default output path, malformed version, missing
tag.
- `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs` — unchanged suite still
green.
- `bash -n` on both changed shell scripts; `release.yml` re-parsed as
YAML.
- `./scripts/release.sh stable --print-version` unchanged (prints the
next stable version); `--notes-file` on a non-stable channel fails with
a clear error.
- Not exercised end-to-end: the new workflow jobs need a real beta
publish to run. The first beta after merge is the live test; the draft
job is additive and cannot affect the publish result (it runs after
`publish_beta` completes).
## Risks
- Low risk to publishing itself: `--notes-file` defaults preserve
today's behavior everywhere; the draft and canonicalization jobs are
additive and run after the publishes succeed.
- The preflight now fails a real stable run when no notes are found.
That is the intended fail-early behavior (it previously failed later,
inside `publish_stable`, after the `npm-stable` approval).
- `draft_stable_notes` force-pushes only the machine-owned
`release-notes/v<beta-version>` branch; a beta re-cut regenerates it
cleanly.
- The stable version computed at preflight could differ from the
published one if a run crosses UTC midnight between the two jobs; the
materialized notes are passed by path, so the publish still succeeds,
and the canonicalization job uses the actually-published version.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Stable release notes live at `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` on master as
the durable record
> - v2026.817.0 shipped from a candidate branch, so its notes file
exists on that branch and in the GitHub Release, but not yet on master
> - This pull request lands the exact shipped notes at the canonical
path
> - The benefit is a complete stable-notes record on master, and the
FULL RELEASE NOTES link in announcements resolves
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `releases/` record on master.
**Current behavior**
`releases/` on master ends at `v2026.722.0.md`. The v2026.817.0 notes
exist only on `candidate/release-2026.817.0` and in the published GitHub
Release.
**Proposed behavior**
`releases/v2026.817.0.md` exists on master, byte-identical to what the
release published.
**Reason and benefit**
Complete history at the canonical path; the standard notes link
(`releases/v2026.817.0.md` on master) resolves for the announcement.
## What Changed
- Add `releases/v2026.817.0.md`, taken verbatim from the candidate
branch the release was published from (tag `v2026.817.0`, commit
`213dabab4`).
## Verification
- `git diff v2026.817.0 -- releases/v2026.817.0.md` against this branch
is empty (byte-identical to the shipped file).
- Docs-only; no code surface.
## Risks
- None; docs-only. The candidate branch is deleted after this merges
(the `v2026.817.0` tag keeps its commits reachable).
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100). -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The PR verify workflow gates every pull request; its wall-clock time
sets the feedback loop for all contributors
> - In a recent successful PR run (actions run 32012408876), the slowest
check was "Verify serialized server suites (1/5)" at 337s, while its
four sibling shards finished in 212-238s
> - The serialized lane assigns suites to shards round-robin over an
alphabetical list, so the heavy heartbeat and issues suites cluster on
one runner
> - The general-server lane already solves this with a duration-aware
LPT partition backed by a recorded manifest
> - This pull request reuses that partitioner for the serialized lane
with a fresh per-suite duration manifest
> - The benefit is a balanced serialized matrix: the measured 968s suite
total levels to about 194s per shard, which removes about 80-100s from
the run's slowest check
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `Verify serialized server suites` shard matrix in
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` distributes route/authz test suites across
five runners.
**Subsystem affected**
CI / test infrastructure (`scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`).
**Current behavior**
`selectSerializedSuites` assigns suites round-robin (`index %
shardCount`) over the alphabetically sorted file list. The heavy suites
cluster on shard 1/5. In actions run 32012408876, shard 1/5 spent 291s
in its test step while the other shards spent 170-201s, which made that
job (337s total) the slowest check of the whole PR run.
**Proposed behavior**
Partition the serialized suites with the same duration-aware LPT
algorithm the general-server lane already uses
(`scripts/general-server-shard.mjs`), backed by a new per-suite duration
manifest. All five shards then carry about 194s of measured test time.
