## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents need a governed way to request app connections during issue
work.
> - The catalog now describes the available providers and setup methods.
> - A request must become a durable, company-scoped intent before an
operator acts on it.
> - This pull request adds that intent runtime across server, agent,
CLI, and shared contracts.
> - The benefit is a safe bridge from agent need to operator-approved
setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 7 of 11. It depends on stack 6 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add connection intent types, validation, service logic, and routes.
- Add agent runtime tools and CLI support for connection requests.
- Add issue-thread interaction support for connection intents.
- Add runtime, route, adapter, and contract tests.
- Hold the final resolved-continuation row lock through asynchronous
adapter preparation until an actual process spawn, so parking or
reassignment cannot cross that boundary.
- Report Hermes Gateway's first remote run request through the shared
dispatch hook so the resolved-intent lock is released at the true
dispatch boundary.
- Revalidate the addressed user's live non-viewer membership and
connection-management authority for every intent mutation, including
OAuth completion.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- Result: 176 tests passed.
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` (32 passed;
includes non-process dispatch lock-release coverage)
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts -t
"addressed-user mutation"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t "binds OAuth
callback completion to the initiating board session"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter test --
src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` (23 passed; includes dispatch-hook
ordering and exactly-once coverage)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter typecheck`
## Risks
- A malformed intent could create an unusable operator request.
- Validators and company checks reject invalid or cross-company
requests.
- The final continuation gate holds the issue row lock through adapter
preparation until process or remote dispatch; later operator changes use
the normal active-run interruption path.
- The change does not add a database migration.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #`
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - An agent's runtime mounts only its own enabled skills; nothing tells
the model what else the company skill library holds
> - From inside a sandbox, "installed but not enabled for me" and "does
not exist" look identical, so agents tell users freshly installed skills
are not installed
> - This pull request renders the library as a deterministic markdown
section appended to claude-local agent instructions, and adds a
paperclipListSkills MCP tool
> - The benefit is that agents report the true state ("installed, not
enabled for me — ask an operator to enable it") instead of a false
negative
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
How agents reason about the company skill library at runtime.
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/adapter-utils` (new pure builder),
`packages/adapters/claude-local` (instructions append),
`packages/mcp-server` (new tool).
**Current behavior**
The runtime hands adapters the full library list, but only the agent's
enabled skills are mounted, and no prompt content or MCP tool describes
the rest. Agents inspect their sandbox, find nothing, and report
installed skills as not installed.
**Proposed behavior**
A "Company skill library" markdown section lists every skill as
`enabled`, `installed, not enabled for you`, or `enabled but
unavailable: <cause>`, with instructions to report the not-enabled state
accurately and ask an operator to enable it. claude-local appends it to
the agent instructions text. A `paperclipListSkills` MCP tool exposes
the same list on demand.
**Breaking changes**
None. Other adapters are untouched (they can adopt the builder later);
the manifest is deterministic, so the claude-local prompt-bundle cache
only busts when the library actually changes.
## What Changed
- New `packages/adapter-utils/src/skill-library-manifest.ts` with
`buildSkillLibraryManifestMarkdown` (pure, key-sorted, deterministic;
renders the missing-cause detail from #12146).
- `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.ts` appends the
manifest to `combinedInstructionsContents` (creating it when no
instructions file is configured).
- `packages/mcp-server/src/tools.ts` adds `paperclipListSkills` hitting
`GET /companies/:companyId/skills`.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/skill-library-manifest.test.ts` (from repo
root) — 3 tests: byte-identical output for shuffled input, state
rendering incl. the unavailable cause, change detection.
- `cd packages/mcp-server && npx vitest run` — new tool routing test
passes (13 passed; 1 pre-existing failure on my machine reproduces
unchanged at the branch base).
- `cd packages/adapters/claude-local && npx vitest run` — 244 passed, 1
skipped.
- `pnpm run typecheck` clean in adapter-utils, mcp-server, claude-local.
## Risks
- Prompt growth is one line per installed skill plus a five-line header
— bounded and only present when the library is non-empty. Stacked on
#12146 so the manifest's "enabled but unavailable" state reflects real
materialization failures.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) with extended thinking
and tool use, via Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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.
> - Paperclip runs across the CLI, server, adapters, plugins, CI, and
container images.
> - These surfaces declared different Node.js versions from 20 through
24.
> - A newer `@types/node` major can expose APIs that the supported
runtime does not provide.
> - Node.js 20 is no longer a suitable project baseline, and Node.js 24
is the current LTS line.
> - This pull request sets Node.js 24.11.0 as one repository-wide
baseline, adds a drift check, and gives users actionable startup
guidance when their runtime is too old.
