## 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
<!-- 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
> - 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
<!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). -->
> **Stacked pull request.** This targets #11524. Merge #11524 first.
Review only the second commit, `feat(runtime): managed Tailscale HTTPS
lifecycle...`.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip starts and supervises managed runtime services, so an
agent's branch can be previewed while the agent works
> - The previous pull request added the host broker, the shared
contract, and the database columns, but no code used them
> - A managed runtime can only be exposed over HTTPS if it holds a
stable loopback port pair for the whole life of the service. The current
control path cannot promise this: two controls can race the same
execution workspace, a stranded control can stay `running` forever, and
a start can adopt a port it does not own
> - This pull request adds the HTTPS lifecycle and the control-path
hardening that the lifecycle depends on
> - The benefit is that a managed preview becomes reachable from another
device, and a managed control now always reaches a terminal state
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the feature request
template.
**Subsystem affected**
Managed workspace runtime services, workspace operations, the execution
workspace routes, and the workspace runtime UI.
**Problem or motivation**
A managed runtime service is reachable only on loopback, so a preview
cannot be opened from a phone or a second computer. Exposing it safely
needs an exclusively held port pair. Three existing gaps block that.
Overlapping controls can race the same workspace. A control whose owner
dies stays `running` and blocks the lane forever. Port allocation does
not confirm that the process holding a port is the process Paperclip
spawned.
**Proposed solution**
Add the exposure lifecycle on top of the broker from #11524: reserve
before spawn, expose after readiness, validate the public URL, and
remove on stop. In the same change, make managed controls mutually
exclusive per workspace, give each control a durable issue-owned lease
and a terminal state, and verify port ownership before use.
**Alternatives considered**
- Add HTTPS exposure without the control hardening. This was rejected
because a raced or stranded control makes exposure point at the wrong
process.
- Guard the lane with an in-memory lock only. This was rejected because
the lock does not survive a server restart, so the lane can be lost or
double-claimed.
- Trust the requested bind address. This was rejected because a checkout
that predates managed HTTPS overwrites `PAPERCLIP_BIND` from its own
`--bind` argument, and then binds the wildcard address.
**Roadmap alignment**
This completes the managed workspace runtime capability that already
exists. It adds no new product surface beyond the HTTPS link.
**Additional context**
This is the second of three pull requests. The third adds central
mediation of leased port pairs.
## What Changed
Exposure lifecycle:
- Add the server-side broker client and the exposure lifecycle manager.
The manager reserves the mapping before spawn, exposes after backend
readiness, validates the public URL, and removes the mapping on stop.
- Default managed worktree runtimes to `tailscale_https`, read exposure
intent from legacy `expose` blocks, and backfill runtimes that are still
HTTP-only.
- Verify listener ownership for the app port and its Vite HMR companion
before the broker is asked to expose anything. An unrelated listener on
either port fails the start closed.
- Force the loopback bind through argv instead of environment hints.
Leave a non-Paperclip service's `--bind` argument alone.
- Probe loopback for readiness instead of the public URL, and give Vite
HMR its own loopback-bound server in middleware mode.
- Preserve operator-declared Serve mappings across the managed
lifecycle, so cleanup never removes a mapping that Paperclip did not
create.
- Name which listener predicate denied an expose, so an operator can act
on the message.
Control-path hardening:
- Make `start`, `stop`, `restart`, and job `run` mutually exclusive per
execution workspace. An overlap gets `409
workspace_runtime_control_in_progress`, and authorization is still
checked first.
- Take a durable exclusivity lease on the execution workspace, owned by
the controlling issue. A different issue gets `409
workspace_runtime_lease_conflict` before any operation is recorded.
Board and operator actions bypass the lease.
- Give every control a terminal state. Each control stamps its owning
process and pid, heartbeats while it runs, and has a wall-clock ceiling.
Recovery of a stranded control uses a compare-and-swap on `updated_at`,
so a live owner is never stolen.
- Bound readiness probes, verify allocated port ownership on POSIX and
Windows, harden sibling port allocation, and reconcile desired runtimes
on server startup.
- Surface exposure state and bounded runtime errors in the workspace
runtime UI.
- Record the new behavior in `doc/DEVELOPING.md`.
## Verification
Focused checks, all run on this branch:
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — 139 errors, exactly the
count on `master`. All 139 come from the unbuilt
`@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` package.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean.
- Server suites, 177 tests pass across 9 files:
`workspace-runtime.test.ts`, `workspace-runtime-leases.test.ts`,
`workspace-runtime-control-recovery.test.ts`,
`execution-workspace-runtime-control-conflict.test.ts`,
`execution-workspace-runtime-lease-route.test.ts`,
`workspace-operations-reconciliation.test.ts`,
`workspace-runtime-start-terminality.test.ts`, `app-hmr-port.test.ts`,
and `workspace-runtime-ready-comment.test.ts`.
- Exposure unit suites, 77 tests pass: `src/services/runtime-exposure/`
and `workspace-runtime-exposure-backfill.test.ts`.
- UI: `WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx` and
`WorkspaceServiceControlBar.test.tsx` — 34 tests pass.
**One suite is red on the development host and is expected to be green
in CI.** `server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts` has 10
failures on the machine used to write this branch. The cause is host
contamination, not the code. That machine already runs an HTTPS canary
that holds ports 42000, 42001, 52000, and 52001 on a tailnet address.
The suite allocates from the same range, so the new listener-ownership
check correctly reports:
```
listener_ownership_mismatch — port 42000 is bound to 100.123.243.20, 127.0.0.1,
fd7a:115c:a1e0:0:0:0:dd3a:f314 ... instead of loopback only
```
A CI runner has no listener on those ports, so the check sees loopback
only and the suite passes. Please confirm this from the CI result on
this pull request rather than from a local run on a host that already
exposes a managed runtime. This is a real weakness of the current test
fixture, and the third pull request in the series removes it by
allocating the pair through a central mediator instead of a stubbed
availability check.
`workspace-runtime-https-live-exercise.test.ts` needs a live `tailscale`
host and was not run locally.
## Risks
- This is the behavior-bearing pull request of the three, so it carries
the most risk.
- Two new `409` responses appear on managed control routes. A caller
that assumed a control always starts must handle a conflict. Board and
operator actions are deliberately exempt, so an agent lease cannot lock
an operator out.
- Managed worktree runtimes now default to `tailscale_https`. If the
host has no working broker, the start fails closed and reports the
exposure failure instead of silently serving plain HTTP. This is
intended, and it is the reason the failure message names the denying
predicate.
- Startup reconciliation touches persisted runtime rows. It is scoped to
desired state and does not resurrect a service that never came up.
- The lease has a 30-minute time to live and explicit release paths, so
a crashed owner cannot hold a lane forever.
- No migration runs in this pull request. The tables and columns land in
#11524.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking,
with tool use and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, with the one
host-contaminated suite explained above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task thread is where people read work and guide agents.
> - The mobile composer should use the same content width as the thread.
> - The composer kept the desktop 80% width on mobile, so its edges did
not align with the thread.
> - Long assignee-aware placeholder text could also clip inside the
mobile editor.
> - Some extracted style tokens used legacy HSL wrappers around complete
semantic colors, which made those declarations invalid.
> - This pull request makes the composer full width on mobile, preserves
the narrower desktop layout, wraps the placeholder, and repairs the
invalid color compositions.
> - The benefit is a stable mobile composer that aligns with the task
thread and keeps its intended visual styles.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related work: Refs #11263.
**What happened?**
At mobile widths, the task chat composer used the same 80% width as the
desktop composer. Its horizontal edges did not align with the full task
thread. A long assignee-aware placeholder could clip on one line. The
composer's extracted shadow also used a legacy `hsl(var(...))` wrapper
around complete semantic color values, so the browser could reject the
declaration.
**Expected behavior**
The composer must match the task thread width on mobile. It must stay
narrower on larger screens. Long placeholder text must wrap inside the
editor. Semantic color tokens must form valid shadows and gradients.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task with the chat-style thread on a mobile viewport.
2. Compare the composer edges with the task thread edges.
3. Select an assignee whose placeholder text wraps to two lines.
4. Inspect the computed composer shadow and the extracted semantic color
styles.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The change is based on `dc6fcd1ff1` from `master`.
**Deployment mode**
Local build from source. The behavior also applies to packaged web
builds.
## What Changed
- Made the task chat composer full width below the medium breakpoint and
kept the 80% desktop width.
- Matched the composer dock padding to the task thread padding.
- Allowed long composer placeholders to wrap and reserved enough mobile
editor height for two lines.
- Replaced invalid legacy HSL wrappers around full semantic colors in
extracted shadows, gradients, and approval styles.
- Added a token gate that prevents legacy `hsl(var(--token))` wrappers
from returning.
- Added focused regression tests for responsive width, padding,
placeholder wrapping, mobile height, and semantic shadow validity.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all four gates pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposerStyles.test.ts` — 37 tests
pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — passes. The build prints
existing CSS optimizer and bundle-size warnings.
## Risks
- Low risk. The width change is limited to the mobile breakpoint. The
desktop 80% layout remains in place.
- The semantic token fixes can affect shadows and gradients that were
previously invalid. The new gate prevents the invalid wrapper pattern
from returning.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The context-window size is not
exposed in this environment. The model used reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and GitHub 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>
Fixes#7623
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Company invites are part of the access subsystem and must produce
URLs that recipients can open from outside the host machine.
> - Paperclip already has public/auth base URL configuration for
deployments behind a public hostname, Tailscale, or a reverse proxy.
> - Invite URL composition was still deriving its origin from the
incoming request host, so loopback-bound servers emitted
`http://127.0.0.1:3100/invite/...`.
> - A loopback invite URL is not shareable with a remote human or agent,
even when the token itself is valid.
> - This pull request makes invite URL builders prefer the configured
public base URL and keep the existing request-host fallback when it is
unset.
> - The benefit is that copied invite links use the reachable deployment
origin without changing local-only behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#7623
No duplicate or related PRs/issues were found in a GitHub search for
invite URL, loopback, public base URL, and `authPublicBaseUrl` terms.
## What Changed
- Added base URL resolution in `server/src/routes/access.ts` that strips
trailing slashes and prefers configured `authPublicBaseUrl` over the
request-derived host.
- Threaded `authPublicBaseUrl` through invite summary, invite onboarding
manifest, onboarding text, access routes, `createApp`, and server
startup wiring.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/invite-url-public-base-url.test.ts`
covering configured public-base precedence, unset fallback behavior, and
trailing-slash normalization.
- Registered the invite public-base URL test in the serialized Vitest
server runner.
## Verification
```bash
pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/invite-url-public-base-url.test.ts
pnpm run test:run:serialized
```
Local results from the rebased PR branch:
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` exited 0.
- Targeted invite URL test exited 0: 1 file, 3 tests passed.
- Serialized server suite exited 0: 106 serialized suites completed; the
new invite URL test passed inside that runner.
Manual check after deployment: set `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_PUBLIC_BASE_URL` or
equivalent public base URL config, create a company invite, and confirm
the returned/copied invite URL uses that public origin instead of
`127.0.0.1`.
## Risks
Low risk. The new public base URL parameter is optional and falls back
to existing request-derived behavior when unset. The main operational
risk is misconfigured public base URL input; the implementation only
trims trailing slashes and otherwise trusts the configured origin.
## Model Used
- Original implementation: Anthropic `claude-sonnet-4-6`, 200k context,
tool use and test execution.
- Conflict repair and verification: OpenAI Codex GPT-5.5, coding agent
with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and local test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] 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: Coder (Claude) <coder-claude@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip Coder (Claude) <lad-agent@paperclip.ing>
> Follow-up to #11208 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for
review.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release channels promote artifacts along canary → nightly → beta
→ stable, with the happy path being promotion of an existing build
> - When one or two targeted fixes are needed before a beta or stable,
the only options today are waiting for the next nightly or absorbing a
whole day of unrelated master changes
> - The channel model was designed with an escape hatch for exactly
this: short-lived candidate branches carrying only cherry-picked fixes
> - This pull request implements candidate-branch beta builds with full
verification, documents the stable fix path through the
soak-justification gate, and adds the release captain's checklist
> - The benefit is that a surgical fix can ship forward without either
delay or blast radius, with its provenance recorded
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11008 — completes the fix-path half of the channel model
introduced there.
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`, new
`doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`, tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Beta promotion only accepts commits that already shipped as a nightly,
and stable promotion expects a soaked beta. There is no supported way to
ship one or two cherry-picked fixes between lanes: an urgent fix must
wait for the nightly cycle or pull in every unrelated master change from
the day. The original channel design called for candidate branches to
cover this, and they were deferred from the initial implementation.
**Proposed solution**
Candidate-branch beta builds: cut `candidate/beta-<target>` from a
nightly's source commit, cherry-pick the fixes, and dispatch `channel:
beta` with the new `candidate_branch` input. Selection enforces the
naming convention, rejects heads that already shipped as a beta or
predate the candidate tooling, and records the cherry-picked commits in
the job summary. Because candidate heads never went through a canary or
nightly, publication is gated on a full `release-verify` run (promoted
nightlies keep skipping re-verification). The stable fix path
(`candidate/release-<target>` as `source_ref`) works through the
existing soak gate: the justification requirement is the deliberate,
recorded trade-off for shipping unsoaked bits, and is now documented as
such.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release.sh`: `--from-candidate` flag (beta only) waives the
shipped-a-nightly requirement while keeping the duplicate-beta guard
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: `candidate_branch` dispatch input;
candidate mode in `select_beta` (naming validation, duplicate and
tooling-era rejection, cherry-pick recording); new
`verify_beta_candidate` job gating candidate publishes on full
verification
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: beta fix-path and stable fix-path sections
- `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md` (new): the release captain's checklist for
all four lanes as built
- Tests: dry-run fixture coverage for `--from-candidate` (waives the
nightly guard, keeps the duplicate guard, rejected outside beta) and
wiring tests for candidate validation plus the verification gate
## Verification
- `node --test` on the four affected suites: 42 pass in total (17 + 25
across the two runs), including the 5 new tests
- `bash -n` on `release.sh`; YAML parse of the workflow
- After merge: exercise the path end to end the first time a real
cherry-picked beta is needed — dispatch with a `candidate/beta-*` branch
and confirm the summary records the picks and verification runs
## Risks
- Candidate builds bypass the smoke-tested-nightly provenance by design;
the compensating controls are full verification before publish, the
post-publish beta smoke, the human `npm-beta` gate, and recorded
cherry-picks
- The stable fix path rides the existing justification mechanism rather
than adding a second bypass — one recorded escape hatch, not two
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under
human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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 subsystem's promotion lanes publish to npm, then push a
lane tag and dispatch the Docker image build at that tag
> - The first nightly of the beta-tooling merge published to npm and
then died at the tag push: GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at
workflow-modifying commits from dispatch or scheduled runs
> - The failure was a bare `remote rejected` with no guidance, leaving
the release half-finished (npm live, no tag, no images) until an
operator reverse-engineered the recovery
> - This pull request makes every lane's tag push degrade into exact
recovery instructions in the job summary
> - The benefit is that a rare platform-permission rejection becomes a
two-minute runbook operation instead of a forensic exercise
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11008 — the incident occurred promoting that change's own merge
commit, the first workflow-modifying commit to flow through the lanes it
introduced.
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`,
workflow wiring tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Run 31445344811 published `2026.811.0-nightly.0` to npm, then failed
pushing `nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`: `refusing to allow a GitHub App
to create or update workflow .github/workflows/release.yml without
workflows permission`. The tagged commit modifies workflow files, and
GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at such commits from dispatch
or scheduled runs (push-event runs are exempt, which is why the canary
tag on the same commit succeeded). The job failed with no explanation
and the Docker dispatch never ran.
**Proposed solution**
Wrap the nightly, beta, and stable tag pushes: on rejection, write the
exact recovery commands into the job summary — create and push the tag
with maintainer credentials, dispatch `docker.yml` at the tag, and for
stable also run `create-github-release.sh` — then fail the job. Document
the cause and recovery in the failure playbooks and pin the three
recovery blocks with a wiring test.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: recovery-summary wrappers on the
nightly, beta, and stable tag-push steps
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: failure-playbook entry for the
workflows-permission rejection
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test
asserting all three lanes carry the recovery summary
## Verification
- Wiring tests: 6 pass; YAML parse of the workflow
- The recovery commands are exactly the ones used to resolve the real
incident (tag push + `docker.yml` dispatch for
`nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`)
## Risks
- Low. The happy path is unchanged (a successful push skips the
wrapper); the failure path trades a bare error for actionable output and
still fails the job, since the release state is genuinely incomplete
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under
human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Split the slow workspaces-a CI lane into two Vitest native shards and keep release verification in parity.
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 subsystem promotes builds along canary → nightly → beta
→ stable, and each publish job checks out the promotion's source commit
and runs that tree's release tooling
> - The first beta dispatch failed with `unexpected argument: beta`: the
selected nightly's source predated the beta channel, so its `release.sh`
did not know the argument
> - The failure was clean (argument parsing, nothing published) but
cryptic, and the same trap waits for any promotion of a source older
than its target channel's tooling
> - This pull request makes the selection jobs reject such sources with
an actionable error and documents the property
> - The benefit is that a bootstrapping or old-source promotion fails in
seconds with instructions, instead of mid-publish with a parser error
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11008 — the guard hardens the beta promotion flow introduced
there, after its first dispatch surfaced the gap described below.
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`,
workflow wiring tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Run 31444045044 (first beta dispatch) failed in `publish_beta` with
`unexpected argument: beta`. Promotions deliberately build from the
pinned source commit, which means they also run that commit's
`scripts/release.sh` — and a source that predates the target channel's
introduction cannot publish it. Nothing guards this today; the error
surfaces deep in the publish job with no explanation.
**Proposed solution**
Guard at selection time: `select_nightly` requires the source canary's
`release.sh` to know the nightly channel, and `select_beta` requires the
source nightly's `release.sh` to know the beta channel. Each guard
literally matches the channel case arm and fails closed with a clear
message naming the remedy (promote a newer source). Document the
tooling-era property in `RELEASING.md` and pin the guards with a wiring
test.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: tooling-era guards in
`select_nightly` and `select_beta`
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: documents that promotions run the source commit's
release tooling
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test
pinning both guards
## Verification
- Wiring tests: 5 pass
- Guard expressions exercised against real commits: accepts the
beta-capable merge commit of the beta-channel change, rejects a pre-beta
commit
- YAML parse of the workflow
- After merge: the next beta dispatch selects a beta-capable nightly and
passes the guard
## Risks
- Low. Selection-time check only; the guards match the channel case arm
literally and fail closed (with the same actionable message) if that
line is ever reformatted
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under
human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
> Follow-up to #11006 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for
review.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release subsystem now publishes canary (every master push),
nightly (scheduled, smoke-gated, added in #11006), and stable (manual)
> - There is still no human-approved release-candidate lane between
nightly and stable, and nothing enforces that a stable actually soaked
anywhere before shipping
> - Betas need a real approval gate, and stables need a soak policy that
is data, not prose
> - This pull request adds the beta channel: a manual promotion of a
chosen nightly behind the `npm-beta` environment gate, re-smoked after
publish, plus a stable preflight that enforces a 3-day beta soak with a
written-justification bypass
> - The benefit is a complete canary → nightly → beta → stable train
where every stable shipped as a beta first, and emergencies leave a
written trace
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `scripts/release-lib.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release.yml`, `.github/workflows/docker.yml`,
`.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`.