**Reason and benefit**
The slowest check bounds PR feedback time. Balancing the serialized
matrix removes about 80-100s from that bound without adding runners.
**Breaking changes**
None. The partition remains deterministic, complete, and
non-overlapping; suites missing from the manifest get the median weight.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/serialized-shard-durations.json`: per-suite wall-clock
durations (ms) for all 134 serialized suites, sampled from actions run
32012408876 by diffing consecutive per-suite label timestamps in the
shard logs (captures vitest spawn overhead, not just reported test time)
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: `selectSerializedSuites` now uses the
existing LPT partitioner (`selectGeneralServerShard`) with the new
manifest instead of round-robin
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: added a
manifest-freshness test and a shard-balance test for the serialized
lane, mirroring the general-server ones
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: updated the serialized matrix comment with
the new measurement and mechanism
## Verification
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
passes (13 tests), including the existing test that the serialized
shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition
- Dry-run of all five shards shows estimated totals of
194/194/194/194/193s (round-robin was 276/175/160/172/187s):
`node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized --shard-index N
--shard-count 5 --dry-run`
- The `Verify serialized server suites` jobs on this PR run the real
partition end to end
## Risks
- Low risk. Selection logic only; the vitest invocation per suite is
unchanged
- A stale manifest degrades gracefully: unknown suites get the median
weight, and a dedicated test fails if fewer than half the current suites
have recorded durations
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, agentic coding session
with tool use (Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK); 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 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
Related prior work: #10923 (split serialized tests into five shards),
#10925 (general-server duration manifest), #11156 (workspaces-a native
shards).
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Workspaces let users and agents inspect files that belong to an
issue
> - Changed-file views use full-tree Git status scans
> - Many issue views could start those scans at the same time and make
the server unresponsive
> - Route-level limits did not protect the process or coalesce work for
one repository
> - This pull request adds one bounded scheduler for every expensive
workspace Git scan
> - It also starts browser scans only when the file panel is open and
visible
> - The benefit is bounded child-process use and responsive health
checks during request storms
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Many changed-file requests could start full `git status --porcelain=v1
-z --untracked-files=all` scans at the same time. One production
incident produced about 270 direct Git child processes. The Node process
stayed alive but stopped answering health requests in time.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must bound expensive Git work across all companies, actors,
issues, repositories, and browser tabs. Duplicate requests for one
worktree must share work. Excess requests must fail fast with a
retryable response. Hidden or closed file panels must not start scans.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open changed-file views for many issue and actor keys.
2. Send requests for two large workspace roots at the same time.
3. Observe that route-level limiter keys allow many full Git scans to
run together.
4. Observe delayed health responses and accumulated Git children.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master before commit `43ab441f0f`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server with local workspace repositories.
## What Changed
- Add a process-wide scheduler with configurable concurrency, queue
capacity, timeout, and cache TTL.
- Add fair admission, a bounded queue, canonical worktree keys,
single-flight joins, and bounded result caching.
- Add subprocess timeouts, TERM-to-KILL escalation, bounded output,
waiter cancellation, and slot cleanup.
- Route full-tree status work from file resources, workspace runtime,
execution workspaces, and adapter overlay sync through the scheduler.
- Return stable retryable `503` and `504` error codes for saturation and
timeout.
- Add structured logs with safe workspace hashes, durations, queue
state, cache use, joins, and terminal outcomes.
- Gate UI queries on panel and document visibility. Cancel queries on
close, hide, unmount, and workspace change.
- Disable focus and reconnect bursts. Keep one explicit refresh action
and a retryable unavailable state.
- Document the 10-second default freshness tradeoff and all
configuration variables.
- Add unit, route, UI, adapter, and deterministic 500-request load
coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/services/workspace-git-operation-scheduler.test.ts
src/__tests__/file-resources-git-scan-load.test.ts --reporter=dot` — 16
tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx
src/lib/page-visibility.test.ts --reporter=dot` — 38 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run
src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts --reporter=dot` — 16 tests passed.
- Existing file-resource, workspace-runtime, and execution-workspace
regression selections passed.