> - The benefit is one clear runtime contract for development, release,
installation, and published packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #2734
Refs #11727
Refs #739
## What Changed
- Require Node.js 24.11.0 or newer in all 42 package manifests and
runtime checks.
- Use Node.js 24 in GitHub Actions, Docker images, smoke images, sandbox
setup, portable installs, and esbuild targets.
- Align every direct `@types/node` declaration on `^24.0.0`.
- Prevent Dependabot from opening major `@types/node` upgrades without a
matching runtime decision.
- Add `.nvmrc` and a CI policy check for Node version drift.
- Update ACP version gates, tests, and user documentation for the new
minimum.
- Print a non-blocking warning on CLI and server startup when Node is
unsupported, with remediation through a version manager or the
documented downloaded `install.sh` workflow.
- Deduplicate that warning when `paperclipai run` boots the CLI and
server in the same process.
## Verification
- `node scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs`
- `node --check scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs`
- `node --check cli/esbuild.config.mjs`
- `node --check scripts/generate-npm-package-json.mjs`
- `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh
scripts/e2e-install-lifecycle.sh`
- Parsed all 42 package manifests and confirmed `engines.node` is
`>=24.11.0`.
- `git diff --check`
- `vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-install-command.test.ts` passed with
3 tests.
- `vitest run cli/src/node-version.test.ts` passed with 4 tests.
- Directly exercised the shared warning helper for unsupported-version
messaging and same-process deduplication.
- The focused exe.dev suite could not resolve the locally unbuilt plugin
SDK from this isolated worktree. A full offline workspace install was
also blocked because the package-manager signature verifier requires
registry access. The full suite was not run locally; draft CI performs a
clean install and evaluates the wider impact.
## Risks
- This is a breaking runtime change for users, plugins, and deployments
that still use Node.js 20 or 22.
- Published workspace packages will now produce an engine warning or
failure in strict package managers on older Node.js releases.
- Node.js 24 can reveal dependency, native module, Playwright, or agent
CLI compatibility issues in CI.
- The bootstrap installer now installs Node.js 24 when the current
runtime is older than 24.11.0.
- The portable sandbox fallback is pinned to Node.js 24.11.0 and depends
on that upstream tarball remaining available.
- Unsupported runtimes continue booting after a warning, so a later
incompatibility can still fail at its point of use.
- The CLI and server share the warning policy through the published
`@paperclipai/shared` package; packaging checks must keep that subpath
export available.
- This PR does not commit `pnpm-lock.yaml` because repository policy
assigns lockfile generation to CI.
> 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 exact deployment ID and context
window are not exposed in this session. Reasoning, repository tools,
shell execution, 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
> - The inbox is where operators quickly scan which issues are active,
blocked, or waiting for attention
> - A blocked parent can still have active descendant work, but the
inbox previously depended on only loaded rows to infer that state
> - That made collapsed or partially loaded issue trees look more stuck
than they really were
> - This pull request carries live descendant summary data through the
issue list API and inbox UI
> - The benefit is a more accurate blocked-inbox signal, so operators
can distinguish truly stalled work from blocked parents that still have
live child activity
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this exact inbox descendant-status
polish.
Feature request fields:
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, plugin/MCP API surfaces,
and `ui/` inbox rendering.
**Problem or motivation**
Inbox rows need to show when blocked or collapsed parents still have
live descendant work, even when the live child row is not loaded in the
current client tree. Without a server-provided descendant summary, a
parent can look stalled even though active work continues below it.
**Proposed solution**
Expose an optional live descendant count on issue list results, request
it from inbox views, and use it to render covered blocked status and
live-below indicators. Keep the field opt-in so other issue list callers
keep their existing payload shape and query cost.
**Alternatives considered**
Relying only on client-loaded subtree state was ruled out because it
misses collapsed or unloaded descendants. Always returning the count was
also avoided because most list callers do not need this extra summary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is scoped operator-visibility polish for the existing inbox. It
does not duplicate a named `ROADMAP.md` milestone.
**Additional context**
The recursive summary query is guarded against parent cycles, and the UI
still falls back to loaded subtree live counts when server summary data
is absent or stale.
## What Changed
- Added optional `includeLiveDescendantSummary` support to issue list
contracts, SDK surfaces, MCP tools, routes, services, and tests.
- Added `liveDescendantCount` to issue list results when requested.
- Updated inbox and blocked-inbox queries to request live descendant
summaries.
- Updated inbox row status rendering so blocked parents with live
descendants show covered blocker treatment without duplicating the
live-below chip.
- Hardened live descendant summary traversal against parent cycles and
preserved the loaded-subtree fallback path for blocked inbox rows.