**Problem or motivation**
After #11006 the project has canary and nightly prerelease lanes, but no
release-candidate lane. Stable promotion has no enforced soak: any ref
can ship as stable directly. There is no approval boundary for a
broader-audience prerelease, and no structured way to record why an
emergency release skipped validation.
**Proposed solution**
Add a `beta` channel: a manual dispatch that promotes a chosen nightly's
source commit, publishes behind the `npm-beta` GitHub environment
(required reviewers are the gate), re-smokes the published beta, and
tags `beta/vX`. Enforce in the stable path that the source commit
shipped as a beta at least 3 days earlier (measured from the beta's npm
publish time), with a `skip_soak_justification` input as the recorded
emergency bypass.
**Alternatives considered**
Codifying the soak policy in docs only. Rejected: an unenforced policy
decays; the preflight makes the policy executable while the
justification input keeps the emergency path usable and auditable.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release.sh` + `scripts/release-lib.sh`: `beta` channel —
requires HEAD to carry a `nightly/v*` tag, publishes the package set as
`YYYY.MDD.P-beta.N` under dist-tag `beta`, tags
`beta/vYYYY.MDD.P-beta.N`
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`:
- `channel: beta` dispatch path: `select_beta` resolves the newest (or
an explicit `source_version`) nightly and fails loudly on selection
problems; `publish_beta` runs behind the `npm-beta` environment, pushes
the tag, and dispatches `docker.yml`; `smoke_beta` re-runs the release
smoke suite against the exact published beta version
- stable path: new `preflight_stable` job enforces the 3-day beta soak
from the beta's npm publish time; `skip_soak_justification` bypasses
with the reason echoed into the job summary; dry runs report without
blocking
- `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: `beta/v*` tags publish `:beta` on both
images, with exact version stamping
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: `beta` added to the dispatch
choice list
- Docs: `CHANNELS.md` beta entries; `RELEASING.md` beta lane, soak gate,
and failure playbook; `RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` `npm-beta`
environment setup, including the warning to create the environment
before the first beta dispatch (GitHub auto-creates unprotected
environments on first reference)
- Tests: beta version-counting coverage in
`scripts/release-registry-versions.test.mjs`; beta identity and
nightly-tag guard coverage in
`scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs`
## Verification
- `node --test` on the two touched suites: 17 pass, including the 3 new
beta tests
- `bash -n` on both shell scripts and YAML parse of all three workflows
- After merge, in order: create the `npm-beta` environment, dispatch
`channel: beta` with `dry_run: true` to preview, then a real promotion
of a published nightly through the approval gate, then a stable dry-run
against a young beta to see the soak gate report
## Risks
- If the `npm-beta` environment does not exist when the first beta
dispatch runs, GitHub creates it with no protection rules and the beta
publishes without approval. Mitigated by documentation and by creating
the environment before merge (operator step)
- Until the first beta exists, every stable dispatch requires
`skip_soak_justification`. This is deliberate — the first beta ships
immediately after this merges — but it is a behavior change to the
stable dispatch
- The soak clock reads the beta's npm publish time from the registry; a
registry outage makes the preflight fall back to requiring justification
(fail-closed)
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use (repository exploration, local test
execution, live registry and git verification). All code, tests, and
docs in this PR were model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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 subsystem's nightly lane gates every nightly on the
release smoke suite, which boots the published artifact in a Docker
container and drives real onboarding
> - The gate kept failing even after the readiness budget fix (#11187),
and the new container-log dump revealed the server was healthy but
listening on 127.0.0.1 inside the container, unreachable through
Docker's port mapping
> - `onboard --yes` without an explicit `--bind` prefers trusted-local
quickstart defaults: it writes a loopback bind into the instance config
and ignores the deployment env vars the harness passes, and that config
outranks `HOST` at runtime
> - This pull request pins the smoke container to the `lan` bind preset
and adds a wiring test for it
> - The benefit is a working nightly gate, verified end to end against a
real published canary
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release smoke testing: `docker/Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`,
`scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`.
**Problem or motivation**
Nightly run 31428558684 failed in smoke with the server unreachable at
the mapped port for the full 420 second budget. The container logs
(captured thanks to #11187) show a fully booted server with `Bind
loopback (127.0.0.1)`. The harness sets `HOST=0.0.0.0` and the
deployment env vars, but `onboard --yes` without `--bind` deliberately
prefers trusted-local defaults, writes `bind: loopback` into the
instance config, and the config outranks `HOST` at runtime. A loopback
listener inside a container is invisible to the port mapping, so the
health check can never pass. This behavior predates the current stable,
so the harness was silently broken against every recent version — it
only surfaced now because the nightly lane is the suite's first CI
consumer.
**Proposed solution**
Pass `--bind lan` in the smoke container command (the flag is supported
by `latest` and canary alike; it selects the all-interfaces preset and
keeps the env-driven authenticated deployment), and pin the flag with a
wiring test so it cannot regress silently.
## What Changed
- `docker/Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`: the onboard command is now `onboard
--yes --bind lan --data-dir ...`, with a comment explaining why the flag
is load-bearing
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test
asserting the smoke Dockerfile pins a non-loopback bind preset
## Verification
- Full local harness run against the real nightly candidate
`2026.810.0-canary.1`: container healthy, bind banner shows `lan
(0.0.0.0)`, authenticated bootstrap completed (admin created, bootstrap
invite accepted, board session verified), `/api/health` returns
`bootstrapStatus: ready`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: 4
pass
- After merge: dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: nightly` to run the
gate end to end in CI
## Risks
- Low. The change only affects the smoke container. `--bind lan` inside
a container exposes the port to the container network only; reachability
from outside still goes through Docker's explicit port mapping
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use (CI log forensics, upstream source
tracing, local Docker reproduction and verification). All changes
model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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 subsystem's nightly lane (#11006) gates every nightly
publish on the release smoke suite, which boots the published artifact
in a Docker container
> - The suite's first CI execution failed at the health readiness check:
the harness hard-codes a 90 second budget, but a CI container
cold-installs paperclipai from npm and initializes embedded postgres
with no warm caches
> - When the timeout expired with the container still running, the
harness printed no container logs, so the failure gave no diagnostics
> - This pull request makes the readiness budget configurable, raises it
for CI, and dumps container logs on timeout
> - The benefit is that the nightly gate measures the artifact, not the
runner's cold caches, and a red smoke run is diagnosable from its logs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release smoke testing: `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`.
**Problem or motivation**
Run 31426044332 (first forced nightly after #11006) failed in
`smoke_nightly` with `server did not become ready at
http://localhost:3232/api/health` after exactly 90 seconds. The
harness's readiness window is hard-coded to 90 attempts at 1 second.
Locally that works because the npm cache is warm; in CI the container
downloads the full package set and embedded postgres first. The timeout
path also printed no container logs when the container was still
running, so there was no way to see how far boot had progressed.
**Proposed solution**
Make the readiness budget an environment variable
(`SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS`, default unchanged at 90 for local use),
set it to 420 in the CI workflow, and dump the last 150 container log
lines when the readiness check times out on a still-running container.
## What Changed
- `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`: `SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS` env
var (default 90) replaces the hard-coded readiness budget; timeout with
a still-running container now prints the tail of `docker logs`
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: sets
`SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS=420` for CI runs
## Verification
- `bash -n` on the harness and YAML parse of the workflow
- The real proof is the next `channel: nightly` dispatch of
`release.yml`, which re-runs this suite in CI with the new budget
## Risks
- Low. The local default is unchanged; CI runs simply wait longer before
declaring failure, and a genuinely broken artifact still fails (with
logs now)
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use. Diagnosis from CI run logs; patch
model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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 subsystem publishes the `paperclipai` npm package set
and the Docker images on two lanes: canary on every master push, and
stable on manual promotion
> - There is no middle ground between those lanes. Users must track
every merge or wait weeks for a stable. Docker `:latest` also tracks
master, so Docker users have no stable image at all
> - A calm prerelease lane needs to exist, and it must never ship a
build that failed its checks
> - This pull request adds the nightly channel: a scheduled job that
selects the newest master commit with a green canary publish, runs the
full release smoke suite against that exact published canary, and only
then republishes it as the nightly. It also separates Docker tags by
lane, so `:latest` finally means stable
> - The benefit is that users can follow prereleases at a nightly
cadence with a smoke-tested guarantee, and Docker users get real
`:canary`, `:nightly`, and stable image tags
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `scripts/release-lib.sh`,
`.github/workflows/release.yml`, `.github/workflows/docker.yml`,
`.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`.
**Problem or motivation**
The project publishes only `canary` (every master push) and `latest`
(manual stable). Users who want prereleases without per-merge churn have
no option. Docker has a second problem: master builds overwrite
`:latest`, and CI-published stables never produced Docker images,
because tags pushed with `GITHUB_TOKEN` do not fire the `v*` tag trigger
in `docker.yml`. No stable-versioned image exists in ghcr today.
**Proposed solution**
Add a `nightly` channel. A scheduled job selects the newest
canary-tagged master commit, smoke-tests that exact published canary,
and republishes the same commit as `YYYY.MDD.P-nightly.N` under the
`nightly` dist-tag. Separate Docker tags by lane (`:canary` for master,
`:nightly` for nightly tags, `:latest` plus version tags for stable tags
only), and have the release jobs dispatch `docker.yml` at the new tag so
lane images actually build.
**Alternatives considered**
Moving the `nightly` dist-tag to the existing canary version without a
republish. Rejected: the version string would say `canary` while the
user is on nightly, which breaks at-a-glance lane identification in bug
reports and `--version` output.
## What Changed
- `scripts/release-lib.sh`: channel-parameterized
`next_prerelease_version` and `prerelease_tag_name` helpers (canary
helpers delegate to them), a `require_channel_tag_at_head` guard, and
the no-provenance retry for Sigstore transparency-log duplicates now
covers the `nightly` dist-tag as well as `canary`
- `scripts/release.sh`: new `nightly` channel. It requires HEAD to carry
a `canary/v*` tag, publishes the full public package set as
`YYYY.MDD.P-nightly.N` under dist-tag `nightly`, and tags the source
commit `nightly/vYYYY.MDD.P-nightly.N`
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`: scheduled nightly chain (09:00 UTC) —
select candidate, smoke it via `release-smoke.yml`, publish on green
under the existing `npm-canary` environment, push the tag, dispatch
`docker.yml`. New `channel` dispatch input (default `stable`, so
existing stable dispatches are unchanged) with `nightly_source_version`
and `dry_run` support for forced runs. The stable path now also
dispatches `docker.yml` at the new `v*` tag
- `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: lane tag mapping for both image jobs —
master pushes publish `:canary` and no longer move `:latest`;
`nightly/v*` tags publish `:nightly`; only stable `v*` tags publish
`:latest` and the versioned tags. New `workflow_dispatch` trigger for
the release-job dispatches. Build-version stamping uses the exact
nightly version on nightly tag builds
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: `nightly` added to the dispatch
choice list
- `doc/CHANNELS.md` (new): user-facing guide to the channels
- `doc/RELEASING.md`: nightly lane documentation, Docker tag mapping
table, and a nightly failure playbook
- `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`: note that nightly reuses
`npm-canary` and needs no npm trusted-publisher changes
- Tests: channel-parameterized version helper coverage in
`scripts/release-registry-versions.test.mjs`, and nightly flow coverage
(publish identity, notes not required, canary-tag guard) in
`scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs`
## Verification
- `node --test` on the release script suites: 68 pass, including 6 new
tests. The only failure, `acpx-patch-packaging.test.mjs`, needs
installed `node_modules` and fails identically on a pristine checkout of
master in the same environment
- `bash -n` on both shell scripts and YAML parse of all three workflows
- Live fail-path check: `./scripts/release.sh nightly --print-version`
from a master tip with no canary tag fails with `HEAD has no canary/v*
tag`
- Live success-path check: the same command from the
`canary/v2026.806.0-canary.7` commit prints `2026.806.0-nightly.0`
- Live selection check: the candidate-selection shell logic run against
the real repository selects the commit of `canary/v2026.806.0-canary.7`,
which matches the current npm `canary` dist-tag exactly
- After merge: dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: nightly` and
`dry_run: true` to preview, then a real forced run to validate end to
end before the first scheduled run
## Risks
- Docker `:latest` changes meaning from "latest master build" to "latest
stable release". This is deliberate and will be announced. Users who
want the old behavior pull `:canary`. Until the first stable release
after this change, `:latest` stays at its current (master-built) image
- The nightly is a rebuild of the same source commit, not the
byte-identical canary artifact that was smoked. The lockfile pins
dependencies, and the publish path's registry-visibility and
clean-prefix install gates still run on the nightly artifacts
- All npm publishing must stay inside `release.yml` because npm trusted
publishing pins that workflow file per package. The nightly jobs were
added to `release.yml` for exactly that reason; this constraint is now
documented in `RELEASING.md`
- The stable-lane Docker dispatch fails gracefully (a warning with
manual instructions) when the source ref predates `docker.yml`'s
`workflow_dispatch` trigger
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with
extended thinking and full tool use (repository exploration, local test
execution, live registry and git verification). All code, tests, and
docs in this PR were model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (pending — will confirm before
merge)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending — will confirm before merge)
- [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.
> - Apps give agents governed access to external tools.
> - The Apps gallery lists Notion, but the server required manually
configured OAuth credentials.
> - Notion's hosted MCP server supports OAuth discovery and dynamic
client registration.
> - Notion also requires HTTPS or a loopback HTTP redirect URI.
> - This pull request adds a direct Notion MCP OAuth path with PKCE and
reusable dynamic clients.
> - It also adds the current Apps UI states for connect and
reauthorization.
> - The benefit is a secure Notion connection with no manual client
credential setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The Apps gallery, Apps connect route, OAuth token lifecycle, and managed
MCP gateway.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/`, `packages/shared/`, `scripts/`, and `ui/`.
**Current behavior**
The Notion gallery cards are disabled. The server uses the classic
Notion OAuth endpoints and requires operator-supplied client
credentials. It does not register an OAuth client from provider
metadata. Concurrent refreshes can also replay a rotating refresh token.
**Proposed behavior**
Enable the Notion Apps flow. Discover OAuth metadata from
`https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. Register and reuse a public RFC 7591
client with PKCE. Require HTTPS or loopback HTTP callbacks. Serialize
refreshes, store each rotated refresh token before the new access token
can be used, and show a reconnect state for `invalid_grant`.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can connect the built-in Notion MCP app without creating or
copying OAuth credentials. Paperclip keeps dynamic clients and rotating
tokens in the company secret store.
**Breaking changes**
None. Explicit environment client credentials still take priority.
Existing Slack and Linear OAuth endpoint hints remain unchanged. Other
OAuth apps remain disabled unless they are allowlisted.
**Additional context**
PR #10910 is a related, broader Connections v3 wizard replacement. This
PR is the focused current Apps flow. The MCP Tool Gateway and Connected
Apps items in `ROADMAP.md` cover this planned capability.
## What Changed
- Classify all 20 reviewed Notion MCP tools with provider-scoped read
and write defaults.
- Require approval for selected Notion mutations, including move,
duplicate, and convert actions that generic verb matching missed.
- Preserve company-scoped connection and catalog resolution for Notion
profiles and policies.
- Add RFC 7591 dynamic client registration with
`token_endpoint_auth_method=none` and mandatory PKCE.
- Store the dynamic client ID on the connection and store any returned
client secret in the company secret store.
- Reuse the registered client for later connects and keep explicit
environment credentials as the first choice.
- Discover protected-resource and authorization-server metadata from the
Notion MCP endpoint.
- Add `redirectConstraints: "https-or-loopback-http"` to the generated
Notion app definition and shared contract.
- Reject non-loopback plain HTTP callbacks before network access with a
TLS setup error.
- Serialize client registration and token refresh operations within the
server process.
- Store a rotated refresh token before publishing the refreshed access
token.
- Treat `invalid_grant` as terminal and move the connection to a clear
reauthorization state.
- Add focused coverage for registration reuse, callback constraints,
refresh rotation, and terminal grants.
- Enable the Notion Apps route and add connect, redirect, success,
error, and reconnect UI states.
- Keep non-allowlisted OAuth apps blocked and cover the UI policy with
regression tests.
## Verification
- The focused Notion policy integration test passed with embedded
PostgreSQL.
- The focused 20-tool classification test passed.
- The server typecheck passed on the governance head.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the rebased head.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the
security follow-up.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
-t \u0027DCR|refresh tokens|invalid_grant|abandoned lease\u0027` passed
10 focused security tests.
- `pnpm build` passed on the rebased head.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
-t 'OAuth|oauth'` passed 14 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts`
passed 5 tests.
- The complete server group passed 3,686 tests with 4 skipped.
- The complete UI group passed 3,656 tests.
- The full local runner found one environment-only CLI failure because
this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials into a test that
expects `AWS_PROFILE` only. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u
AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests.
- The prior UI verification passed 55 focused tests, `pnpm
check:token-gates`, the Storybook build, and review of six 1440 x 1000
screenshots.
- OAuth request sequence: protected-resource metadata `GET
https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp`;
authorization metadata `GET
https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`; dynamic
registration `POST https://mcp.notion.com/register`; authorization `GET
https://mcp.notion.com/authorize`; token exchange and refresh `POST
https://mcp.notion.com/token`; MCP traffic `POST
https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`.
- The live metadata and registration probe confirmed that Notion accepts
HTTPS and loopback HTTP redirects. It rejects a plain HTTP private
hostname.
- A later QA task owns the full browser consent and managed gateway
tool-list dry run against a configured HTTPS deployment.
## Risks
- Notion can add tools. Unrecognized names use the generic classifier,
and new or changed risky tools stay quarantined after connection
activation.
- A deployment that uses a private non-loopback hostname must configure
HTTPS before it can connect Notion.
- Dynamic registration creates a provider-side client. Paperclip reuses
it because registration does not provide a standard delete operation.
- Refresh coordination uses a database CAS lease across service
instances. An unclean crash leaves an uncertain lease and requires
reconnect instead of risking refresh-token replay.
- The current Apps surface overlaps with PR #10910. Merge order can
require a small conflict resolution if that PR lands first.
> 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 on a GPT-5 runtime. The exact deployment ID and context
window are not exposed. The runtime used reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and network 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>
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 PR workflow runs the server vitest suite across sharded runners
because the suite is pinned to one worker.