- Two cleanup safety regressions prove failed scans preserve the
worktree before archive and at the final deletion fence.
- Before: the incident produced about 270 Git children and health
requests timed out.
- After: 500 concurrent requests across 500 issue keys, 73 actors, and
two roots started two underlying scans. Peak scan concurrency was 2. All
500 requests succeeded. Health p99 was 4.94 ms. The harness found zero
unreaped children.
- The full local Vitest run passed 4,267 tests. Ten existing fixed-port
HTTPS exposure tests could not run because this host already owns
Tailnet listeners on ports 42000 and 52000. Clean GitHub CI is the final
full-suite result.
- Latest-head GitHub CI passed all required test, typecheck, build,
canary, e2e, policy, and security gates.
- Greptile completed at 5/5 with zero unresolved comments,
recommendations, or follow-ups.
## Risks
- Changed-file results can be up to 10 seconds old by default. Explicit
refresh remains available.
- A full queue returns a retryable `503` instead of waiting without a
bound.
- A scan that exceeds the default 8-second deadline returns a retryable
`504` and terminates its process group.
- Operators can tune all limits with documented environment variables.
Safe defaults protect local and shared servers.
> 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. The runtime does not expose the exact
deployment ID or context-window size. High reasoning, 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
> - The codex_local adapter supports a device login that runs in a
trusted sandbox and promotes the credential into the per-company managed
Codex home
> - The managed-home re-seeding step treats every regular-file
`auth.json` as apikey-mode residue and removes it so the shared-home
symlink can be restored
> - The promotion writes the company credential as a regular file, so
the first environment Test or run after a successful login deletes it
> - On a server with no shared Codex login — any containerized
deployment — nothing replaces the file, and the UI reports that the
sandbox has no ready authentication right after it reported a successful
login
> - This pull request makes the cleanup identity-anchored: a
subscription credential whose identity the shared source does not hold
survives re-seeding
> - The benefit is that a device login stays usable after Test and runs,
on hosts with and without a shared Codex login
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue covers this. The problem is described in-PR
following the bug template. Related public PRs:
[#11237](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11237) added the
sandbox device login and the credential promotion,
[#11097](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11097) added its
building blocks, and the `ensureSymlink` heal for stale copies came from
the fix for #5028.
[#9621](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9621) touches the
adjacent sandbox auth sync-back lane but not this defect.
**Subsystem affected**
packages/adapters/codex-local — managed `CODEX_HOME` seeding
(`codex-home.ts`).
**Current behavior**
A successful device login promotes the subscription `auth.json` into the
company Codex home as a regular file, and the UI reports the login as
authenticated. The next `seedManagedCodexHome` call — the environment
Test probe and every execute both run it — removes any regular-file
`auth.json` when no API key is configured, because the cleanup assumes
such a file is apikey-mode residue left by a previous run. It then
symlinks `auth.json` from the shared source home. On a server whose
shared home has no Codex login (a container image, for example), there
is no source to symlink, so the home ends with no credential at all. The
Test probe then reports "The sandbox has no ready authentication for
this adapter" immediately after a successful login, and a fresh login
repeats the same cycle. On a server whose shared home does hold a login,
the symlink silently replaces the promoted account with the host
account.
**Expected behavior**
The credential a device login promoted stays in the company home across
Test probes and runs. The #5028 heal (a stale regular-file copy of the
shared credential becomes a symlink to the live source) and the
apikey-residue cleanup keep working.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the server in an environment whose shared Codex home
(`$CODEX_HOME` or `~/.codex`) has no `auth.json`.
2. Complete a Codex device login for a company; the promotion writes the
company home `auth.json` and the UI reports authenticated.
3. Click Test on a codex_local agent (or start a run). The probe reports
no ready authentication, and the promoted `auth.json` is gone from the
company home.
**Proposed solution**
Make the cleanup identity-anchored, the same rule the promotion and the
cache vend already use. A regular-file `auth.json` survives re-seeding
when it holds a usable subscription identity that the shared source does
not also hold, and the shared symlink does not replace it. A
same-identity regular file is still the #5028 stale copy and is still
healed into the symlink, because the symlink serves the same account
with live, rotating tokens. An apikey-mode or unreadable file is still
removed.