- Added focused tests for the API parameter, service behavior, helper
logic, cycle handling, and inbox UI query/rendering behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/inbox-live-descendants.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueColumns.test.tsx
ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Rebased cleanly onto current upstream `master` before pushing.
- Confirmed the branch diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows/*` changes.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The new descendant count is opt-in on list
requests, but it adds query work when the inbox asks for it. The
recursive traversal now tracks visited ancestors to avoid cycle
failures. The UI uses the server count as a supplement to existing
loaded-tree state, so stale or absent counts fall back to the prior
behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled with local shell and git
access. Reasoning mode and context window are managed by the
Paperclip/Codex runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions,
and approval-style handoffs.
> - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest
tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured
checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options.
> - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate
consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the
UI.
> - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract,
server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render
and submit structured selections.
> - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select
confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip
interactions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip
issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox
confirmation issue-thread UI component work.
- GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation /
issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found.
- Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup
work, so it is not linked as a related issue.
## What Changed
- Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for
`request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions.
- Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for
checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response
handling.
- Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can
create the new interaction shape consistently.
- Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox
confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target
states, and accept/decline flows.
- Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the
Paperclip skill/API reference.
## Verification
- Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into
`public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`:
```sh
NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links
NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts
```
Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed.
- CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green.
- Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check
shows all Greptile threads resolved.
## Risks
- Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared
validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK
helpers, and docs.
- No database migrations are included.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile
policy.
- UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested
not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the
work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access,
shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip
control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata
is not exposed inside this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Test infrastructure across server, ui, packages/* runs on Vitest
> - Dependabot opened a narrow bump (3.2.4 → 3.2.6), but the wider
workspace is on 3.2.4 and the major-version bridge to v4 needs a
coordinated change set across configs and tests
> - Staying on 3.x indefinitely leaves us behind on Vitest 4 (perf,
pool, and config improvements) and forces repeated patch-only dependabot
churn
> - This pull request upgrades Vitest to 4.1.8 across the workspace,
updates `server/vitest.config.ts` and `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`
for the new API, and adjusts two UI tests for the new assertion
semantics
> - The benefit is a single, coherent Vitest 4 upgrade that supersedes
#7570 and gets us on the supported major line
## What Changed
- Bump `vitest` from `3.2.4` to `4.1.8` across root, `server`, `ui`, and
all `packages/*` (including plugin examples and sandbox providers)
- Update `server/vitest.config.ts` for Vitest 4 config surface
- Update `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` to match the new runner
behavior
- Adjust `ui/src/components/CommentThread.test.tsx` and
`ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx` for Vitest 4 matcher/timing
semantics
- Refresh `pnpm-lock.yaml`
## Verification
- `pnpm install` resolves cleanly with the new lockfile
- `pnpm -w -r test` (server, ui, packages) runs under Vitest 4.1.8
## Risks
- Major-version Vitest bump: behavioral changes in pools, fake timers,
and matcher strictness can surface flake. Test config and the two UI
tests were updated to match v4 semantics; broader test runs should be
watched on CI before merge.
- Supersedes dependabot PR #7570 (3.2.4 → 3.2.6); that PR should be
closed.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking, tool use
enabled
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Closes#7570
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned
work is executable or parked
> - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently
land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake
path
> - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to
agree on that execution semantic
> - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`,
flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board
> - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and
visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls
## What Changed
- Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults.
- Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted
while preserving explicit `backlog` parking.
- Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators.
- Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned
backlog blockers.
- Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for
assigned backlog blockers.
- Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the
assigned-backlog behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped.
- Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo
skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check
the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.`
- Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed
without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary
worktree.
- Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states:
[light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png),
[dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png).
- Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter
/mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest
run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component
tests.
- Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server
shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all
passed.
## Risks
- Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the
caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and
server/shared tests cover both paths.
- Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention
labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog
state.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled
Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning
mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat
runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state
> - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient
adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without
stranding work
> - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across
heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and
operator-facing run state
> - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts,
migrations, and runtime status semantics
> - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can
merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work
> - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls,
and more predictable recurring execution behavior
## What Changed
- Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and
Codex transient failure recovery handling.
- Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue
comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and
activity/dashboard bounds.
- Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue
workspace runtime management.
- Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and
`0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`.
- Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared
types synchronized.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server`
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch,
which are central execution paths.
- Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge
this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields.
- Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator
smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent runtime, shell/git tool use
enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in
this Paperclip heartbeat environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
dependabot[bot]
Dotta
Devin Foley
Nicky Leach
dotta