> - In successful PR run 30930345729 (2026-08-04), shard `server (3/4)`
took 311 seconds of wall time and was the slowest check in the run.
> - The suite has grown to about 946 seconds of serial vitest time, but
the duration manifest was last sampled on 2026-08-01 at about 882
seconds.
> - This pull request refreshes the per-suite duration manifest from
that run's logs and splits the lane into five shards.
> - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path: each shard carries about
196 seconds of suite time, level with the other lanes.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10663 (previous split of this lane into four shards).
Related: #10923 splits the separate serialized-suites lane into five
shards. Both PRs touch `.github/workflows/pr.yml` in different matrix
blocks; whichever merges second needs a trivial rebase.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `general-server` vitest lane runs in four shards with a duration
manifest sampled on 2026-08-01.
**Current behavior**
In PR run 30930345729, shard 3/4 ran for 311 seconds (273 seconds in the
test step) and was the longest check in the run. The suite now totals
about 946 seconds of serial vitest time.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the same suite set in five shards, balanced with a per-suite
duration manifest refreshed from that run's shard logs (279 suites
measured by diffing consecutive completion timestamps).
**Reason and benefit**
The refreshed LPT partition balances at about 196 seconds of suite time
per shard (about 240 seconds per job), level with the other PR lanes. No
test coverage is lost.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change only alters the CI partition size and the duration
manifest.
## What Changed
- Bump the `general-server` shard matrix in `.github/workflows/pr.yml`
from four to five shards.
- Refresh `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from the
2026-08-04 run's shard logs.
- Update `SHARD_COUNT` in
`scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` to five.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9
pass, including the complete non-overlapping partition proof and the
duration-balance check.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2
pass.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 7/7 pass.
- A 5-way dry-run partition covers all suites exactly once with equal
projected weights.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only alters CI partition size and duration
weights; the suite set is unchanged.
- One more runner is used per PR run for this lane.
- Stale duration weights degrade gracefully: suites missing from the
manifest get the median weight.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, model ID `claude-fable-5`,
extended thinking with tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(workflow comments explain the new shard math)
- [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 <claude@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses CI to keep control-plane changes safe and mergeable.
> - The PR workflow splits serialized server tests across isolated
runners.
> - A recent successful run spent 305 seconds in serialized shard 2/4.
> - That job was the slowest check in the run.
> - The four shards reported about 739 seconds of Vitest suite time.
> - This pull request adds a fifth serialized shard and keeps release
verification aligned.
> - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path with no loss of test
coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The PR and release verification workflows run serialized server tests in
four shards.
**Current behavior**
Successful PR run 30876682788 spent 305 seconds in `Verify serialized
server suites (2/4)`. The test step used 256 seconds and made this job
the slowest check.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the same serialized suite set in five complete and non-overlapping
shards.
**Reason and benefit**
The measured suites reported about 739 seconds of total Vitest time.
Five runners reduce the expected average suite time from about 185
seconds to about 148 seconds before setup overhead.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change only alters CI partition size.
## What Changed
- Split serialized server tests into five shards in the PR workflow.
- Apply the same five-shard layout to release verification.
- Add a partition test that proves complete and non-overlapping
serialized coverage.
- Update release workflow coverage tests for five shards.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Low risk. CI uses one additional runner for the serialized lane.
- Round-robin partition weights can still vary as suite timings change.
> This change does not overlap with planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`.
Related PR #10663 optimized the separate general-server lane.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, agentic coding with 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 either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The `openclaw-gateway` adapter wakes a remote agent over a WebSocket
gateway. It sends a wake prompt. That prompt tells the agent which
environment variables to set and which file holds its Paperclip API key.
> - Each agent stores its claimed key in its own JSON file. The adapter
already exposes a `claimedApiKeyPath` config field for this. The field
is documented in `src/index.ts`. It also has an input in the agent
settings UI.
> - `buildWakeText` ignored that field. It hardcoded the shared default
path into the wake prompt text.
> - Every agent therefore read the same key file at wake time. Agents
authenticated as the wrong identity. The first API call failed.
> - This pull request passes `ctx.config.claimedApiKeyPath` into
`buildWakeText`. It uses the existing `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` helper.
That helper falls back to the documented default.
> - The benefit is that each agent reads its own claimed-key file. Each
agent authenticates as itself.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10071Fixes#4976Fixes#3098Fixes#8076
These four open issues report the same defect. Earlier duplicates are
already closed: Refs #2561, Refs #2592, Refs #930.
Related pull requests that address the same root problem (duplicate
search):
- #3396 — same core change, no tests
- #3370 — heavier approach, injects `PAPERCLIP_CLAIMED_API_KEY_PATH`
into the wake env and adds server onboarding defaults
- #5970 — renames the config field to `paperclipApiKeyPath`
- #8072 — same core change, bundled with an unrelated protocol-version
change
- #784 — adds shell quoting and preflight instructions
- #3296 — bundled with an unrelated Claude hello-probe fix
## What Changed
- `packages/adapters/openclaw-gateway/src/server/execute.ts`
- `buildWakeText` now accepts `claimedApiKeyPath` as a parameter. It no
longer hardcodes the path.
- The `execute` call site passes
`resolveClaimedApiKeyPath(ctx.config.claimedApiKeyPath)`. That helper
returns the documented default
`~/.openclaw/workspace/paperclip-claimed-api-key.json` when the agent
sets no override.
- `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` is now exported so tests can call it.
- `packages/adapters/openclaw-gateway/src/server/execute.test.ts` — adds
`resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` cases: a configured value, an empty string, a
whitespace-only string, `undefined`, `null`, and non-string input.
- `packages/adapters/openclaw-gateway/vitest.config.ts` (new) —
package-level vitest config. It matches the config used by sibling
adapters such as `opencode-local`.
- `vitest.config.ts` (root) — adds the adapter to the workspace project
list.
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` — adds
`@paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway` to `nonServerProjects`.
**Maintainer-added during rebase.** The CI test lanes do not run a bare
`vitest`. They call `run-vitest-stable.mjs`, which invokes vitest with
an explicit `--project` allowlist. Without this entry the CI lanes skip
this package, and the root project-list entry alone has no effect on CI.
## Verification
Run the package suite directly:
```
pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway
```
The suite covers `resolveSessionKey`, `buildAgentParams`, and the new
`resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` cases. The first two already existed in this
file but never executed in CI before this change.
Typecheck the package:
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway typecheck
```
Behavioural check, which no automated test covers:
1. Set `claimedApiKeyPath` to a per-agent value such as
`~/.openclaw/workspace/paperclip-keys/<agent>.json` in the agent's
gateway adapter settings.
2. Trigger a wake for that agent.
3. Confirm the rendered wake text names that file. It must not name the
shared default.
Maintainer note: this branch was rebased onto current `master` by a
maintainer. The original branch was two months stale. Only two conflicts
occurred, both additive: the import line and the tail of
`execute.test.ts`, and the project list in the root `vitest.config.ts`.
The `execute.ts` change applied without conflict. CI and Greptile re-run
against the rebased head.
## Risks
- Low for existing deployments. `resolveClaimedApiKeyPath` preserves the
default path exactly. Any agent that never set `claimedApiKeyPath`
receives the same wake text as before.
- The behaviour changes only for agents that already set a per-agent
path. Those agents previously received the wrong instruction. They now
receive the correct one.
- No database, schema, or API surface changes.
- CI now runs this package's test file for the first time. That file
includes the pre-existing `resolveSessionKey` and `buildAgentParams`
tests, which were never executed before.
- Five other adapters (`cursor-cloud`, `cursor-local`, `gemini-local`,
`grok-local`, `pi-local`) sit in the root project list but remain absent
from the CI allowlist. This pull request does not change them. That gap
is tracked separately.
## Model Used
- Contributor's change: Anthropic Claude, model ID `claude-opus-4-7`,
approximately 200K context, extended thinking. Used for triage, patch
authoring, and the original description.
- Rebase, the `run-vitest-stable.mjs` entry, and this description:
Anthropic Claude, model ID `claude-opus-5`, tool use enabled. Run by a
Paperclip maintainer.
## 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
— the branch name carries an internal ticket id. A fork branch cannot be
renamed without opening a new pull request, so this is left as-is. The
internal reference has been removed from the description.
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — the contributor verified
the pre-rebase branch. The rebased head is verified by CI on this pull
request.
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes —
`claimedApiKeyPath` is already documented in `src/index.ts` and exposed
in the agent settings UI, so no documentation change is needed
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green — pending the post-rebase run
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups —
pending re-review of the rebased head
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Pieter (CTO) <pieter@openclaw.local>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The claude_local adapter runs Claude Code on sandbox execution
targets, and operators verify an agent's configuration with the
test-environment probe before running it
> - Real runs merge the selected environment's env vars (secret refs
included) under the agent's adapter config env, but the probe built its
config from the adapter config alone — so environment-level auth worked
in runs while the Test button reported missing auth, and a dropped
secret binding passed silently
> - The claude env-test hints also did not recognize
`CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` even though the CLI accepts it, and a hello
probe that hit the subscription usage limit reported a hard failure
although authentication worked
> - Separately, the claude-local package test suites were absent from
the CI project list, so two suites drifted broken without notice
> - This pull request makes the probe resolve the same layered env as a
real run, adds the missing auth hint, classifies usage-limit probe
results as a warning, repairs the drifted suites, and turns the
claude-local project on in CI
> - The benefit is a Test button that tells the truth about
environment-level configuration, and a test suite that actually gates
the claude-local adapter
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists; related open PRs: Refs #9488 (recognizes
CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN in environment checks — overlaps with the
auth-hint portion of this PR via a differently named check; it does not
cover the environment-envVars probe merge, the usage-limit
classification, or the CI coverage), Refs #9933 (live credential
validation in environment checks — complementary, no file-level conflict
with the route change).
The underlying problem, following the enhancement template:
**Current behavior**
The test-environment route builds the probe config from the agent's
adapterConfig only. Real runs merge the selected environment's envVars
under the agent env, so environment-level env vars (including auth such
as `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` or `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` bound as environment
secrets) work in runs while "Test environment" cannot see them, and a
missing secret binding passes silently. The claude env-test hints do not
recognize `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN`. A hello probe that hits the
subscription usage limit reports a hard `claude_hello_probe_failed`. The
claude-local package test suites do not run in CI, and two of them are
stale.
**Proposed behavior**
The probe resolves the selected environment's envVars
(environment-consumer secret bindings included) and merges them under
the agent config env with the run-path precedence; missing bindings
surface as an explicit error check that fails the test. The env-test
emits a `claude_oauth_token_configured` info check when that variable is
set. Usage-limit probe results classify as a
`claude_hello_probe_usage_limited` warning because auth works and only
the usage window is spent. The claude-local suites run in CI. Docs state
the resulting facts.
**Reason and benefit**
The Test button should tell the truth: it previously contradicted run
behavior for environment-level configuration and hid broken secret
bindings. Enabling the package suites in CI prevents further silent
drift — two suites were already broken on master without anyone
noticing.
**Breaking changes**
None. Runs are unchanged. The probe route only adds env layers and
checks; setups without environment envVars behave exactly as before.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/agents.ts`: the test-environment route resolves the
selected environment's envVars (forbidden keys stripped,
environment-consumer secret context) and merges them under the agent
adapterConfig env, mirroring `resolveExecutionRunAdapterConfig`
precedence. Missing secret bindings are skipped, reported as an
`environment_env_binding_missing` error check, and fail the test —
matching the `ConfigurationIncompleteFailure` a real dispatch would
raise.
- `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.ts`: new
`claude_oauth_token_configured` info hint between the API-key warning
and the subscription fallback; hello-probe classification gains a
`claude_hello_probe_usage_limited` warning for provider-quota results
(previously a hard `claude_hello_probe_failed`).
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: add
`@paperclipai/adapter-claude-local` to `nonServerProjects` so CI runs
the package suites.
- `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts`:
assert both runtime asset syncs (skills and mcp-config); the suite
predated the mcp-config asset.
- `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.probe.test.ts`:
usage-limit fixture now expects the usage-limited warning; new fixture
covers the genuine transient path (529 overloaded); new tests cover the
token hint and API-key precedence.
- `server/src/__tests__/agent-test-environment-routes.test.ts`: new
tests for the env merge (agent wins on conflict, forbidden key
filtered), missing-binding reporting, and the no-execution-target
fallback path.
- `docs/adapters/claude-local.md`, `docs/adapters/overview.md`: state
the auth-input facts (API key or oauth token wins over stored logins;
snapshot-owns-auth applies when neither is configured) and describe the
environment-aware Test behavior.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local` — 131
tests pass (both drifted suites repaired; they fail on master today).
- `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-test-environment-routes.test.ts` — 7 tests
pass.
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` —
passes with the added project.
- `pnpm typecheck` in `server/` and `packages/adapters/claude-local/` —
clean.
## Risks
- Low risk. The run path is untouched; the probe route change is
additive and inert when the environment has no envVars.
- The probe now performs environment-consumer secret resolution at test
time; access is authorized per binding exactly as at run time, and the
audit consumer is the environment (as before for adapter-config
resolution).
- Enabling the claude-local project in CI adds about 2 seconds of vitest
wall time to the general workspaces group and could surface future
regressions in that package — which is the point.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking enabled, agentic
tool use via Claude Code (CLI).
## 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 board UI is a React SPA served by the paperclip server; the
standard local dev flow is `pnpm dev`, which runs vite in dev mode with
HMR and an unbundled module graph
> - The unbundled dev bundle is hundreds of MB of JS across many
requests, which is fine on a local machine but unusable from a phone or
tablet on slow/lossy links (airplane wifi, mobile data, distant tailnet
peers)
> - Contributors who want to iterate on the board from a mobile device
today have no supported way to preview a small production-shaped bundle
without stopping the dev server and running a one-off `vite preview`
with manual proxy plumbing
> - This pull request adds `pnpm dev:mobile` — build the UI and serve
`ui/dist` via `vite preview` on port 3101, with `/api` proxied to the
running dev server on 3100 — plus `pnpm dev:both` to run both flavors
together
> - The benefit is a supported second flavor of the dev server for
phones/tablets that runs alongside the normal one, without touching the
primary `pnpm dev` flow
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
ui/ — React + Vite board UI
**Problem or motivation**
The vite dev server serves an unbundled module graph, which is fine on
localhost but unusable from a phone or tablet on a slow link.
Contributors testing responsive behavior on mobile devices have no
supported way to serve a small production-shaped SPA against the running
dev API. Running `vite preview` directly does not work either — the
server's board mutation guard checks that the browser's Origin matches
the request Host, and a preview on a second port would fail every
mutation.
**Proposed solution**
Add two root scripts:
- `pnpm dev:mobile` — build `ui/dist` and serve it via `vite preview` on
port 3101, with `/api` proxied to the API server on 3100.
- `pnpm dev:both` — run `pnpm dev` and `pnpm dev:mobile` together in a
single terminal with prefixed output and shared signal handling.
The vite preview config binds `0.0.0.0`, sets `allowedHosts: true` so it
accepts arbitrary hostnames (LAN, tailnet, ngrok, etc.), and the shared
`/api` proxy forwards the client's original Host header as
`x-forwarded-host`. The paperclip server's mutation guard already
prefers `x-forwarded-host` over `host` when computing trusted origins,
so the browser's Origin becomes trusted automatically.
**Alternatives considered**
- Bespoke node proxy script — works but duplicates what vite preview
already does.
- Loosen the mutation guard to accept arbitrary origins — reduces
security for the primary server for the sake of a dev-only workflow.
- Second server config that binds a second port from the paperclip
server itself — much larger change and mixes runtime concerns with a
dev-tooling convenience.
## What Changed
- New `pnpm dev:mobile` script — build UI then run `vite preview` on
port 3101.
- New `pnpm dev:both` script — run `pnpm dev` and `pnpm dev:mobile`
together via `scripts/dev-both.mjs`, which prefixes each child's output,
propagates SIGINT/SIGTERM, and exits when either child exits.
- `ui/vite.config.ts` — add a `preview` block (port 3101, host
`0.0.0.0`, `allowedHosts: true`, shared `/api` proxy).
- New `ui/src/lib/vite-api-proxy.ts` — extracts the `/api` proxy factory
shared by dev and preview, and forwards the client Host as
`x-forwarded-host` (plus `x-forwarded-proto`).
- New unit test `ui/src/lib/vite-api-proxy.test.ts` covering the
header-injection behavior and the pass-through when no Host is present.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/vite-api-proxy.test.ts` — 3 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — clean.
- Manual: ran `vite preview` against an echo listener and confirmed the
request arrives with `x-forwarded-host` set to the client Host header
and `x-forwarded-proto: http`. Then ran `pnpm dev:mobile` against the
live dev server and verified board mutations (mark issue read, resolve
recovery action, run routine) succeed from a second-port browser session
that previously 403'd.
## Risks
Low risk. Changes are limited to dev tooling — no runtime code paths, no
server changes, no schema/migrations. The `apiProxy` refactor is a no-op
behaviorally for the existing dev server (same target, same `ws: true`);
the only new behavior is the two `x-forwarded-*` headers, and the server
side already prefers those headers when trusting origins. `dev:mobile`
and `dev:both` are additive; existing `pnpm dev` is untouched.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context), extended thinking, tool use (bash, file
edits).
## 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.
> - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout.
> - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent
needed to run the app.
> - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never
start a service.
> - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat,
operator, and startup recovery flows.
> - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps
worktree creation lean.
> - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same
reliable runtime setup when a service starts.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred
database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end
runtime provisioning and safe cleanup.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and
isolated instance cleanup.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared
workspace contracts, and development scripts.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree
creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after
workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service
starts.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an
idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service
spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes
the isolated instance safely.
**Reason and benefit**
Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running
Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace
startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the
app.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace
behavior is unchanged when it is absent.
## What Changed
- Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an
idempotent runtime provision script.
- Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace,
and persisted workspace contracts.
- Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for
heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows.
- Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the
`workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase.
- Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made
failed attempts visible and retryable.
- Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown.
- Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound
teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata.
- Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior,
readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup.
- Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase
exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent
runtime injects static AWS credentials)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when
non-secret provider config is present'`
- Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after
stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging,
persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion.
- Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization,
stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and
rewritten sibling pointers.
## Risks
- A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip
records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start.
- Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt,
while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes.
A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is
running before removing it.
- Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service
validates ownership and path containment before removal.
> 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-5.6-sol`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and
code execution. The service does not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request CI must give contributors fast and stable feedback.
> - The `general-server` Vitest lane runs many single-worker server
suites.
> - A recent completed PR run showed this lane as the slowest completed
check.
> - Three shards still left one runner with the largest share of work.
> - This pull request splits that lane into four duration-balanced
shards.
> - The benefit is a shorter critical path for the same server test
coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI maintenance change.
**Pre-submission checklist**
- I confirmed this improves existing behavior. It does not add a new
command, endpoint, or concept.