## What Changed
- `seedManagedCodexHome` reads the target `auth.json` before the cleanup
and keeps it when `readSubscriptionAccountId` yields an identity the
shared source `auth.json` does not hold. The kept file is excluded from
the shared symlink pass, and the function logs a fixed line when it
keeps the file.
- The function doc comment states the kept-promoted-credential rule.
- Four new `seedManagedCodexHome` test cases: a promoted credential with
no shared auth, a promoted credential with a different shared identity,
the same-identity #5028 heal, and apikey-mode residue removal.
## Verification
```sh
cd packages/adapters/codex-local
npx tsc --noEmit # clean
npx vitest run # 28 files, 321 passed, 1 skipped
```
The four new cases fail on the previous code: the first two observed the
promoted file deleted (and, with a shared login present, replaced by the
shared symlink).
## Risks
Low risk. The change narrows one deletion path. Deployments that never
use the device login see no difference: without a promoted subscription
file, the cleanup and the symlink behave exactly as before, and the
#5028 heal is pinned by an existing test plus a new same-identity test.
The one deliberate behavioral shift: after a device login, the promoted
company credential now stays authoritative over the shared host login
for that company — which is the promotion's documented contract ("the
company credential slot").
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, with tool use and
code execution — investigation, implementation, and 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
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Stable release notes end with a Contributors section that credits
community contributors
> - The release-changelog skill excluded founders from that list, but
had no rule for non-founder core contributors
> - A release-notes draft therefore credited two core contributors as
community contributors
> - This pull request makes the exclusion list canonical in the
changelog skill and adds the core contributors
> - The benefit is that release credits consistently mean "community",
with one list to maintain
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The Contributors rules in `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`
and the Community-section rules in
`.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`.
**Current behavior**
The changelog skill says to exclude "Paperclip founders (e.g.
`cryppadotta`, `forgottendev`, `devinfoley`, `sockmonster`,
`scotttong`)". Core contributors who are not founders are not covered,
so drafts credit them in the community list. The Discord skill refers to
"founders" in two places.
**Proposed behavior**
The changelog skill holds the canonical exclusion list of specific folks
— now including `nguyenm7`, `nickyleach`, and `tonio-alucema` — and both
Discord-skill references defer to that one list.
**Reason and benefit**
Release credits consistently mean community contributions, and there is
exactly one place to update when the core team changes.
## What Changed
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`: the exclusion rule names
specific folks, is the canonical list, and adds `nguyenm7`,
`nickyleach`, and `tonio-alucema`.
- `.agents/skills/release-changelog-discord-message/SKILL.md`: both
references ("Community" template note and the final checklist) defer to
the changelog skill's canonical list.
## Verification
- Docs-only change; rendered and proofread. No workflow, script, or test
surface is touched.
## Risks
- None beyond docs accuracy. If the canonical-list wording lands after
#11567 (which touches other sections of the same files), Git merges them
cleanly — the edited regions do not overlap.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Claude local adapter supports a setup-token subscription login,
and its confidential routes pass a fail-closed transport guard
> - The guard accepts direct socket TLS, a local_trusted loopback peer,
or an allowlisted proxy peer that forwards https — and deliberately
never reads the global `TRUST_PROXY`
> - On a managed platform the edge terminates TLS, the app socket is
always plain HTTP, and the edge-proxy peer addresses are not stable or
documented, so none of the three cases can hold
> - Every login on such a deployment shows the clear-text transport
warning although the user's connection is HTTPS, and the agent-scoped
confidential routes fail closed entirely
> - This pull request adds a dedicated operator declaration that the
platform edge terminates TLS, as a fourth guard case
> - The benefit is a correct transport decision on managed platforms
with the default posture unchanged everywhere else
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue covers this. The problem is described in-PR
following the enhancement template. Related public PRs:
[#11347](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11347) added the
new-agent login flow and the non-blocking transport advisory, and
[#11286](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11286) added the
setup-token login and the guard with its `CLAUDE_LOGIN_TRUSTED_PROXIES`
allowlist.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — the confidential transport guard for the Claude setup-token
login (`services/setup-token-session.ts`, `routes/agents.ts`, `app.ts`).