- I searched open public issues and pull requests for related CI
sharding work.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The pull request workflow's `general-server` Vitest lane.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This affects GitHub Actions CI and the Vitest shard
duration manifest.
**Current behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses three shards. The server suites now total
about 880 seconds of serial Vitest wall time. The slowest shard was
about 313 seconds in the measured run.
**Proposed behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses four shards. Each shard receives about
220 seconds of predicted suite weight from the refreshed duration
manifest.
**Reason and benefit**
The slowest PR check controls how soon a reviewer can trust the PR. Four
balanced shards reduce the slowest `general-server` shard while keeping
the same suite selection rules.
**Breaking changes**
None. This only changes CI partitioning and duration data for existing
test suites.
**Additional context**
Related public searches found no exact open issue or pull request for
this `general-server` sharding change.
## What Changed
- Split the `general-server` CI matrix from three shards to four shards.
- Refreshed `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` with wall-time
weights from a recent completed PR run.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Dry-ran the four `general-server` shards locally during
implementation. The partition covers 300 unique suites with about 220.56
seconds of predicted weight per shard.
- Ran a local sensitive-data scan before push. It found only test
filenames that contain words such as `secret` or `token`, not credential
values.
## Risks
Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest becomes stale as
suite costs move. Missing suites fall back to the median weight, so the
lane still runs if the manifest is incomplete.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and local command execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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.
> - Paperclip creates isolated instances for server-managed git
worktrees.
> - The worktree teardown path removes the git worktree but leaves its
isolated instance directory behind.
> - The leaked directory can retain an embedded PostgreSQL process and
database files.
> - Teardown must remove only the collision-resistant instance assigned
to that exact worktree path.
> - This pull request stops the verified embedded PostgreSQL process and
removes the guarded instance directory.
> - The benefit is complete worktree cleanup without risk to another,
default, or live Paperclip instance.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Closing a server-managed git worktree removed the git worktree and
branch, but it left the isolated Paperclip instance directory behind. A
live embedded PostgreSQL process could also keep running against that
directory.
**Expected behavior**
Worktree teardown must stop the isolated embedded PostgreSQL process and
remove only the instance assigned to that exact worktree. It must refuse
mismatched instance IDs and all paths outside
`PAPERCLIP_WORKTREES_DIR/instances/`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a server-managed git worktree with a repo-local
`.paperclip/.env` file.
2. Start its isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance.
3. Close the execution workspace.
4. Observe that the git worktree is removed but the isolated instance
directory remains.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The bug reproduces on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with a server-managed git worktree and embedded
PostgreSQL.
## What Changed
- Give server-managed worktrees collision-resistant instance IDs derived
from their resolved absolute paths.
- Capture the repo-local instance pointer before custom teardown
commands can remove it.
- Require the pointer's instance ID to match the exact worktree-derived
ID.
- Resolve and validate the instance path against the canonical managed
worktree instance root.
- Verify and stop the matching embedded PostgreSQL process before
directory removal, including process-exit races.
- Record successful and refused cleanup operations in the workspace
operation log.
- Add focused ownership, process-race, path-safety, and runtime
integration tests.
- Document automatic isolated-instance cleanup for server-managed
worktrees.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-instance-cleanup.test.ts` — 9 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "records teardown and cleanup
operations when a recorder is provided"` — 1 test passed and 99 tests
skipped.
- `node scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs` — 4
tests passed.
- `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree.sh` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
## Risks
The main risk is removal of the wrong instance directory. Provisioning
assigns a path-derived ID with a SHA-256 suffix, and cleanup requires
that exact ID in addition to a safe instance identifier, an absolute
configured home, a strict child path, canonical path checks, and a
second canonical path check immediately before removal. It refuses
legacy or mismatched IDs, symlink escapes, and all paths outside the
managed worktree instance root. Cleanup failures become visible warnings
and do not delete an unverified path.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact model
snapshot or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository
tools, GitHub tools, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request CI to test changes before merge.
> - The e2e PR lane runs Playwright specs in a shard matrix.
> - Each shard builds a list of spec files for its matrix entry.
> - The workflow passed that list after a literal `--` separator.
> - Playwright did not receive the list as file filters.
> - This pull request removes the separator and adds a guard test.
> - The benefit is that each e2e shard runs only its assigned specs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10629.
**What happened?**
The e2e shard step used `pnpm run test:e2e -- $specs`. The shard spec
list was not applied as Playwright file filters.
**Expected behavior**
Each e2e shard should pass only its selected specs to Playwright.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Inspect `.github/workflows/pr.yml` at the merge commit for #10629.
2. Find the `e2e_shards` command that invokes `pnpm run test:e2e`.
3. See the literal `--` before `$specs`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`86767951`
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions PR CI.
## What Changed
- Removed the literal `--` from the e2e shard `pnpm run test:e2e $specs`
invocation.
- Added a regression test that checks the workflow passes `$specs`
without that separator.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
## Risks
Low risk. This changes one CI command and one workflow guard test. The
main risk is shell argument handling in the workflow, and the guard now
covers the expected command shape.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 through Codex. The run used shell and GitHub CLI tool
access. The runtime did not expose a context window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pull request workflow protects changes with a Playwright e2e
lane.
> - That lane already uses a weighted file partition so slow specs do
not cluster by test count.
> - Recent green PR runs showed the two e2e shard jobs were slower than
the next slow required lane.
> - The largest spec is indivisible, so a third shard lets that spec run
alone and lets the rest split by duration.
> - This pull request changes only the PR e2e shard matrix and the guard
test.
> - The benefit is a shorter expected PR critical path while the
required `e2e` aggregate check name stays stable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9923
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `pull_request` workflow Playwright e2e lane.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: GitHub Actions CI and test scripts.
**Current behavior**
The PR workflow runs the weighted Playwright e2e partition across two
jobs. Recent green runs showed those jobs as the slowest required
checks.
**Proposed behavior**
The PR workflow runs the same e2e spec set across three weighted jobs.
The aggregate required check stays named `e2e`.
**Reason and benefit**
The third shard lets the slow smoke-lab spec run alone while the rest of
the catalog stays balanced. This should shorten the PR critical path.
The win is bounded by fixed per-job setup time.
**Breaking changes**
None. The required aggregate check contract is preserved.
## What Changed
- Change the PR e2e shard matrix from two entries to three entries.
- Update the shard guard test to expect three shards.
- Floor the balance bound at the largest single spec weight.
- Assert that the workflow does not define more shard indexes than
`SHARD_COUNT`.
## Verification
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` passes with 6
tests.
- The recorded-weight partition is complete and non-overlapping: 168.0s,
116.5s, and 114.4s.
- I checked `ROADMAP.md` and found no overlapping roadmap-level core
feature.
- I searched public GitHub PRs and issues for related e2e shard work. I
found related PR #9923 and no open duplicate for this branch or change.
## Risks
- This adds one extra GitHub Actions runner to the PR e2e lane.
- The wall-clock win is bounded by fixed per-job setup.
- Behavior risk is low because the aggregate required check remains
named `e2e`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-enabled coding agent in this repository. The
runtime did not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Cody <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators spend most of their time on the issue detail page. They
talk to the assigned agent there through comments.
> - The current page reads as a ticket form. The thread sits below
properties, the composer sits mid-page, and live agent activity renders
as dense transcript logs.
> - Talking to an agent is a conversation. A chat-first layout matches
that mental model better than a ticket form.
> - A layout change this large must not disrupt current users. It needs
a safe opt-in path and full parity with the existing thread features.
> - This pull request adds a chat-style task view behind a new
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle. The flag is off by default and the
existing page is unchanged when it is off.
> - The benefit is a focused, readable conversation with the agent: live
tool activity folds into compact summaries, the composer stays at the
bottom, and properties, plan, and artifacts move into header tabs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #49 (chat with agents is a much-wanted feature).
Related PRs found in the dedup search:
- #4489 — an earlier, closed attempt to promote the conversation to the
primary surface on issue detail. This PR is a fresh, flag-gated take on
the same goal.
- #8837 — an open PR that proposes a two-column task layout. It
restructures the same page but keeps the ticket paradigm; this PR is
orthogonal because it is opt-in and chat-first.
**Subsystem affected**
UI (issue detail page).
**Problem or motivation**
The issue detail page presents agent conversations as a ticket:
properties first, thread below, composer in the middle of the page, and
raw transcript noise during live runs. Users who mainly converse with
their agents must scroll past chrome to follow the conversation, and
live activity is hard to read.
**Proposed solution**
An opt-in chat-style view of the issue detail page, gated by a new
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle in Settings → Experimental. With
the flag on, the thread fills the center pane, the composer docks to the
bottom of the viewport, Properties / Plan / Artifacts become header
tabs, live turns show a status pill with the current tool action and
elapsed time, and settled turns collapse to a "Worked · N tools" summary
that expands into per-tool rows. With the flag off, nothing changes.
**Alternatives considered**
Restyling the existing layout in place (rejected: too disruptive without
an opt-out), and a separate chat page beside the issue page (rejected:
splits the task's single source of truth). A per-request lab page
(`/task-chat-lab`, dev-only) was kept for design iteration instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
ROADMAP.md "CEO Chat" wants lighter conversations that still resolve to
real work objects. This PR keeps the core task-and-comments model — it
only changes presentation, opt-in — so it does not duplicate that
planned work.
## What Changed
- New `enableTaskChatRedesign` instance setting, exposed as a
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment card in Settings → Experimental (shared
feature catalog, validators, server instance-settings service, and UI
settings page).
- New `ui/src/components/task-chat/` component family: chat thread with
turn grouping, agent reply bubbles, live status pill, collapsible turn
summaries with per-tool rows, plan tab with a sticky CTA action bar,
inline interaction cards, per-request mode chips, and a bottom-docked
composer.
- A shared tool taxonomy (`tool-taxonomy.ts`) maps tool names to verbs
and icons; the status pill, tool rows, and the classic transcript view
all use it.
- A transcript adapter converts stored run logs into chat turns; it
dedupes tool-call updates by `toolUseId` so tool counts match the
expanded rows, and it keeps a tool row's first real name when later
generic updates arrive.
- Composer: posts on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter, supports image paste with
object-URL thumbnail previews (revoked on clear/unmount), and uploads
through the issue attachments route.
- `IssueDetail.tsx`: with the flag on, pane tabs move to the header bar,
the header is not sticky, and the chat fills the center; with the flag
off, the previous layout renders unchanged.
- Motion tokens for the new animations live in `ui/src/index.css` with a
`motion-tokens.ts` catalog and a test that keeps the two in sync (the
catalog now also covers the shared enter/exit/swap tokens that the
decision/quicklook block declares).
- A dev-only `/task-chat-lab` page with fixtures and a tweak panel for
motion tuning.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean across the workspace.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN.
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` — 3,344 of 3,345 tests pass locally. The
one failure is `IssueProperties.test.tsx` monitor-row time formatting,
which is timezone-sensitive: it also fails on unmodified `origin/master`
in a non-UTC timezone and passes with `TZ=UTC`. It is not related to
this change.
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — 21/21 pass (covers
the new setting).
- Manual: start the dev server, open Settings → Experimental, enable
"Chat-Style Tasks", and open any issue. The thread fills the page, the
composer docks to the bottom, and Properties / Plan / Artifacts appear
as header tabs. Assign an agent and comment to watch a live run: the
status pill shows the current tool action with elapsed time, and the
finished turn folds into a "Worked · N tools" summary. Disable the
toggle and confirm the classic page is unchanged.
- Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated: per
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`, "Per-change snapshot verification
demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)".
## Risks
- The flag-off path goes through the same `IssueDetail.tsx` file, so a
regression there would affect current users. Mitigation: the classic
markup renders through the same components as before behind explicit
flag conditionals, and the full UI suite passes.
- The transcript adapter interprets stored run-log formats, including
legacy entries without `toolUseId`. Malformed logs degrade to generic
tool rows rather than crashing.
- The new view changes no server behavior other than one additive
instance setting; it is additive and default-off. Overall risk with the
flag off is low.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5),
extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file editing, shell, test
execution) via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server can preserve eligible agent runs during a controlled hot
restart.
> - A path change moved restart state from the Paperclip home root to
the instance root.
> - A staged update can therefore make the old server and the new server
read different intent files.
> - The old server then drains live runs, while the new server can start
without a shutdown snapshot.
> - This pull request adds a correlated compatibility handoff and
records the live preflight set.
> - It also verifies the target process instance on Linux, macOS, and
Windows.
> - The benefit is complete and safe run classification across the path
upgrade.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue covers this defect.
**What happened?**
A staged hot restart can run an older server that reads
`hot-restart-intent.json` from the Paperclip home root and a new server
that writes the file under the instance root. The old server misses the
request and uses graceful drain. The new server later finds its marker
without a shutdown snapshot. Before this change, that state could
produce an empty loss list even when live runs existed before restart.
**Expected behavior**
The old server must receive the PID-targeted restart request at its
legacy path. The new server must correlate the legacy shutdown snapshot
with its instance-scoped request. Every run that was live during
preflight must appear as adopted, finalized while down, or lost. A
reused PID must not let a stale marker claim a different process
instance.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a server version from before the instance-root marker change.
2. Keep one or more local-agent heartbeat runs active.
3. Stage a current build and request a hot restart from that build.
4. Observe that the old server reads only the home-root path while the
staged build writes only the instance-root path.
5. Observe graceful drain and a new-server intent that has no shutdown
snapshot.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The path transition entered `master` in #10045. The hot-restart adoption
flow came from #9647. This fix targets current `master` and
compatibility with the immediately preceding home-root behavior.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server built from source with controlled service hot
restarts.
Related work: #9628 is the original broader hot-restart feature PR.
#10556 addresses embedded PostgreSQL lifecycle behavior and does not
address marker-path compatibility.
## What Changed
- Write an authoritative instance-scoped intent and a correlated legacy
home-root handoff marker.
- Merge a legacy shutdown snapshot only when immutable request identity
fields match.
- Prevent a non-default instance from consuming an uncorrelated
legacy-only marker.
- Record preflight running heartbeat IDs and reconcile snapshot
omissions from current database state.
- Serialize marker claims, snapshot writes, stale recovery, and matching
cleanup with recoverable per-path filesystem leases.
- Read process start identity on Linux, macOS, and Windows to
distinguish a reused PID from the original server.
- Require identity for new restart requests and fail closed when a
supported platform cannot provide it.
- Classify older markers by comparing the replacement server boot time
or operating-system process start time with the request time.
- Close the preflight database client explicitly and use a root-safe SQL
query.
- Add focused unit, platform-branch, database-backed, and CI regression
coverage.
- Document the compatibility handoff, process identity probes, and
instance-scoped report path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/hot-restart.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t
"hot-restart|old-server legacy|preflight live|preflight run|spawn
identity before hot restart"` — 24 tests passed and 90 tests were
skipped across 2 files.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/hot-restart.test.ts` — 17
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-watchdogs-routes.test.ts -t "restarts a
stalled claimed run"` — 1 test passed and 10 tests were skipped.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts -t "allows an
agent with issue:delegate"` — 1 test passed and 7 tests were skipped.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- GitHub Actions — 26 of 26 checks passed at
`55a79cb029be8b1dc89926d9d89ccd2181266d5c`.
- Greptile — 5/5 at the same head with no unresolved current-head review
threads.
## Risks
- The legacy handoff path is shared across instances. Exclusive claims
and per-path leases prevent overwrite and match-before-delete races.
- Process identity uses platform commands as a fallback when the health
endpoint has no identity. Linux reads `/proc`, macOS and BSD use `ps`,
and Windows uses PowerShell.
- A supported-platform identity probe failure aborts the restart. This
fails closed instead of replacing an unknown live process.
- Older intent files do not contain process identity. The server
compares the replacement boot or process start time with the request
time when those values are available.
- A preflight database read can fail before the marker is written. The
command fails closed instead of claiming a restart whose live-run set is
unknown.
> 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 exact deployment model ID and
context-window size were not exposed by this runtime. Reasoning,
repository editing, shell execution, test execution, GitHub CLI, and
Paperclip API capabilities 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 and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Managed updates can change both the application payload and its
database schema
> - Unit tests cannot prove that an older live install upgrades through
a real migration and remains recoverable
> - The managed-install work in #10045 needs a repeatable cross-version
system test
> - This pull request adds an isolated end-to-end harness for update,
migration, backup, service restart, and rollback behavior
> - The benefit is a direct proof that managed upgrades preserve the
existing database and service lifecycle across versions
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10045
This test is a focused follow-up to the managed install integration.
Merge #10045 first so the tested install, update, service, backup, and
rollback commands are available.
## What Changed
- Added a cross-version managed-update E2E script.
- Installed an older Git ref, initialized its embedded PostgreSQL
database, and updated to a ref with one additional migration.
- Verified the pre-update backup, payload switch, service recovery,
migration result, database-cluster reuse, and rollback behavior.
- Isolated Paperclip state under a dedicated test home and cleaned up
the service and managed install on success or failure.
- Added regression tests for shell syntax, required-ref validation,
side-effect-free preflight failure, and complete failure cleanup.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-update-migrations.test.mjs`
- `bash -n scripts/e2e-update-migrations.sh`
- GitHub latest-head CI: build, typecheck, release registry, canary
dry-run, general tests, serialized suites, and both browser E2E shards
passed.
- Full harness execution needs an isolated macOS or Linux host with a
real launchd or systemd user service. It is intentionally not run on a
live Paperclip server host.
## Risks
- The script manages a real user service and downloads two Git refs. Run
it only on an isolated test host.
- The test needs #10045 because `origin/master` does not yet contain the
managed install lifecycle.
- The script uses a dedicated `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, refuses a pre-existing
shim or test home, and removes its service and install during cleanup.
> 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 more
specific deployment ID or context-window size. Reasoning, repository
access, shell execution, and GitHub tooling 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 control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Operators need a predictable installation path that survives beyond
an ephemeral `npx` process
> - A durable installation needs an owned per-user payload store, stable
command shim, safe shell integration, and supported service lifecycle
> - Updates must preserve recoverability by backing up data, installing
side-by-side, verifying the new payload, and retaining rollback state
> - Bootstrap scripts and privileged service operations must fail closed
across download, filesystem, ownership, and consent boundaries
> - This pull request integrates managed install, update, rollback,
service, uninstall, doctor, bootstrap-installer, and runtime-serving
support into one workflow
> - The benefit is a recoverable, inspectable, and documented
installation lifecycle with explicit safety boundaries across Linux,
macOS, containers, WSL, npm, npx, and source checkouts
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Problem
Paperclip lacks a first-class durable installation and lifecycle
workflow. Operators currently have to assemble npm/npx installation,
PATH setup, background-service management, updates, rollback,
diagnostics, and uninstall behavior themselves. That makes upgrades
harder to recover, creates inconsistent behavior across platforms, and
leaves shell/download/service trust boundaries without one documented
implementation.