**Current behavior**
The guard allows a confidential response on direct socket TLS, on a
`local_trusted` loopback peer, or when the immediate peer is on the
dedicated `CLAUDE_LOGIN_TRUSTED_PROXIES` allowlist and forwards `https`.
Behind a managed platform's TLS-terminating edge (Railway, Render, Fly,
and similar), the app socket is plain HTTP and the edge-proxy peer
addresses are not operator-visible or stable, so the allowlist cannot
express them — IPv6 entries match by exact string only. The result: the
login panel shows "This connection is not encrypted" for a connection
that is HTTPS to the user, and the agent-scoped confidential routes
return the fixed no-secret error.
**Proposed behavior**
`CLAUDE_LOGIN_EDGE_TLS_TERMINATED=true` is an explicit, single-purpose
operator declaration that every client request reaches the server
through the platform's TLS-terminating edge. Under the declaration the
guard treats a request as confidential unless the edge itself labels the
client hop as plain `http` in `X-Forwarded-Proto`. The declaration is
never derived from the global `TRUST_PROXY` setting, which the guard
still never reads. Without the declaration, nothing changes.
**Reason and benefit**
The guard's spoofing concern does not apply to this deployment shape: a
client cannot pick its transport, because the platform admits HTTPS
only, and the header the guard consults is set by the platform edge, not
the client. A blanket warning that is always wrong teaches users to
ignore it. The declaration keeps the strict default for every deployment
that does not opt in, and it keeps the allowlist as the precise tool for
operators who do know their proxy addresses.
## What Changed
- `ConfidentialTransportConfig` gains optional `edgeTlsTerminated`
(default false), documented as the operator declaration for platform
edge TLS termination.
- `evaluateConfidentialTransport` adds the declaration as a guard case:
allowed unless the forwarded protocol's first hop is explicitly `http`
(reason `edge_labeled_plain_http` then; `operator_edge_tls_termination`
when allowed).
- `assessConfidentialStartup` reports `edge_tls_termination_declared`,
so the startup log shows why forwarded requests pass.
- `app.ts` parses `CLAUDE_LOGIN_EDGE_TLS_TERMINATED` (truthy:
`1/true/yes/on`) and passes it to the agent routes; the routes build the
guard config from it.
- The SR-7 operator-requirement comment on the setup-token routes
documents the new variable next to the allowlist.
- Tests: five new guard unit cases and a route case asserting the prompt
and code responses carry no `transportAdvisory` under the declaration.
## Verification
```sh
cd server
npx tsc --noEmit # clean
npx vitest run src/services/setup-token-session.test.ts \
src/routes/setup-token-route.test.ts \
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts # 3 files, 89 passed
```
The new "keeps failing closed when the declaration is absent" case pins
the unchanged default posture.
## Risks
The declaration is an operator statement the server cannot verify; an
operator who sets it on a deployment whose edge does not terminate TLS
re-labels plain-HTTP requests as confidential. This is the same trust
class as `CLAUDE_LOGIN_TRUSTED_PROXIES` (a wrong allowlist entry has the
same effect) and is opt-in, off by default, and scoped to the login
routes only. The guard still fails closed when the edge explicitly
labels a request `http`. No schema change, no API shape change —
`transportAdvisory` was already nullable.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, with tool use and
code execution — investigation, implementation, and 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
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release channel system re-smokes every published beta as
post-publish verification (`smoke_beta`)
> - The candidate-branch beta lane (#11209) added
`verify_beta_candidate` to `publish_beta`'s needs; that job is skipped
on every normal promote-mode beta
> - `smoke_beta`'s condition has no status-check function, so GitHub
attaches an implicit `success()` that evaluates the needs chain
transitively — a skipped ancestor makes it false
> - This pull request makes the condition explicit so promote-mode betas
smoke again, and pins the shape in the workflow wiring test
> - The benefit is that the post-publish beta gate actually runs instead
of silently skipping
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Beta `2026.818.0-beta.0` (run 32082007439) published successfully, but
its post-publish `smoke_beta` job was skipped. No configuration or input
asked for that: the run was a plain `channel: beta` dispatch with
`dry_run` at its default `false`, and the same expression
`!inputs.dry_run` evaluated true inside `publish_beta`'s own steps (the
Docker dispatch step ran).