### Proposed Solution
Add a managed per-user install store and stable shim, a verified shell
bootstrap installer, service lifecycle commands, install-mode-aware
update/rollback behavior, doctor checks, and documentation. Managed
updates back up the database, install and smoke-test a side-by-side
payload, atomically switch `current`, and retain prior payloads. The
shell installer pins registry/download trust boundaries and requires
explicit consent for non-interactive privileged actions.
### Alternatives Considered
- Keep recommending `npx`: simple for evaluation, but ephemeral and
unsuitable for stable services, atomic updates, or rollback.
- Require global npm installation only: familiar, but cannot provide the
owned side-by-side payload store and retained rollback semantics.
- Split the capability across multiple PRs: rejected because install,
update, service, uninstall, bootstrap, and serving behavior share
contracts and security boundaries that need review together.
### Related Pull Requests
- Supersedes #10042 and #10044 with one integrated final diff.
- Incorporates and replaces the closed preparatory work in #10032 and
#10034.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai install`, `update`/`upgrade`, rollback, uninstall,
service lifecycle, onboarding integration, and managed-install doctor
checks.
- Added a private managed payload store, verified manifest/marker
ownership, exclusive mutation locks, atomic manifest/current/shim
writes, retained previous payloads, and provenance validation.
- Added npm and GitHub-ref install sources with exact target resolution,
registry isolation, database backup, side-by-side verification, atomic
activation, service restart coordination, and failure rollback.
- Made managed-update backups report actionable service-start and
`--no-backup` recovery guidance for unreachable databases, while clean
never-onboarded instances skip an empty backup.
- Added systemd user and launchd service definitions, status/health/log
commands, single-instance coordination, stale-port recovery, and
explicit sudo/lingering consent handling.
- Added the `scripts/install.sh` bootstrap path with checked two-stage
downloads, pinned public npm registry usage, platform checks,
dry-run/non-interactive controls, and Docker fixtures.
- Added embedded Postgres/native bootstrap integration,
hot-restart/systemd-notify serving support, passive update notices,
configuration contracts, README/CLI/install documentation, and focused
regression tests.
- Security re-review should explicitly re-verify: (1)
`addManagedPathBlock`/`removeManagedPathBlock` reject symlinked or
non-regular rc files, assert current-user ownership, preserve
restrictive modes, and replace atomically; (2) managed shim replacement
rejects unsafe parents, foreign-owned or multiply linked files, and uses
checked atomic replacement; (3) the shell installer and sudo path
preserve explicit consent and checked downloads; and (4) installed
service/runtime serving remains bound to the validated managed shim and
instance configuration.
## Verification
- `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/clean-install-git.sh
scripts/clean-install-npm.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/install-store.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/install-command.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/managed-install-check.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/onboard-service.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/service-health-check.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/service-manager.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/update-notice.test.ts
packages/db/src/embedded-postgres-native.test.ts` — 9 files, 66 tests
passed
- `pnpm --dir cli typecheck`
- `pnpm --dir cli build`
- Follow-up verification: `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts` (14/14), `pnpm --dir cli
typecheck`, `pnpm --dir cli build`, and `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Full `pnpm test:run` exercised all suites; an injected static AWS
credential changed one unrelated doctor expectation, which passed when
those credentials were removed. A second run cleared that case and
exposed stale pre-existing adapter-utils `dist` output; rebuilding
`@paperclipai/adapter-utils` made the isolated test pass. The updated PR
CI is the authoritative clean-workspace full-suite run.
## Risks
- Installer/update code writes executable shims, symlinks, shell rc
blocks, service definitions, and managed payloads; ownership,
regular-file, symlink, hard-link, marker, and path-containment checks
fail closed before destructive changes.
- The bootstrap installer executes downloaded tooling; downloads are
staged and checked before execution, npm traffic is pinned to the public
registry, and non-interactive privileged behavior requires explicit
consent.
- Linux lingering may invoke `sudo`; the command is surfaced and
confirmed before execution, and unsupported service managers fall back
to foreground-run guidance.
- Database migrations remain forward-only; payload rollback does not
reverse migrations, so managed updates create a backup before activation
unless explicitly disabled.
- Service restart and runtime serving touch process/port ownership;
lifecycle locks, health/version checks, and stable-shim service
definitions reduce split-brain and stale-process risk.
> 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 agents using GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6-sol, with
reasoning, repository/API access, shell execution, and test tooling. The
runtime did not expose a reliable context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents run tasks in isolated execution workspaces that are
provisioned as git worktrees by `scripts/provision-worktree.sh`
> - The script runs the base workspace's CLI (`cli/src/index.ts` via the
base `tsx` install) to seed each new worktree, and it only checked that
those files exist
> - pnpm links each package's `node_modules` into a hash-versioned
virtual store; a lockfile change followed by a partial or filtered
install prunes old hashed dirs without relinking every package, leaving
dangling symlinks
> - A CLI with dangling symlinks fails ESM resolution
(`ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND`) at boot, so provisioning aborts with
`setup_failed` — deterministically, on every retry, with no self-heal
path
> - This pull request makes provisioning health-check the CLI by
actually booting it, repair the base install when the check fails, and
degrade to the no-CLI fallback config instead of failing the run
> - The benefit is that a class of permanent `setup_failed` loops
becomes self-healing, and workspace provisioning survives a broken base
CLI
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists; the underlying bug is described here per
`bug_report.yml`. Related PR: #10578 self-heals the sibling
workspace-validation failure loop uncovered by the same incident
diagnosis.
**What happened?**
Isolated-workspace runs failed at provision time with `setup_failed`.
Every retry failed identically. One observed incident burned 4 runs
across two adapters before the task was stranded.
**Expected behavior**
Provisioning either succeeds or degrades gracefully; a broken base CLI
install repairs itself instead of permanently blocking all new
worktrees.
**Steps to reproduce**
In the base workspace, cause a lockfile-affecting dependency bump plus a
partial/filtered `pnpm install` so a package symlink (e.g.
`cli/node_modules/drizzle-orm`) dangles into a pruned virtual-store dir.
Start any isolated-workspace run. Provision fails with
`ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND` and the run ends `setup_failed`; retries never
recover.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master as of the branch point of this PR.
**Deployment mode**
Local trusted deployment with git-worktree isolated workspaces.
## What Changed
- `base_cli_healthy` now boots the base CLI (`--help`) instead of only
testing file existence, which exercises the top-level import graph.
- New `repair_base_workspace_install`: when the health check fails, run
a non-interactive `pnpm install --prod=false --force --frozen-lockfile`
in the base workspace. `--force` guarantees relinking when pnpm's
up-to-date heuristics would skip dangling symlinks; `--frozen-lockfile`
keeps the repair from mutating the shared lockfile.
- The repair install is serialized with `flock` on a lock file inside
the resolved git dir (`git rev-parse --absolute-git-dir`), so locking
also covers base workspaces that are linked worktrees, where `.git` is a
file.
- If every CLI candidate is unusable (including a base CLI the repair
could not fix), provisioning falls back to the existing no-CLI fallback
config writer (loudly, on stderr) instead of failing the run. A CLI that
runs and fails `worktree init` still fails provisioning with its real
exit code — that deliberate fail-closed policy is unchanged and covered
by an existing server regression test.
- Fixed a latent bug: `run_isolated_worktree_init` returned 0
unconditionally after the init subshell, so callers treated a failed
init as success. Exit codes now propagate.
## Verification
- Reproduced the incident state (dangling `cli/node_modules/drizzle-orm`
symlink); the base CLI failed with the exact `ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND` seen
in the incident run logs.
- Ran the patched script against a fresh scratch worktree: health check
failed → locked repair install ran (~26 s warm) → symlink relinked →
`worktree init` completed → exit 0 with `.paperclip/config.json` and
`.env` written.
- Happy path (healthy base CLI): provisioning behavior unchanged, exit
0.
- Verified `git rev-parse --absolute-git-dir` resolves a real directory
for both a normal checkout and a linked worktree.
- New hermetic tests: `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs` (4 tests:
healthy CLI used, broken CLI degrades, locked repair end-to-end with a
fake pnpm, init failure propagates). Not yet wired into a CI workflow.
- `server`: the existing `realizeExecutionWorkspace` fail-closed
regression test ("fails instead of writing an unseeded fallback config
when worktree init errors after CLI detection succeeds") passes against
the new script.
- `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree.sh` is clean.
## Risks
- Low risk overall: the script only adds recovery paths; the happy path
is unchanged.
- The repair install runs in the shared base workspace. It is bounded by
`--frozen-lockfile` (no lockfile mutation) and serialized by `flock`,
but it can add ~30 s to the first provision after a base install breaks.
- If the repair cannot fix the CLI and no other CLI candidate exists,
runs now continue with an unseeded fallback config instead of failing;
that is intentional, and the fallback path already existed. Genuine
`worktree init` failures from a working CLI still fail the run.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended
thinking, agentic tool use (Claude Code harness).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Docker image persists all instance state (project checkouts,
worktrees, run logs, uploads) under `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, and deployments
mount a volume there for durability
> - The entrypoint starts as root and drops privileges to the `node`
user, but it fixes `PAPERCLIP_HOME` ownership only when it remaps the
user's UID/GID
> - A freshly mounted volume arrives root-owned and shadows the image's
build-time `chown`, so a default-UID boot drops privileges onto an
unwritable home and the server crashes on its first `mkdir`
> - This pull request makes the entrypoint probe the home's ownership
and chown whenever it does not match the runtime user, before the
privilege drop
> - The benefit is that the image works out of the box on any
platform-managed volume, with the common already-correct boot staying
chown-free
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists — describing the bug inline (per the bug report
template).
**What happened?**
Running the image with a freshly created volume mounted at `/paperclip`
(a Docker named volume, a Kubernetes PV, or any platform-managed volume)
and the default `USER_UID`/`USER_GID` crashes on boot: `Error: EACCES:
permission denied, mkdir '/paperclip/instances/default/logs'`.
**Expected behavior**
The container boots and initializes its instance tree on the mounted
volume, exactly as it does when `/paperclip` is the image's own
(build-time chowned) directory.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. `docker volume create paperclip-data`
2. `docker run -v paperclip-data:/paperclip
ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip:<any current tag>`
3. Observe the EACCES crash on the first `mkdir` under `/paperclip`.
**Root cause**
`scripts/docker-entrypoint.sh` chowns `/paperclip` only inside its
UID/GID remap branch (`changed=1`). A fresh volume mount is root-owned
and shadows the image's build-time `chown node:node /paperclip`; with
the default 1000:1000 no remap happens, so no chown happens, and `gosu
node` drops onto an unwritable home.
**Paperclip version or commit:** reproduces on `master` and any
published image.
**Deployment mode:** any; observed on managed-cloud volume mounts and
reproducible with plain Docker named volumes.
**Installation method:** Docker image (`ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip`).
**Related PRs (dedup search):** no open or merged PR touches the
entrypoint ownership logic; the entrypoint's privilege-handling tests
were added previously and this extends them. No duplicate found.
## What Changed
- `scripts/docker-entrypoint.sh`: the remap-conditional `chown` is
replaced by an ownership probe — after any UID/GID remap, the entrypoint
stats `PAPERCLIP_HOME` (default `/paperclip`) and runs `chown -R
node:node` only when the owner does not match the runtime user, before
`exec gosu node`. Covers fresh root-owned mounts and trees written under
a previous UID mapping; the already-correct boot performs no chown. The
unprivileged (non-root start) branch is unchanged.
- `server/src/__tests__/docker-entrypoint.test.ts`: `stat` stub added to
the harness; new cases for the fresh root-owned mount with default
UID/GID and for `PAPERCLIP_HOME`-relative probing; the remap case now
models the post-remap ownership mismatch.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/docker-entrypoint.test.ts` — 7
passed (5 existing behaviors unchanged, 2 new).
- Live on a managed deployment: a container that crash-looped with the
EACCES above boots cleanly once the home is chowned before the drop (the
same effect this entrypoint change produces; forced there by a UID remap
as an interim workaround).
## Risks
- Low. Behavior changes only for boots where `PAPERCLIP_HOME` exists
with mismatched ownership — exactly the boots that crash today. `chown
-R` on a large previously-mismatched tree adds one-time boot latency;
correctly-owned homes skip it entirely. Kubernetes restricted /
OpenShift non-root starts keep the existing exec-directly path
untouched.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic; Claude Code CLI with
extended thinking and tool use; tests executed locally via Vitest).
## 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 duplicates; extends the existing entrypoint privilege
tests)
- [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
> - Instances expose ~23 experimental feature settings, all declared in
one shared zod schema and toggled per instance
> - Deployment tooling and hosting control planes have no
machine-readable list of those feature keys for a given release — the
schema is only reachable from code that imports the package
> - Any external system that references feature keys therefore does so
as free text, and typos drift silently
> - This pull request derives a versioned `feature-catalog.json` build
artifact from the schema, with a compiler-checked metadata map so the
schema stays the single source of truth
> - The benefit is a stable contract external tooling can validate
feature-key references against, with zero runtime behavior change
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists; `feature_request` template fields:
**Problem or motivation:**
External deployment tooling cannot enumerate or validate an instance's
feature keys per release; free-text references fail silently when keys
are renamed or removed.
**Proposed solution:**
A metadata map keyed by the settings schema's own keys (compiler flags
drift) plus a build step emitting `feature-catalog.json` (keys, tiers,
defaults, `catalogVersion`) as a release artifact.
**Alternatives considered:**
A hand-maintained catalog file (drifts from the schema); serving the
schema from a runtime API (requires a running instance at validation
time — a build artifact works offline and pins to a release).
**Roadmap alignment:**
Supports the in-progress "Cloud deployments" milestone in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
Adds a metadata map (title, description, tier, cloud/self-hosted
defaults) keyed by the keys of `instanceExperimentalSettingsSchema`, so
the schema stays the single source of truth and the compiler flags any
drift. A new build step (`build:feature-catalog --version <v>`) emits
`feature-catalog.json` — all 23 feature keys, their tiers, and a
`catalogVersion` — as a release artifact that managed-hosting control
planes can validate feature-flag writes against. No runtime behavior
changes.
- New `packages/shared/src/feature-catalog.ts`: per-flag metadata map
keyed by a type derived from the settings schema
(adding/removing/renaming a flag without updating the map is a compile
error), plus `featureCatalogArtifactSchema` and
`buildFeatureCatalogArtifact`/`renderFeatureCatalogArtifact` for the
artifact
- New `scripts/generate-feature-catalog.ts` wired as `pnpm
build:feature-catalog --version <v>`
- `scripts/create-github-release.sh` generates the artifact and uploads
it as a GitHub Release asset (with a dry-run preview line)
- Tests in `packages/shared/src/feature-catalog.test.ts`
## Verification
- `vitest run packages/shared/src/feature-catalog.test.ts` — 9 tests:
schema-key coverage, drift detection, artifact shape
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- Artifact generation run end-to-end: `pnpm build:feature-catalog
--version 0.0.0-test` emits 23 keys with `catalogVersion`
## Risks
Low risk — no runtime behavior changes; the change is metadata, a build
script, and a release-artifact emission step only.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use;
independently peer-reviewed by a second AI agent before push
## 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.
> - Paperclip publishes its CLI, server, adapters, and shared packages
through automated canary and stable release workflows.
> - `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` bundles the patched `acpx` runtime, so
it must use npm 11 for OIDC trusted publishing.
> - The prior staging directory contained pnpm's `.pnpm` symlink forest,
which crashes npm 11's directory-pack step on GitHub runners and
produces a consumer-broken bundled dependency tree.
> - This pull request rebuilds staged production dependencies as a
physical npm tree, reapplies repository patches, and publishes that
clean directory directly with npm 11 trusted publishing.
> - The benefit is a release path that retains GitHub Actions OIDC
trusted publishing while shipping a working patched acpx runtime to
consumers.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #9980, #10030, #10041
No public GitHub issue exists for this release failure.
### What happened?
Canary and stable publishing began routing `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`
through npm after it declared `bundleDependencies: ["acpx"]`. Publishing
the pnpm-deployed directory with npm 11 crashes during npm's
directory-pack phase on GitHub runners with `Exit handler never
called!`. The same staged shape also produces a broken consumer artifact
because acpx cannot resolve transitive runtime dependencies after
installation.
### Expected behavior
Bundled packages publish directly from a self-contained staging
directory through npm 11 OIDC trusted publishing, and consumers receive
a working patched acpx runtime with its transitive dependencies.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Stage `packages/adapter-utils` using the old `pnpm deploy`-only
shape.
2. Publish that directory with npm 11 on a GitHub runner.
3. npm crashes before registry/OIDC activity while walking the `.pnpm`
symlink forest.
4. Install an artifact packed from that old shape into a fresh npm
project and run acpx; its runtime dependency resolution fails.
### Deployment mode
GitHub Actions canary/stable release workflow.
### Relevant logs or output
```text
npm error Exit handler never called!
```
## What Changed
- After `pnpm deploy`, remove the staged pnpm `node_modules` tree and
run `npm install --omit=dev --ignore-scripts --no-audit --no-fund` to
create a physical hoisted production tree.
- Apply every root `pnpm.patchedDependencies` patch whose package is
declared in the staged package's bundled dependencies, failing staging
if any patch cannot apply.
- Assert the staged acpx runtime contains the required `onAgentStderr`
patch marker.
- Publish the clean staging directory directly with pinned npm 11.18.0,
retaining GitHub Actions OIDC trusted publishing, verbose diagnostics,
and the duplicate-transparency-log retry without provenance.
- Keep pinned npm 10.9.7 packing only for local/dry-run payload
verification; registry publishing does not use a tarball argument.
- Add focused coverage for npm-tree staging, patch application, direct
directory publish arguments, and bundled tlog retries.
## Verification
- `bash -n scripts/release-lib.sh scripts/release.sh`
- `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs
scripts/acpx-patch-packaging.test.mjs` — 12/12 passed.
- `pnpm test:release-registry` — 68/68 passed.
- Real staging smoke: `node scripts/prepare-bundled-package.mjs
packages/adapter-utils <stage>` produced a real `node_modules/acpx`
directory, no `.pnpm` directory, and the `onAgentStderr` patch marker.
- Real npm 11 directory-publish smoke: `npx --yes npm@11.18.0 publish
--dry-run --tag canary --access public --loglevel verbose` packed 26
bundled dependencies and reached the expected existing-version registry
rejection without `Exit handler never called!`.
- The merge-triggered `publish_canary` workflow remains the live OIDC
trusted-publishing verification.
## Risks
- The live GitHub Actions trusted-publishing path can only be fully
proven by the merge-triggered canary run; npm debug-log upload remains
available if it fails.
- Bundling acpx continues to freeze platform-specific transitive
artifacts such as esbuild binaries from the Linux release runner. This
is a pre-existing consequence of the bundling decision in #9980 and is
not expanded here.
- Rebuilding dependencies with npm depends on the exact bundled
dependency versions in the staged manifest; staging fails hard if
repository patches no longer apply.