**Expected behavior**
Every non-dry-run beta publish is followed by the release smoke suite
against the exact published version, as documented in `doc/RELEASING.md`
and `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`.
**Steps to reproduce**
Dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: beta` promoting a nightly (promote
mode). `verify_beta_candidate` is skipped by design; `publish_beta` runs
through its explicit `!cancelled()` condition; `smoke_beta` then skips
because its implicit `success()` sees the skipped ancestor in the
transitive needs chain (actions/runner#2205 semantics). The beta
published on 2026-08-11 predated #11209, so this never surfaced before.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at `43ab441f0` (workflow file, current head).
Related (not duplicates): #11209 introduced the candidate lane whose
skipped job triggers this; #11208 covers the adjacent tag-push failure
playbooks.
## What Changed
- `smoke_beta`'s condition becomes `!cancelled() &&
needs.publish_beta.result == 'success' && !inputs.dry_run` — an explicit
status-check function suppresses the implicit `success()`, and the
result check keeps the dependency on a successful publish.
- A comment above the job records why the explicit form is load-bearing.
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` pins the new
shape so the implicit form cannot silently return.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 8
pass, including the new assertion.
- `release.yml` re-parsed as YAML.
- The exact skip is visible on run 32082007439 (`smoke_beta: skipped`
after `publish_beta: success`); the coverage gap for that beta was
closed manually by dispatching `release-smoke.yml` with
`paperclip_version: beta` (run 32084880767).
- Not exercised end-to-end: the corrected condition needs the next real
promote-mode beta to demonstrate; the expression change is minimal and
the semantics are the documented actions/runner behavior.
## Risks
- Low risk: condition-only change on one job plus a test. Dry runs still
skip the smoke (`!inputs.dry_run` retained). Candidate-mode betas, where
`verify_beta_candidate` actually runs, behave as before.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release channel system publishes a nightly build only after the
release smoke suite passes against the newest canary
> - The scheduled nightly run has failed every night since August 12, so
no nightly, and therefore no beta candidate, has shipped for six days
> - The failures are stale test locators, not a product regression: the
chat-first onboarding rewrite (#11101) changed wizard copy and the
post-launch destination
> - This pull request updates the smoke spec to match the current wizard
> - The benefit is a green nightly lane and an unblocked beta promotion
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The scheduled `Release` nightly run fails in `smoke_nightly / smoke`
every night since 2026-08-12. The failing spec is
`tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts`. Four assertions no
longer match the product after the chat-first onboarding rewrite
(#11101):
- The step-1 heading is now "Name your organization", not "Name your
company".
- The step-4 hire button is now "Connect", not "Give it a heartbeat".
- The seeded first task is now titled "Paperclip onboarding".
- A successful launch navigates to the seeded task's thread
(`/issues/<ref>`), not `/dashboard`.
**Expected behavior**
The smoke suite passes against a canary that contains the current
onboarding wizard, and the nightly lane publishes again.
**Steps to reproduce**
Run `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml` against `paperclipai@canary`
(any version at or after the rewrite), or dispatch `release.yml` with
`channel: nightly`. Example red runs: 32014452506 (Aug 17), 31938284401
(Aug 16).
**Paperclip version or commit**
`2026.817.0-canary.12`
Related (not duplicates): #11190 updated this same spec for the
mission-first wizard; this PR is the follow-up for the chat-first
rewrite that landed after it.
## What Changed
- Update the step-1 wizard heading locator to "Name your organization".
- Update the step-4 hire button locator to "Connect" and reword the step
comment.
- Update `FIRST_TASK_TITLE` to "Paperclip onboarding" (the wizard's
current `DEFAULT_TASK_TITLE`).
- Assert the post-launch URL is the seeded task's thread (`/issues/`),
not `/dashboard`.
## Verification
- Local run of the exact CI harness: `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`
with `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.817.0-canary.12`, then `pnpm run
test:release-smoke` against the container — 1 passed.
- The suite's later API assertions (company, CEO agent, mission goal,
seeded issue assignment, assignment-sourced heartbeat run) all pass
unchanged against the current canary.
## Risks
- Low risk: test-only change; no product code is touched.
- The spec remains copy-coupled to the wizard. If wizard copy churn
continues, a follow-up could add stable `data-testid` hooks to the
wizard so the smoke spec stops breaking on wording changes.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code)
## Pre-submission 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Plugins can extend Paperclip with their own multi-step
workflow/graph engines that own an issue's lifecycle across many agent
handoffs
> - When such a plugin-managed issue legitimately stays `in_progress`
for a while (e.g. an anchor issue parked at a fan-out step, waiting on
child issues it spawned), Paperclip's generic recovery mechanisms have
no way to know that's intentional
> - The first commit on this branch fixed one such mechanism
(`decideSuccessfulRunHandoff`) to skip plugin-owned issues, and was
deployed to a real instance to verify the fix
> - Watching that same instance afterward, the identical symptom
(repeated "give a disposition" nags, the agent repeating "completed",
the plugin's own enforcement correctly reverting the status) recurred on
the same class of issue — meaning a second, independent code path had
the exact same gap
> - Traced it to `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues` in `service.ts`: it
detects a stale successful-run-handoff corrective run via
`isExhaustedSuccessfulRunHandoff` and, once "exhausted" (default max
attempts is 1, so effectively immediate), escalates via
`escalateStrandedAssignedIssue` — with no check on who owns the issue's
lifecycle at all
> - Rather than duplicate the `originKind` check inline a second time
(which is exactly how it got missed the first time), extracted it into a
shared, exported, unit-tested helper (`isPluginManagedIssueLifecycle`)
that both recovery paths now call
> - The benefit is the same as the first commit, but closing the second
loop this pull request's earlier version left open: generic plugin-owned
issues (any workflow/graph-engine plugin, not just one specific plugin)
stop burning real agent-run cost in a loop that can never actually
resolve, across both recovery mechanisms that can trigger it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing public issue covers this — describing it directly, following
the bug report fields:
**What happened?**
An issue owned by a workflow-engine-style plugin (`originKind` starting
with `"plugin:"`) was correctly held at `in_progress` by the plugin
while it waited on spawned child issues to finish. The assigned agent's
heartbeat succeeded and posted a well-formed completion comment, but
`issue.status` stayed `in_progress` (the plugin's own enforcement
reverted it, correctly, since the underlying work wasn't done).
- **Path 1 (fixed in the first commit):** `decideSuccessfulRunHandoff()`
saw `status === "in_progress"` after a successful run and enqueued a
"missing disposition" corrective wake. The agent responded again, the
plugin reverted the status again, and the recovery re-triggered again.
- **Path 2 (fixed in the second commit, found after deploying and
verifying the first fix on a live instance):** separately,
`reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues` periodically re-scans `in_progress`
issues, sees the corrective run from Path 1 (or any prior
successful-run-handoff wake) as "exhausted" evidence, and escalates the
issue via `escalateStrandedAssignedIssue` regardless of plugin ownership
— producing the same nag-revert-nag cycle through a completely different
call path that the first commit's fix did not touch.
**Expected behavior**
Neither recovery mechanism should nag an agent for a disposition, or
escalate for one, on an issue whose lifecycle is already owned and
managed by a plugin — that plugin's own enforcement/recovery path is the
correct owner of "what happens next," not these generic core mechanisms.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Install a plugin that creates/owns issues via the plugin host bridge
(`ctx.issues.create`/`ctx.issues.update`) with an `originKind` of
`"plugin:<pluginKey>"`.