> 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`, high reasoning mode, with
repository tool use and code execution. The harness did not expose a
model context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip publishes a coordinated set of packages through its
release workflows
> - Bundled packages use a pinned npm CLI so trusted publishing works
consistently
> - The canary publisher now crashes deterministically inside npm before
useful output reaches the workflow log
> - The npm debug log that contains the underlying failure disappears
with the hosted runner
> - This pull request upgrades the pinned publish CLI and preserves both
verbose HTTP activity and npm debug logs on failure
> - The benefit is that the plausible HTTP-layer fix ships immediately,
while any remaining CI-only failure becomes diagnosable
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- **Problem:** The canary release workflow fails on the first bundled
package with `npm error Exit handler never called!` and no preceding
diagnostic output.
- **Expected behavior:** Bundled packages publish through trusted
publishing, or the workflow retains enough npm diagnostics to identify
the actual failure.
- **Reproduction:** Run the canary release workflow in GitHub Actions;
the failure reproduced on both attempts of run 29948506814.
- **Version/commit:** Current `master` after #10024 and #10030.
- **Deployment mode:** GitHub-hosted release workflow using Node.js 24
and npm trusted publishing.
- Related: #10024, #10030.
## What Changed
- Bumped the bundled publish CLI from npm 11.16.0 to npm 11.18.0.
- Added `--loglevel verbose` to bundled npm publish invocations.
- Dumped the last 300 lines of every npm debug log after failed canary
or stable publishes, with common registry credential forms redacted.
- Updated release assertions to pin npm 11.18.0 and verify verbose
logging.
## Verification
- `pnpm test:release-registry` — 66 tests passed.
- `bash -n scripts/release-lib.sh`.
- Parsed `.github/workflows/release.yml` with Python/PyYAML.
- Smoke-tested npm log redaction with representative Authorization,
`_authToken`, and token environment values.
- Smoke-tested npm debug-log redaction against Authorization,
`_authToken`, and `npm_token` examples.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`.
- The merge-triggered canary workflow remains the live
trusted-publishing verification.
## Risks
- Low code risk: changes are isolated to the release publisher and its
workflow diagnostics.
- npm 11.18.0 could expose a different registry/runtime regression;
failure-time debug log dumping makes that actionable.
- Verbose npm output increases release log volume but does not change
package contents or dist-tags; common credential forms are redacted
before debug logs are printed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.3 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with repository
and shell execution; context window size is not exposed in this
environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] 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
> - Paperclip publishes canary and stable packages through a shared
release script
> - GitHub Actions authenticates those publishes through npm trusted
publishing and an OIDC identity token
> - Bundled-dependency packages recently moved from pnpm publish to a
pinned npm CLI to preserve their bundled files
> - That pin selected npm 10, which cannot use trusted publishing, so
the first bundled package failed with `ENEEDAUTH`
> - This pull request keeps bundled-package packing on npm 10 while
routing actual publishing through the trusted-publishing-capable npm 11
version
> - The benefit is bundled packages keep their required npm packaging
behavior while canary and stable releases authenticate successfully
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
The canary release job failed while publishing
`@paperclipai/adapter-utils` with `ENEEDAUTH`. The package has bundled
dependencies, so the release helper selected pinned `npm@10.9.7`; the
workflow provides OIDC trusted publishing rather than an npm token, and
npm 10 cannot use that authentication path. Because this is the first
package attempted, the release exited before trying the remaining
packages.
**Expected behavior**
Bundled-dependency packages should publish with an npm CLI that both
preserves bundled dependencies and supports GitHub Actions trusted
publishing.
**Steps to reproduce**
Run the canary release workflow from master after PR #9980. The
`publish_canary` job reaches `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`, invokes `npx
npm@10.9.7 publish`, and fails with `ENEEDAUTH`.
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions canary and stable npm release workflows.
Refs #9980.
## What Changed
- Kept bundled-package dry-run packing on npm `10.9.7`, which
successfully produces the staged tarball.
- Routed bundled-package publishing through npm `11.16.0`, which
supports GitHub Actions trusted publishing.
- Split the pack and publish helpers so future npm changes cannot
silently couple the two compatibility requirements.
- Updated focused release and ACPX packaging tests to enforce both
versions and call paths.
## Verification
- `pnpm test:release-registry` — 67 passed locally.
- Initial all-npm-11 PR head: Canary Dry Run reproduced an npm-internal
crash during bundled `pack`.
- Current head `5b3961ed13dd26ed2d6b1096ea23fd91b32e4353`: Canary Dry
Run passed with split npm pack/publish helpers.
- All PR checks passed, including build, typecheck + release registry,
server/workspace suites, both e2e shards, security gates, and Greptile.
- Greptile reviewed the current head at 5/5 confidence with no blocking
issues.
## Risks
- Low risk: the change only separates the npm CLI used for
bundled-package packing from the CLI used for publishing.
- The versions remain explicitly pinned because npm 11.16.0 currently
crashes on the bundled pack payload, while npm 10.9.7 cannot perform
trusted publishing.
- Focused tests assert both pins and both helper call paths, and the
full Canary Dry Run passes on the current head.
> 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`, high reasoning mode, with
repository, shell, GitHub CLI, and code-execution 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
> - Local Claude, Codex, Gemini, and custom ACP adapters run through the
shared embedded ACPX engine
> - That engine wrapped every local agent command in a generated Bash
script to inject environment variables and filter child stderr
> - Windows cannot directly spawn that Bash wrapper, and npm/pnpm ACP
binaries are exposed through `.cmd` shims there
> - ACPX 0.12 already supports per-session child environment variables,
so the wrapper is unnecessary
> - This pull request registers agent commands directly, injects env
through ACPX session options, captures child stderr in-process, and adds
a real Node ACP spawn smoke on Ubuntu and Windows
> - The benefit is one cross-platform spawn path with a reusable smoke
test instead of parallel shell-wrapper implementations
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#9941.
Refs #9428 and #9771.
**What happened**
ACPX-backed local agents failed to start on Windows because Paperclip
registered a generated POSIX `.sh` wrapper as the agent command. Windows
also needs the `.cmd` npm/pnpm shim when resolving built-in ACP
binaries, and symlink creation can fail with `EPERM` for seeded
auth/skill files.
**Expected behavior**
The same ACPX engine path should spawn a real ACP agent on Windows and
Linux, forward Paperclip/runtime env without mutating `process.env`,
preserve filtered/unfiltered child stderr behavior, and fall back to
copies where Windows symlinks are unavailable.
**Steps to reproduce**
Run a local ACPX adapter on Windows with the prior wrapper path. ACPX
attempts to spawn the generated `.sh` file and the agent never
initializes.
**Deployment mode**
Local Paperclip adapters using
`packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/`.
## What Changed
- Removed generated Bash agent/env wrappers and registered local
commands directly with ACPX.
- Passed the resolved child environment through ACPX
`sessionOptions.env`, including resume retry paths.
- Added a minimal `acpx@0.12.0` package patch exposing child stderr
callbacks and allowing documented uppercase env-map keys in persisted
session options.
- Moved stderr tee/filter behavior in-process: raw stderr remains in the
per-run file while benign `nes/close` noise is omitted from live stderr.
- Preferred `.cmd` ancestor binaries on Windows and added `EPERM` copy
fallbacks for Codex auth seeding and Gemini skill materialization.
- Added a real Node ACP echo-agent spawn smoke that can run directly on
any supported platform.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/spawn-smoke.test.ts` — 57 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` — passed.
- `node --test scripts/acpx-patch-packaging.test.mjs
scripts/release-lib.test.mjs` — 10 passed.
- Full canary release dry run under Node 24.18.0 / npm 11.16.0 — passed
in an isolated scratch clone.
- `git diff --check` — passed during implementation verification.
- One-time GitHub Actions proof: [Ubuntu ACPX spawn
smoke](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/29924348927/job/88937774579),
[Windows ACPX spawn
smoke](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/29924348927/job/88937774558),
and [Canary Dry
Run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/29924348927/job/88937774497)
passed on head `f345ac69f2`; the dedicated smoke jobs are intentionally
not retained in the recurring PR workflow.
## Risks
- The ACPX stderr callback and env persistence exemption are carried as
a pnpm dependency patch until ACPX exposes/fixes those behaviors
upstream.
- Child stderr is synchronously appended to preserve ordering and
failure diagnostics; unusually high-volume agent stderr could briefly
block the Node event loop.
- The Windows-specific `.cmd` resolution and symlink `EPERM` branches
are proven by the standalone smoke test and the linked one-time
`windows-latest` run rather than a permanent CI gate.
> 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-5.4 via Codex CLI, medium reasoning, repository/tool
execution enabled; context-window size is not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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
> - Connections is the subsystem that defines which external apps and
MCP-style integrations operators can browse, configure, and run
> - The v3 schema core in #9958 added stable connection identities, auth
metadata, and grant-aware contracts, but the app catalog still used the
older gallery shape
> - The product needs a richer, typed AppDefinition catalog so browsing
and setup can render provider-specific auth and configuration
requirements consistently
> - This pull request moves the Wave 1 app catalog onto generated
AppDefinition data and carries that shape through shared types, server
lookup paths, and app connection UI
> - The benefit is that follow-up runtime and wizard work can build
against one catalog contract instead of local-only mock/gallery data
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9958.
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the catalog layer
for the Connections v3 stack after the schema-core foundation in #9958.
## What Changed
- Adds generated AppDefinition data for the Wave 1 catalog and ingestion
reporting.
- Replaces the legacy tool app gallery exports with
AppDefinition-centered shared contracts, validators, and tests.
- Updates server tool-access lookup behavior to use the AppDefinition
catalog.
- Updates app connection UI surfaces and tests to consume
AppDefinition-backed catalog data.
- Documents the catalog ingestion workflow in the connector playbook.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts
packages/shared/src/app-definitions-url.test.ts
ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium: this changes the catalog contract used by shared, server, and
UI app connection surfaces.
- Catalog data quality matters because generated definitions now drive
browse/setup display.
- Follow-up runtime and wizard PRs must rebase on this branch or on
master after this lands.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pull request workflow is the main merge gate for changes to that
app.
> - The Playwright e2e lane is expensive because every spec shares one
isolated server and runs serially.
> - Splitting that lane across runners shortens the critical path, but
the public required-check contract still needs a check named exactly
`e2e`.
> - This pull request shards the real e2e work while preserving a fast
aggregate `e2e` job for branch protection.
> - The benefit is a faster PR workflow without making otherwise-good
PRs unmergeable because a legacy required check disappeared.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI follow-up.
Related prior CI work:
- Refs #8360
- Refs #9168
- Refs #9516
Bug report:
### What happened?
Sharding the PR e2e lane directly at the workflow job level changes the
emitted check names to shard-specific names, while existing branch
protection expects a check named exactly `e2e`.
### Expected behavior
The PR workflow should be able to run e2e specs across multiple runners
while still emitting a stable aggregate check named `e2e`.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Open a PR against `master`.
2. Run the PR workflow with the e2e lane split only as a matrix job.
3. Observe that the shard checks complete, but a required check named
exactly `e2e` never appears.
### Paperclip version or commit
Current `master`.
### Deployment mode
GitHub Actions pull request workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/e2e-shard.mjs`, which partitions default Playwright e2e
specs by recorded per-spec duration.
- Added `scripts/e2e-shard-durations.json` with measured e2e spec
durations so the slow smoke-lab spec does not dominate one runner.
- Split the PR workflow e2e lane into two `e2e_shards` matrix jobs and
added a fast aggregate job named exactly `e2e`.
- Added `scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` to lock the shard
partition, ignored-spec sync, manifest coverage, and aggregate
required-check contract.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check upstream/master..HEAD`
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related e2e-shard / required-check
PRs and issues before opening this PR; no direct duplicate was found.
## Risks
Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest can drift as specs
are added or runtimes change; missing specs fall back to the median
known duration, and the focused shard test catches empty, overlapping,
or badly imbalanced partitions.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex CLI coding agent, with shell/tool execution and
repository inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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 local heartbeat/runtime subsystem starts long-running local
agent processes and records their run state.
> - Operators sometimes need to rebuild and restart the Paperclip server
while local agent processes are still alive.
> - A normal restart should remain conservative, but a guarded
production hot restart needs an explicit marker, startup reconciliation,
and an inspectable report.
> - The broader hot-restart PR is currently merge-conflicted, so this
pull request lands the minimal server-side recovery path on current
`master`.
> - The benefit is that deploy operators can restart from a current
branch without reverting production changes and without marking adopted
live runs as `process_lost`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this deploy-safety fix.
Bug fix:
- What happened: the current deployable `master` branch did not include
the hot-restart marker CLI, startup adoption report path, or health
version proof needed by guarded service restarts.
- Expected behavior: a deploy operator can write a one-shot marker
before restarting, the old server snapshots eligible running child
processes, the new server reports adopted/finalized/lost runs, and
adopted live runs are not reaped as `process_lost`.
- Steps to reproduce: restart a server with running local child-process
heartbeat runs without the marker/adoption path; startup orphan reaping
has no adoption metadata and treats live detached children as lost.
- Paperclip version/commit: fixed on top of `master` at `b606869a6`.
- Deployment mode: production/local-service style deployments that
rebuild and restart the primary `paperclip.service`.
- Related PR: Refs #9628. This PR intentionally lands a smaller
deploy-safe subset because #9628 is currently merge-conflicted.
- Duplicate search: searched public PRs/issues for `hot restart` and
`process_lost adoption`; #9628 is the directly related prior
implementation.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/request-hot-restart.ts` to write a one-shot hot-restart
intent marker under `PAPERCLIP_HOME`.
- Added `server/src/services/hot-restart.ts` for intent/report path
resolution, parsing, atomic writes, shutdown snapshots, and marker
cleanup.
- Wired server shutdown/startup so explicit hot restarts snapshot active
runs, skip the normal heartbeat drain, reconcile live child processes on
boot, and write `hot-restart-report.json`.
- Preserved adopted run metadata so normal orphan reaping does not
regress adopted live runs to `process_lost`.
- Added `serverVersion` health proof alongside existing `version`, plus
docs and regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 2 files
passed, 100 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `env PAPERCLIP_HOME="$PAPERCLIP_RUN_SCRATCH_DIR/hot-restart-cli-smoke"
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx
../scripts/request-hot-restart.ts --server-pid 12345`
- Branch ancestry checked after `git fetch origin master`:
`origin/master` was `b606869a6`, and `HEAD..origin/master` was empty.
## Risks
- Medium risk: process adoption depends on PID/PGID metadata and the
service manager leaving child processes alive for the guarded restart.
- Normal restarts remain conservative, but an incorrect marker PID
intentionally falls back to graceful drain instead of adoption.
- The PR is server-only and does not include the broader
UI/experimental-setting work from #9628.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex coding agent in a Paperclip execution
workspace; tool use and shell/code execution enabled; context window not
surfaced by this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 8/8 and focuses on end-to-end coverage,
operator docs, evals, and release notes
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The complete stack needs discoverable browser scenarios,
operator guidance, threat modeling, eval coverage, and a parity proof
before merge.
- Proposed solution: Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites,
docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver
script registration.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/07-ui-apps-activation`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for flag audit and e2e/browser acceptance;
Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release
notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `node --check scripts/e2e-mcp-user-stories.mjs`
- `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
--list` — 43 tests discovered
- `git diff pap10341-split/08-e2e-docs
6b40e3876d9297105d4ec306e47e46d351c86172` — empty (0 bytes)
## Risks
- Browser suites depend on runtime services and environment setup; this
PR validates discovery locally while QA owns full flag-on/flag-off
execution.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 5/8 and focuses on remaining adapters,
CLI, plugin examples, and deployment packaging
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The backend runtime needs packaging, CLI propagation,
worktree provisioning, release manifests, and remaining adapter/plugin
consumers.
- Proposed solution: Adds the remaining runtime/deployment integration
after compile-required contracts and concrete MCP injection moved into
lower server levels.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is
`pap10341-split/04-server-runtime-wiring`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for CLI, packaging, and worktree behavior;
Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds the remaining runtime/deployment integration after
compile-required contracts and concrete MCP injection moved into lower
server levels.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- Focused CLI Vitest run — 4 files, 49 tests passed
## Risks
- Packaging omissions could make the feature work in source but fail in
Docker, worktrees, or release assembly.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 1/8 and focuses on fixture and demo MCP
servers
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: Developers need deterministic local MCP fixtures and visible
demo servers without pulling in the governed production runtime.
- Proposed solution: Adds the Google Sheets and KV demo MCP packages,
fixture catalog/servers, smoke harness, guide, and the root
smoke/typecheck registration hunks.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `master`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for fixture and smoke coverage; Greptile on every
PR.
## What Changed
- Adds the Google Sheets and KV demo MCP packages, fixture
catalog/servers, smoke harness, guide, and the root smoke/typecheck
registration hunks.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/google-sheets-mcp-server test` — 27 tests
passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/kv-demo-mcp-server test` — 12 tests passed
## Risks
- The new packages add dependencies that are intentionally not committed
to `pnpm-lock.yaml`, per repository policy.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - It emits telemetry events to understand product usage — registered
event names are gated by a generated `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` registry so the
client only enqueues known, schema-approved events
> - When product teams want to instrument a new behaviour, they must
first register the event name — but schema registration is a
commit-and-release cycle, which creates friction in fast-moving product
iterations
> - A proposal lane is needed: let developers mark a `track()` call with
a typed `@ts-expect-error` proposal marker so the event name can be
reviewed and tracked in CI before the schema is formally registered
> - The existing client had no guard against unregistered event names,
so any call with an out-of-registry name (or a prototype-inherited key)
would silently enter the queue, state, and network flush path
> - This PR adds an `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard
at the entry point of `track()` to swallow unregistered calls before any
side effects, adds `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs` to scan source
for proposal markers and emit a v2 JSON manifest with provenance and
rationale, and documents the complete proposal workflow
> - The benefit is that new instrumentation can be proposed and reviewed
in code without touching the registered schema, and tooling can surface
missing rationale before events graduate to stable
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing GitHub issue covers this change. This PR introduces a new
feature.
**Feature motivation:** Paperclip's telemetry schema is intentionally
stable — registered event names are code-generated and gated. Product
engineers who want to instrument a new behaviour today must land a
schema change first, creating a two-step process that slows iteration. A
proposal lane lets developers write the instrumentation call ahead of
schema registration, protected by a compile-time `@ts-expect-error`
marker that an extractor script can surface for review. This PR
implements both the client-side safety gate and the extraction tooling.
Refs: #9518 (closed predecessor — docs-only; this PR supersedes it with
the full implementation)
## What Changed
- Added `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard at the top of
`TelemetryClient.track()`: unregistered event names (including
prototype-inherited keys) are now swallowed before any state, queue, or
network operation
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs`: scans TypeScript source
for `@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(<issue>): <rationale>`
markers; emits a v2 JSON manifest per proposed event including name,
rationale, provenance (repo-relative file + line), and a
`rationale_missing` flag for CI enforcement
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs`: test suite covering
marker parsing, multi-line markers, path validation, out-of-repo
rejection, and the v2 schema output contract
- Added `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`: documents the proposal workflow,
the canonical multi-line marker example, rationale requirements, and how
to graduate a proposed event to stable schema
- Updated `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`: added "Proposed
Events" section to the Telemetry Data Contract per the contributing
guide requirement for telemetry changes
## Verification
Run all of the following from the repo root:
```sh
# Extractor unit tests
node --test scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs
# Telemetry client + types tests
pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts \
src/telemetry/client.test.ts src/telemetry/client-types.test.ts \
--reporter=verbose
# (run from packages/shared)
# Type-check
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
# Smoke-run the extractor in local-test mode
node scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs --ref local-test
```
All four commands pass locally.
## Risks
- **Silent drop on unregistered events:** The `Object.hasOwn` guard
fails closed — any event name not in `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` is silently
dropped. If the generated registry is missing an event that was
previously tracked, those calls will be silently lost. Mitigation: the
extractor script surfaces proposed events that need registration; the
TypeScript type system already enforces `TelemetryEventName ⊆
PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` at compile time.
- **Extractor is read-only:** `extract-proposed-events.mjs` reads source
and emits JSON; it does not modify any files. No runtime or schema risk.
- Overall risk: **low**. The guard is additive and defensive; the
extractor and docs are additive only.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6`
- Context window: 200 K tokens
- Capabilities: tool use, extended context, code generation
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The release subsystem uses GitHub Actions dry-run previews so
maintainers can validate stable and canary release behavior before
publishing.
> - Stable release publishing needs a release notes gate so real
`latest` publishes never happen without authored notes.
> - The same gate was also blocking stable dry-run previews, which made
release QA fail before publish-sensitive work could be previewed.
> - This pull request narrows the notes requirement to real non-dry-run
stable publishes.
> - The benefit is that stable dry-run dispatches can preview the
release without same-day notes, while real stable publishes remain
protected.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this release-QA blocker, so the bug is
described inline below.
### What happened?
Stable dry-run release previews fail when the same-day release notes
file is absent. The release script runs the stable notes-file gate
before release preview work even when `--dry-run` is set.
### Expected behavior
`./scripts/release.sh stable --dry-run` should preview the stable
release without requiring `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`. Real non-dry-run
stable publishes must still fail before build/publish work starts when
the notes file is missing.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Check out current `master` before this fix.
2. Ensure the computed same-day stable release notes file does not exist
under `releases/`.
3. Run `./scripts/release.sh stable --skip-verify --dry-run`.
4. Observe that the script exits with `stable release notes file is
required` instead of reaching the release preview plan.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproduced on `master` at `9a1d4b7983dfd50e8eb40ee9770e44999d405f60`.
### Deployment mode
Built from source / GitHub Actions release workflow.
## What Changed
- Narrowed the stable release notes gate to `channel=stable` and
`dry_run=false`.
- Updated the release script usage note to say the notes file is
required for non-dry-run stable releases.
- Added a targeted Node test covering dry-run allowed behavior and
non-dry-run blocked behavior.
- Stubbed release fixture registry-version checks so the test isolates
the notes gate without hitting npm.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs` passed
with 2/2 subtests.
- `bash -n scripts/release.sh` exited 0.
## Risks
Low risk. The behavior change only relaxes the notes-file gate for
stable dry-runs. The new test verifies real non-dry-run stable publish
still fails before build/publish work starts when notes are missing.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with shell/tool execution in a
local repository workspace.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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
> - Its PR CI runs the general-server vitest lane pinned to
`maxWorkers=1` and sharded across 3 runners (introduced in #8360)
> - Suites were assigned to shards round-robin by sorted file index, so
shard test time was unbalanced: a recent PR run split 73s / 153s / 115s,
and the heaviest shard made "General tests (server 2/3)" the slowest
check in the whole workflow at 314s wall
> - The slowest shard sets the lane's wall time, so unbalanced
partitions waste the other two runners and stretch the PR critical path
> - This pull request replaces the round-robin assignment with a
deterministic longest-processing-time partition weighted by a checked-in
per-suite duration manifest
> - The benefit is near-even shard weights (projected 113s / 113s / 113s
with the current manifest), taking roughly 40s off the PR critical path
with no reduction in coverage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8360 (introduced the 3-way general-server sharding this PR
rebalances)
- No public issue exists. Problem: the general-server test lane's
round-robin shard assignment ignores per-suite duration, so one shard
can carry multiple 30s+ suites while another finishes in half the time;
the slowest shard alone determines the check's wall time.
## What Changed
- `scripts/general-server-shard.mjs` (new): manifest loader and
deterministic LPT (longest-processing-time) partitioner; suites missing
from the manifest get the median recorded weight, and a missing or
malformed manifest degrades to uniform weights so the lane never fails
on stale data
- `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` (new): per-suite
duration manifest sampled from a real PR run (240 suites); the
`$comment` field documents how to regenerate it
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: both shard-selection sites (run and
`--dry-run`) now use the balanced partition instead of index round-robin
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 6 new tests
covering skew-balance vs round-robin, determinism, median fallback for
unlisted suites, malformed-manifest degradation, manifest coverage of
the current suite set, and real-partition balance
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts`:
hardened the `afterEach` sweep — post-run bookkeeping (run-event
records, follow-up wake scheduling) can still insert rows briefly after
a run reaches a terminal status, and a late insert landing between the
`agent_wakeup_requests` and `agents` deletes failed teardown with a
foreign-key violation on the first CI attempt of this PR; the sweep now
retries so a late background write cannot take down the shard
- `release-verify.yml` shares the same runner script and inherits the
balancing with no workflow change
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9
pass (run against current master)
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts`
— 6/6 pass against embedded Postgres with the hardened teardown
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2
pass
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --dry-run` with each shard flag
shows every suite assigned exactly once across the 3 shards, with
projected weights ~113s each
## Risks
- Low risk: partition changes which runner executes which suite, not
what runs; a completeness test asserts every suite is assigned to
exactly one shard
- The duration manifest will drift as suites are added/changed; unlisted
suites get the median weight and a coverage test flags when the manifest
covers less than half the suite set, so drift degrades balance
gracefully rather than breaking the lane
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking
enabled, agentic tool use (file edits, shell, test execution) 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
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude (Paperclip SWE) <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server package ships runtime asset trees used by built-in agents
and onboarding templates.
> - A prior server build omitted those source asset trees from `dist`,
allowing a built artifact to differ from runtime expectations.
> - The copy step is now present, but the existing build-gap gate only
checked TypeScript coverage for packages whose build skips `tsc`.
> - This pull request extends that standing gate so source asset files
under the server runtime asset trees must exist at the matching `dist`
paths after build.
> - The benefit is that future server asset additions fail loudly in CI
instead of silently shipping an incomplete `dist`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### What happened?
After a server build, runtime asset files under
`server/src/built-ins/**` and `server/src/onboarding-assets/**` could be
missing from `dist/` with no build failure. The existing build-gap gate
only checked TypeScript coverage for packages that skip `tsc`; it did
not verify that non-TypeScript source assets were copied to `dist`. A
server build that forgot the `cp -R` step, or that added a new asset
tree without updating the copy command, would produce an incomplete
`dist` without any CI signal.
### Expected behavior
After `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`, every
non-TypeScript/non-JavaScript source file under `server/src/built-ins/`
and `server/src/onboarding-assets/` must exist at the matching path
under `server/dist/`. If any file is missing, the build-gap gate must
exit non-zero with a diagnostic listing the missing files and the
command to fix them.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Remove a copied runtime asset: `rm
server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md`
2. Run the guard: `node scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs
--runtime-assets-only`
3. Before this fix: the command exits 0 and the missing file goes
undetected.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproduced on `master` at `c36f1a4af` (`@paperclipai/server` 0.3.1).
### Deployment mode
Not deployment-specific — the build-gap check runs in CI on any
checkout.
## What Changed
- Extended `scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs` with a source-derived
server runtime asset parity check for non-`.ts`/non-`.js` files under
`server/src/built-ins/**` and `server/src/onboarding-assets/**`.
- Added a guard-only mode, `--runtime-assets-only`, for focused
pass/fail verification after a server build.
- Wired `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` to prepare plugin SDK build
deps, build the server package, then run the existing build-gap gate
plus the new asset check.
## Verification
Pass path:
```text
$ pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps
> @paperclipai/plugin-sdk@1.0.0 ensure-build-deps .../packages/plugins/sdk
> node ../../../scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs
$ pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build
> @paperclipai/server@0.3.1 build .../server
> tsc && mkdir -p dist/onboarding-assets dist/built-ins && cp -R src/onboarding-assets/. dist/onboarding-assets/ && cp -R src/built-ins/. dist/built-ins/
$ node scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs --runtime-assets-only
[typecheck:build-gaps] server runtime assets present in dist: 7 file(s)
```
Regression simulation (guard catches the missing file):
```text
$ rm server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md
$ node scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs --runtime-assets-only
[typecheck:build-gaps] Missing server runtime asset(s) in dist:
- source: server/src/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md
expected dist: server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md
Run pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build and ensure source runtime asset trees are copied into dist.
```
Standing gate (full end-to-end):
```text
$ pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps
[typecheck:build-gaps] typechecking 4 workspace(s): paperclipai, @paperclipai/plugin-authoring-smoke-example, @paperclipai/plugin-llm-wiki, @paperclipai/ui
[typecheck:build-gaps] server runtime assets present in dist: 7 file(s)
```
## Risks
Low risk. The check only reads source and dist files during the
build-gap gate. The main tradeoff is that the gate now builds
`@paperclipai/server` so a clean checkout has generated `dist` content
to validate.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 based coding agent with repository tool use and
shell execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where
operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their
input.
> - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those
decision points across server APIs and the board UI.
> - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these
actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the
Decisions surface.
> - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards,
grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry.
> - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized,
with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state.
> - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions
experience as one reviewable unit.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience:
grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze
handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to
control the Decisions navigation entry.
## Feature Context
### Problem or Motivation
Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed
runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action.
### Proposed Solution
Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items,
supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through
dismiss and snooze actions.
### Alternatives Considered
Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting
operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize.
### Roadmap Alignment
This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending
governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface.
## What Changed
- Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling,
dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal
migration.
- Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings
contracts.
- Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar
badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook
coverage.
- Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings
normalization, dismissals, and API behavior.
- Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the
branch onto current `master`.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts
ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests
across 9 focused files.
- GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry
have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in
progress.
## Risks
- Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a
new migration and navigation behavior.
- The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting
rollout impact.
- Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is
idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation.
> ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was
identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this
PR.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution.
Context-window size unavailable in this environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no
internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining
unrelated AWS test failure is documented above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Releases publish the same app and package set that operators
install, so release verification should keep full release-strength
coverage.
> - The release workflow currently verifies stable and canary releases
with one serial job that typechecks, runs all tests, and builds.
> - The PR workflow already proves the test surface can be split into
grouped general suites and serialized shards without changing coverage.
> - This pull request extracts the release verify work into a reusable
workflow and fans out the independent lanes.
> - The benefit is faster stable and canary release verification while
preserving the existing publish and preview gates.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI improvement.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Problem or motivation**
Release verification spends most of its wall time in a single serial
test step even though the same stable test surface is already
partitioned for PR CI. Stable dispatches and master-push canaries
therefore wait on one long runner after setup, typecheck, tests, and
build run sequentially.
**Proposed solution**
Add a reusable release verification workflow with parallel typecheck,
grouped general tests, serialized test shards, and build lanes. Have
both stable and canary release verification call it with the ref they
need to verify.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping the serial `pnpm test:run` job preserves the old shape but keeps
stable and canary releases waiting on one long runner. Skipping
verification when a source SHA already has green CI would be faster, but
adds stale-check and lookup risk beyond this change.
**Roadmap alignment**
No overlapping item found in `ROADMAP.md`; this is release CI
maintenance.
**Additional context**
The new workflow keeps the release-strength full `pnpm -r typecheck`,
uses the existing stable test grouping/sharding entry points, and leaves
publish/preview jobs unchanged.
## What Changed
- Added `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml` as a `workflow_call`
workflow accepting a `ref` input.
- Split release verification into parallel `typecheck`, `general_tests`,
`serialized_tests`, and `build` jobs with 20-minute lane timeouts.
- Mirrored the PR workflow's stable test partition: `general-server`
shards 1-3, `general-workspaces-a`, `general-workspaces-b`, and four
serialized shards.
- Replaced `release.yml` `verify_canary` and `verify_stable` job bodies
with calls to the reusable workflow while leaving publish and preview
jobs unchanged.
- Added a Node test that guards the release workflow delegation and
split verify surface.
## Verification
- `actionlint 1.7.12 .github/workflows/release.yml
.github/workflows/release-verify.yml`
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs
./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Release verification now starts more jobs per release event,
increasing total runner setup/install minutes. This matches the existing
PR CI tradeoff and should reduce release wall time substantially.
- The called workflow checks out the requested ref shallowly. That is
intentional for verify lanes; publish and preview jobs still retain
their existing full-history checkouts.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in local tool-use mode with shell
execution, repository editing, GitHub connector access, and medium
reasoning.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but
iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run
inspection.
> - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files,
saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an
agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work.
> - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run
templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention
metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work.
> - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved
inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while
preserving the existing design system and token rules.
> - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end:
database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden
harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests.
> - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable
outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal
task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary:
- Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one
place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation,
run output, and manual prompt history.
- Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs,
reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output
inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware
editing.
- Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who
create, fork, import, and tune skills.
- Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public
PR branch name follows contributor policy.
- Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill
Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this
feature.
## What Changed
- Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs,
test run retention, and reusable run templates.
- Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers,
frontmatter utilities, and status handling.
- Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs,
templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue
execution, and run-detail hydration.
- Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent
routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work.
- Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter
editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete
flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane
behavior.
- Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing
logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration
safety.
- Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff
from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed.
## Verification
- [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- [x] `pnpm check:token-gates`
- [x] `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts
ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5
files, 132 tests passed
- [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head
- [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head
## Risks
- Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema,
server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface.
- Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR
includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups.
- The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where
applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft
migration numbers should still be checked carefully.
- The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`;
the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool
use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip
coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body
were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Adapter packages are the bridge between the control plane and local
agent harnesses such as Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI.
> - ACP support was concentrated in a separate `acpx_local` adapter,
which made ACP feel like a separate agent choice instead of an execution
capability of the harness adapters.
> - Claude, Codex, and Gemini now have ACP-capable harnesses, so the
native adapter should own ACP selection, fallback, config, transcript
parsing, and environment diagnostics.
> - The standalone ACPX adapter still needs a compatibility path for
existing rows, but it should not be offered as an active adapter for new
agents.
> - This pull request moves the shared ACP runtime into
`@paperclipai/acpx-engine`, wires Claude/Codex/Gemini local adapters to
prefer ACP when prerequisites are available, and retires `acpx_local` to
a tombstone.
> - The benefit is one adapter per harness, richer ACP transcripts by
default where possible, and a migration path for existing Claude/Codex
ACPX agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Closes#5932 — the broken default `acpx_local` Claude path is replaced
by native `claude_local` ACP support, existing Claude/Codex ACPX rows
migrate to native adapters, and new agents no longer choose the
standalone ACPX adapter.
Refs #4893 — original merged ACPX local adapter runtime that this PR
replaces with native per-harness ACP engines.
Refs #6590 — prior ACPX-Claude seamlessness work folded into the new
native Claude ACP path.
Refs #197 — related open generic ACP/Kiro adapter work; this PR does not
close it because Kiro/custom generic ACP remains a separate adapter
decision.
Refs #7018 — related Kimi-specific `acpx_local` shell failure; this PR
retires the built-in standalone adapter but does not add a native Kimi
adapter.
Refs #8864 — related ACPX prompt/API guidance PR; this PR moves runtime
guidance into the shared/native ACP engine path instead of the old
standalone adapter.
Refs #8881 — related `acpx_local` POSIX shell failure from the old
`acpx` pin; this PR updates ACP dependencies but does not claim
custom/OMP ACP support as a first-class native adapter.
Refs #8964 — related open `acpx_local` stderr cleanup PR; this PR makes
the old runtime path obsolete for new agents but keeps it as a
non-closing reference.
Problem description:
- The standalone `acpx_local` adapter duplicates Claude/Codex agent
choices that already have first-class local adapters.
- ACP should be an execution engine capability of each harness adapter
when the underlying harness supports ACP.
- Existing `acpx_local` agents should either migrate to native harness
adapters or fail with an explicit retirement message instead of silently
falling back to the process adapter.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/acpx-engine` as the shared ACP execution,
session-codec, CLI formatter, and UI parser package.
- Wired `claude_local`, `codex_local`, and `gemini_local` to auto-select
ACP by default when prerequisites pass, with `engine=cli` opt-out and
`engine=acp` strict mode.
- Added ACP config schema/UI fields, environment checks, session-codec
preservation, transcript parsing, and adapter capability metadata for
the native adapters.
- Retired `acpx_local` to a server tombstone, removed its
UI/package/runtime image surface, and added a migration for existing
Claude/Codex ACPX agents.
- Updated package manifests, lockfile, release tooling, docs, Kubernetes
sandbox defaults, and tests.
## Verification
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/acpx-engine typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-gemini-local typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/acpx-engine exec vitest run`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local exec vitest
run src/server/acp.test.ts src/server/execute.acp-fallback.test.ts
src/ui/build-config.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local exec vitest
run src/server/acp.test.ts src/ui/build-config.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-gemini-local exec vitest
run src/server/acp.test.ts src/ui/build-config.test.ts
src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps &&
corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/adapter-session-codecs.test.ts
src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/adapters/metadata.test.ts
src/adapters/adapter-display-registry.test.ts
src/components/AgentConfigForm.test.ts
src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx
src/components/transcript/RunTranscriptView.test.tsx`
- `node --test scripts/bootstrap-npm-package.test.mjs
scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs
scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs`
Note: the server typecheck script calls `pnpm` internally; this dev
shell exposes pnpm through Corepack only, so I ran the two script steps
manually with `corepack pnpm`.
## Risks
- Migration changes existing `acpx_local` Claude/Codex agents to native
adapter types and clears old ACPX task sessions/runtime state.
- Custom ACP commands remain on the retired tombstone and will need a
separate future adapter/plugin path.
- ACP auto-selection depends on local Node and ACP server command
prerequisites; remote and unsupported environments fall back to CLI
unless `engine=acp` is explicit.
- `@paperclipai/acpx-engine` is a new public package and needs npm
trusted-publishing bootstrap before release automation can publish it.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex coding agent. Exact hosted model build and
context-window size are not exposed in this runtime. Tool use included
shell execution, repository editing, GitHub CLI operations, and local
test/typecheck execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The release subsystem publishes the public workspace packages and
also powers release-related CI validation.