2. Have the plugin's own graph/workflow logic hold an issue at
`in_progress` while some multi-step process it owns is still pending
(e.g. spawned child issues not yet complete).
3. Let an agent run a successful heartbeat on that issue that produces
visible progress (a comment) but does not change `issue.status` away
from `in_progress` in a way that sticks (the plugin's own logic reverts
any change back to `in_progress` on the next event).
4. Observe `decideSuccessfulRunHandoff` enqueue a corrective handoff
wake (Path 1), and/or `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues` treat that
wake's run as exhausted and escalate (Path 2). Either one repeats
indefinitely on its own.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`eb2cb916be3271e3e7ab5f643ad3ca3eb7c34d01` (current `master` at time of
the first commit; rebased onto `ad961227f` for the second)
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server
## What Changed
- **First commit:** Added `originKind: issues.originKind` to the issue
query in `heartbeat.ts` that feeds `decideSuccessfulRunHandoff`, and a
skip condition there for `originKind` starting with `"plugin:"`.
- **Second commit:**
- Extracted the plugin-ownership check out of
`decideSuccessfulRunHandoff` into a new exported helper,
`isPluginManagedIssueLifecycle(issue)`, in `successful-run-handoff.ts`.
- Added the same check to `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues` in
`service.ts`, immediately before it would otherwise escalate an issue
based on `isExhaustedSuccessfulRunHandoff` evidence — skipping
plugin-managed issues there too.
- Added unit tests for the new helper directly (plugin-prefixed origin
kinds → `true`; non-plugin/missing origin kinds → `false`), alongside
the existing `decideSuccessfulRunHandoff` tests (updated to import and
rely on the shared helper, behavior unchanged).
## Verification
- `npx vitest run
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts` — 20/20
passed (18 pre-existing/from the first commit + 2 new for the extracted
helper).
- `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts` — full
suite still passes with the refactor.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` — no new errors
introduced by either commit (confirmed against a pre-existing baseline
of unrelated `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` module-resolution errors from the
workspace, present identically with the changes stashed out).
- Manually verified Path 1 against a real plugin-managed issue stuck in
that loop: after deploying the first commit and restarting the server,
the same agent posted the same completion comment again, and the
corrective-handoff recovery did not re-trigger.
- Path 2 was found live on the same instance after that first deploy
(the loop recurred through the second, independent mechanism) —
root-caused via direct inspection of
`heartbeat_runs`/`agent_wakeup_requests`/issue comment history, then
fixed in the second commit. Not yet re-verified live on the instance
(pending redeploy of this updated branch).
## Risks
- Low risk. Both changes are additive skip conditions — they only cause
a recovery decision to return early for a specific, narrow case
(`originKind` starting with `"plugin:"`) that previously fell through to
escalation/enqueue. No existing skip conditions are changed or reordered
in a way that affects non-plugin issues.
- Behavioral shift: plugin-managed issues that are genuinely stuck (not
just correctly mid-flight) will no longer get either of these corrective
nags. This is intentional — the plugin owning the issue is expected to
have its own recovery path — but it does mean these mechanisms are no
longer a safety net for buggy plugins that leave issues stranded. Plugin
authors should ensure their own enforcement handles stranded states.
- The refactor (extracting `isPluginManagedIssueLifecycle`) is a pure
code-motion change for the first commit's check — no behavior change
there, only a new call site added in `service.ts`.
- No migration required (query-shape and control-flow changes only, no
schema change).
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), model `claude-sonnet-5`, used within a coding-agent
harness (Claude Code) with tool use (file edit, test execution, git
operations, live production-instance debugging via SSH/SQL) and extended
reasoning across two sessions: the first implemented and deployed the
initial fix, the second discovered the second recovery path was still
looping on a live instance, root-caused it, and implemented/tested this
follow-up 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
- [ ] 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 Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
dependabot[bot]
Nicky Leach
github-actions[bot]
Dotta
Devin Foley
Harjoth Khara
scotttong
Adam Teale