> - The release flow currently asks npm for package versions one package
at a time in multiple places.
> - That serial registry latency slows the PR Canary Dry Run path and
real release invocations even though the checks are independent.
> - This pull request batches npm registry version lookups with bounded
concurrency and reuses the result for version calculation.
> - The benefit is shorter non-build release-script time while
preserving the fresh target-version existence check before publishing.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue exists for this release-script performance
cleanup.
### Problem or motivation
Release validation spends avoidable time on repeated serial `npm view`
calls across the public package set. The slow path affects PR release
validation and real release invocations because version discovery waits
on independent registry reads one at a time.
### Proposed solution
Fetch package version maps concurrently with bounded parallelism, reuse
that map for stable/canary version calculation, and keep a fresh
parallel absence check for the target publish version.
### Alternatives considered
Keeping the existing serial shell loop is simpler, but it preserves the
CI latency cost. Caching the final target-version existence check was
rejected because release publish safety should still query npm freshly
before publishing.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a small release-tooling performance improvement. It does not
duplicate any planned core product work found in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/release-registry-versions.mjs` to fetch npm package
version maps and assert target-version absence with bounded parallelism.
- Updated `scripts/release.sh` to prefetch package versions once and to
batch the final target-version absence check.
- Updated `next_stable_version` and `next_canary_version` to use the
prefetched version map when present, with the existing per-package npm
fallback preserved.
- Added release-registry helper coverage and included it in `pnpm run
test:release-registry`.
- Hardened the release publish helper tests so their fake `pnpm`/`npm`
fixture PATH is preserved under non-login shell execution.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/release-registry-versions.test.mjs`
- `pnpm run test:release-registry`
- `bash -n scripts/release.sh scripts/release-lib.sh`
- `git diff --check`
- Safety scan before push: searched changed files for common
key/token/password patterns and PII markers; only benign script-name
text matched (`secrets:migrate-inline-env`).
- Remote PR checks on the latest head passed, including `Typecheck +
Release Registry`, `Canary Dry Run`, build, tests, e2e, policy, security
scans, and commitperclip review.
- Greptile reviewed the latest head with Confidence Score 5/5 and no
blocking issues.
## Risks
- Low risk. The release version helpers keep their original npm fallback
when no prefetched version map is supplied.
- The existence check remains fresh and uncached before publish, but now
reports all matching package/version pairs from a parallel check.
- If npm has transient failures during the prefetch step, missing or
failed packages still map to an empty version list, matching the old
helper behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent using GPT-5, with shell/tool execution in
the local repository.
## 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: Claude <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Storybook visual baselines protect UI surfaces from unintended
visual drift.
> - Pixel-perfect screenshot baselines are sensitive to OS, font
rasterization, and browser environment.
> - The suite already stores external baseline artifacts and has an
opt-in CI path.
> - Local runs on non-matching platforms can report false-positive diffs
unless the platform lock is explicit.
> - This pull request documents the Linux/Ubuntu baseline constraint and
makes the local static server port explicit.
> - The benefit is clearer visual-review guidance and more predictable
Playwright web server startup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists.
### What happened?
The Storybook visual baseline suite requires a matching Linux capture
environment for pixel-exact comparisons, but the docs did not clearly
warn local users that non-Linux environments can produce false-positive
diffs. The Playwright web server command also relied on the static
server's default port instead of passing the configured port explicitly.
### Expected behavior
Developers should see clear Linux/Ubuntu baseline guidance before
running the visual suite locally, and Playwright should start the
Storybook static server on the same explicit port that the test config
expects.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Review the Storybook visual docs before this PR.
2. Run or inspect the Storybook visual Playwright config.
3. Notice the missing platform guidance and implicit static server port
coupling.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproducible on `master` before this branch.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (pnpm dev) / built from source.
## What Changed
- Documents the Linux/Ubuntu-only baseline limitation in the developer
docs and visual-suite README.
- Adds `--port` parsing and validation to the Storybook static server
helper.
- Adds regression coverage for `--port` followed by another flag.
- Passes the Playwright web server port explicitly from the Storybook
visual config.
## Verification
- Passed: `node --check scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs`
- Passed: `node --test
scripts/__tests__/serve-storybook-static.test.mjs`
- Passed: `node --test
scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs`
- Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads after commit
`94a649755a2ae7c4a34a3e8a1f16ec4d26d738fd`.
- Not run: full `pnpm test:storybook-visual`, because it builds
Storybook and runs the browser visual suite; this PR only changes docs
plus server port plumbing.
## Risks
Low risk. The server still defaults to port 6106 when no explicit port
is provided, and invalid port values now fail fast with a clear error
before the Playwright server waits for an unreachable URL.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with local command execution and
repository editing 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
> - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets,
agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind
> - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at
~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending
on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two
toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no
visual regression coverage
> - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a
hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration
> - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer
in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed
by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate
retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs
> - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface:
retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked
by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed
visually without committing hundreds of PNGs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens",
"visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in
spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of
the same problem class this PR addresses systematically).
**Problem (feature-request form):** UI visual values are hardcoded per
call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage;
consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file
edits.
**Proposed solution (this PR):** a single token layer + enforcement gate
+ externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle
on top of that foundation.
## What Changed
- **Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during
development):** committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-*.mjs`) moved
~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named
tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`.
- **Visual regression suite:** `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255
stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`,
plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes.
- **External visual baselines:** committed PNG snapshots were removed.
`tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable
archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs`
handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload`
flows.
- **Opt-in visual CI artifacts:** added a `Storybook Visual` workflow
that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`,
downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright
report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate
baseline objects.
- **Token gate:** `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero
arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/**`
and `ui/src/pages/**`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate
opt-outs.
- **Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed):** new base theme
values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type
cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` +
Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps.
- **One status-color vocabulary:** charts, quota/budget bar fills,
RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical
`--status-*` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces
that used dark-tuned text classes.
- **One switch:** `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form,
second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified.
- **Docs:** `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds
audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline
review/update workflows.
- Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical
contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames
(`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`).
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system
run
- `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green
during the design-system run
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` —
pass after external-baseline rework
- `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext
--moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types
node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts
tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after
external-baseline rework
- `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline
rework
- `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '*.png' -print | wc -l` —
`0`
- `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally
fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline
archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json`
## Risks
- **Large but shallow:** the PR still touches many UI files due to
mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot
churn has been removed from the branch.
- **Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in
clean clones:** the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata.
A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then
update `baseline-manifest.json`.
- **Rendering platform variance:** the external baseline should be
captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs
verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count
mismatch.
- **Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing:** add the `storybook-visual`
label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable
Playwright report/test-result artifacts.
- **Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope:** Tailwind palette
classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component
consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with
extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical
phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline
rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository,
terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via
deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional
visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets.
## 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 targeted local verification and documented the
intentional baseline-publication failure above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green *(pending new CI run after this
rework)*
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
*(pending review)*
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and
OpenAI Codex
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board UI is the main daily navigation surface for agents,
projects, and their related resources.
> - Operators need a lightweight way to keep frequently used agents and
projects close without changing company-wide ordering or ownership.
> - Resource memberships already model per-user relationships to
projects and agents, so they are the right place to store user-specific
starred state.
> - This pull request extends that membership contract with a starred
timestamp and exposes star controls in list/detail views.
> - The sidebar then uses those starred memberships to show compact,
user-specific shortcuts.
> - The benefit is faster navigation without introducing a separate
favorites system or leaking preferences across users.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists.
Feature request:
## Problem or motivation
Users cannot pin frequently used agents or projects into the main
sidebar. Returning to important resources requires scanning full
project/agent lists or navigating through detail pages, which adds
friction to repeated daily workflows.
## Proposed solution
Store a per-user `starred_at` timestamp on agent and project
memberships, expose API actions to set or clear that state, add star
toggle controls to list/detail pages, and render starred projects and
agents as compact sidebar shortcuts.
## Alternatives considered
A separate favorites table would work, but it would duplicate membership
scoping and require another resource relationship model. Keeping starred
state on memberships preserves existing company/user boundaries and
avoids a second source of truth.
## Roadmap alignment
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; no overlapping planned core work for starred
resource/sidebar navigation was found.
## Additional context
The affected subsystems are `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`,
and `ui/`. The migration is idempotent with `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so
environments that saw an earlier local migration name can still apply
the final ordered migration safely.
## What Changed
- Added idempotent migration `0133_resource_membership_stars` for
`starred_at` columns and lookup indexes on agent/project memberships.
- Extended shared resource membership types and validators with starred
metadata and actions.
- Updated server resource membership services/routes to read and mutate
starred resource state.
- Added reusable star toggle UI and resource membership hook support for
starred state.
- Added starred projects and agents sidebar rendering, plus star
controls on list and detail pages.
- Added focused shared, server, and UI coverage for starred membership
behavior and sidebar rendering.
## Verification
- Rebased and force-with-lease pushed current PR head
`a086fc965391c9e50a51b5b83b5b44a797b2a6f4` onto current
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`; `gh pr view` reports `MERGEABLE` with no
merge conflicts. GitHub checks are green for this fresh head.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` passed after the
rebase: 8 files, 143 tests.
- Greptile re-review is 5/5; the remaining screenshot thread was
resolved as non-blocking because this task explicitly requested no
screenshots/images in the PR.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx` passed after the
mobile pending-spinner fix.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 68
tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed
db/shared/server, then failed in pre-existing UI code outside this PR:
`src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.tsx` missing `@xterm/*` type declarations
and `previous` possibly null.
- Checked that the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md` and found no overlapping planned core work for
starred resource/sidebar navigation.
- Searched existing GitHub PRs for duplicate starred-resource/sidebar
work and found none.
## Risks
- Migration touches membership tables. The SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` for
columns and indexes so environments that saw an earlier local migration
name can still apply this safely.
- Sidebar ordering and visibility changes could affect users who rely on
the previous flat sidebar layout.
- Starred state is per-user membership metadata; code paths must
continue preserving company/user scoping around memberships.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with shell/GitHub access.
Context window not disclosed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent adapters are the boundary between the control plane and the
runtimes that actually do work.
> - Hermes support needs to be available as first-class local and
gateway adapters while still preserving the adapter-manager override
path for external packages.
> - The adapter work touches runtime execution, UI adapter metadata,
onboarding prompts, scoped credentials, release packaging, and smoke
coverage, so the handoff needs concrete verification rather than only
unit tests.
> - This pull request adds built-in Hermes local and Hermes gateway
support, keeps external adapter overrides compatible, and
documents/tests the gateway flow end to end.
> - The benefit is that operators can hire Hermes-backed agents without
a manual plugin install, while self-hosted installs can still
override/shadow the built-ins through Adapter manager packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this exact Hermes built-in adapter,
gateway onboarding, and release-source work.
Problem description:
- Hermes local and gateway adapters need a public, reviewable source
path in the monorepo so package artifacts and built-in adapter behavior
match the application source.
- Operators need built-in `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` adapter
choices without losing the ability to install external Hermes packages
as overrides.
- Gateway onboarding needs secure defaults for API server URLs, API
keys, and generated agent setup text.
- Hermes-originated task bridge credentials need narrower API-key scope
configuration.
- Related public PRs found during duplicate search include #3027, #2363,
#7544, #7950, #8095, and #8543.
## What Changed
- Added the unified Hermes adapter package with local and gateway
server/UI/CLI exports, config schemas, transcript parsing, model
detection, and package metadata.
- Registered `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` as built-in adapters
across shared constants, server registries, CLI packaging, and UI
adapter registries.
- Kept the external adapter override path compatible so installed Hermes
packages can shadow built-ins and restore the built-in parser when
disabled.
- Added Hermes gateway onboarding docs, board-operator docs, Docker
smoke assets, and shell smoke harnesses for join/e2e validation.
- Added scoped task-bridge API-key support, authorization checks,
issue-origin handling, and tests for Hermes-created Paperclip tasks.
- Hardened gateway transport and redaction behavior for API keys,
headers, session data, and smoke diagnostics.
- Updated release packaging/bootstrap checks for the Hermes packages
while leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of the PR per repository policy.
## Verification
Targeted local verification recorded before PR handoff:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter exec vitest run
src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` — 14/14 passed.
- `pnpm test:hermes-gateway-smoke` — 6/6 passed.
- Hermes package typecheck/build checks passed.
- Focused server/UI adapter tests passed — 31/31.
- Release helper Node tests passed — 18/18.
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed.
Fresh Docker E2E smoke evidence:
- Ran `pnpm smoke:hermes-gateway-e2e` on 2026-06-26 with a fresh state
directory and fresh Docker container against a live Paperclip dev
server.
- Hermes direct execution reached `completed`.
- Hermes stop/cancel path reached `cancelled`.
- Hermes gateway created a Paperclip task, Paperclip ran the Hermes
agent, and the task reached `done` with the expected marker response.
- Temporary board auth keys, token files, smoke state, and Docker
containers were cleaned up after the run.
PR checks on head `b5eae40ce`:
- GitHub Actions passed: `policy`, `review`, `Typecheck + Release
Registry`, all general test shards, all serialized server shards,
`Build`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, and aggregate `verify`.
- External checks passed: Snyk and Socket Project Report.
- External Socket Pull Request Alerts remained pending after the
first-party CI matrix completed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this spans adapter registration, package publishing,
gateway execution, onboarding docs, API-key scoping, and UI adapter
metadata.
- Migration risk is low: the scope-config migration adds a nullable
column and does not rewrite existing keys.
- Gateway execution depends on operator-provided Hermes API
configuration; the smoke covers the Docker gateway path but real
deployments may differ by network/auth setup.
- Direct Greptile review on the latest expanded diff is file-count
limited, although the commitperclip review gate passed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled in a local repository
workspace. Context window size is not exposed in this environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Commitperclip review gate is green; direct Greptile review is
file-count limited on the latest expanded diff
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving
through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift
notices, and linked work.
> - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface,
not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments.
> - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes,
CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation
controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the
primitive reviewable end to end.
> - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline
workflow primitive stack.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator
experience and server contract together against `master`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature
request is described inline.
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company
workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request
review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation,
and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified
pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues,
routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate.
### Proposed solution
Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and
migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes,
aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the
React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail,
review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over
fields, and retry/recovery flows.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because
operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated
workflow patterns.
- Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch
because the operator experience is the main way to validate the
primitive.
- Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same
primitives are useful across future company processes.
## What Changed
- Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts,
server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke
support.
- Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment,
blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and
permission recovery behavior.
- Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item
detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets,
automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets,
liveness banners, and source automation metadata.
- Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared
`DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent
with the pipeline document surfaces.
- Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current
pipeline branch.
## Verification
Current branch refresh:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31
passed
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19
passed
- `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed
- Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`:
sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline
routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental
settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle.
- GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket,
Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review
- Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
Confidence Score 5/5
- GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads
Previously recorded during branch development:
- Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests
- Shared validator tests
- UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests
- Pipeline tutorial smoke path
## Risks
- High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database,
shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI.
- Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention
because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master`
syncs.
- GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting
normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status
checks are green.
- Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing
requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming
rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification
commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip
agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - CI runs a Canary Dry Run job that exercises `release.sh`, which
builds the standalone sandbox-provider packages for publish
> - That step (`scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`) built the
7 provider plugins serially — each doing `rm -rf dist && tsc` — making
it the dominant cost (~49s) inside the slowest PR check (~4.9m wall)
after the general-server lane was already sharded
> - The packages are independent (their own `node_modules` via
`--ignore-workspace`, their own `dist`), so the serial build is pure
latency with no correctness benefit
> - This pull request builds them with a bounded-concurrency pool sized
to the runner CPU count (overridable via
`STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`), buffering each package's output and
flushing it as one block so parallel logs stay readable, and aggregating
failures by original index
> - The benefit is a faster Canary Dry Run / PR feedback loop without
changing what gets built or published
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Inline feature/perf description:
### Problem or motivation
`build-standalone-public-packages.mjs` builds standalone provider
packages serially, making it the largest single cost inside the slowest
PR check.
### Proposed solution
Run independent per-package builds through a bounded-concurrency worker
pool sized to runner CPU count, with an env override and readable
buffered logs.
### Alternatives considered
Keep the serial build for simpler logs, but that preserves the avoidable
CI latency.
### Roadmap alignment
This is CI maintenance and does not overlap planned core roadmap work.
## What Changed
- `scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`: replaced the serial
per-package build loop with a bounded-concurrency pool (default = runner
CPU count, override via `STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`); per-package
stdout/stderr is buffered and flushed as a single block; failures are
aggregated by original package index so one failure neither aborts the
others mid-flight nor obscures which package broke.
- `scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs`: new
`node:test` unit suite covering the pool (limit respected, all items
run, ordered failure aggregation, env-override resolution).
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: wired the new unit test into the policy
job.
## Verification
- `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs` → 6/6 pass
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` → OK (29 enabled for CI
publish)
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` → clean
## Risks
- Low risk. Build inputs/outputs are unchanged; only scheduling differs.
The concurrency is bounded by CPU count and overridable; output is
buffered per package so logs remain attributable. If a package fails,
all failures are still reported with their package index.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking with tool
use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs 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
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products.
> - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue
properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and
plugin-provided external context.
> - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly
plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand
status, identity, and liveness.
> - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and
pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company.
> - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts,
storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can
contribute detection and status resolution.
> - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation,
GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters,
sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage.
> - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable
Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the
UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work.
Feature request:
- Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related
surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline.
- Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist
normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise
status-aware links across issue surfaces.
- Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues
containing external work links.
- Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped,
provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where
relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests.
Related PR search:
- No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`.
- Closed related prior attempt: #4556.
## What Changed
- Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness
helpers, and plugin protocol declarations.
- Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects,
source mentions, and display metadata.
- Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing,
refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents,
comments, projects, and plugins.
- Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring
docs.
- Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat,
documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar
badges, and Storybook stories.
- Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired
stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive
tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR
branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56
tests.
- Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm
test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not
claim those were rerun after the final rebase.
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on
issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync
wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core
mutations.
- Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are
additive and company-scoped.
- Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge
cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current
GitHub shapes.
- Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy
issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended
surfaces.
> Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the
current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature.
Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products,
preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped
external-object reference foundation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool
use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context
window were not exposed in the environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Every PR runs the `PR` GitHub Actions workflow, whose `verify` gate
fans out into parallel test lanes (general tests, serialized server
route suites, build, typecheck)
> - The `General tests (server)` lane had grown into the run's critical
path: it executed all ~213 non-route server suites serially in a single
job (~7.2m of test time), more than 2x any other job
> - It runs serially because `server/vitest.config.ts` pins `maxWorkers:
1`, so server suites cannot parallelize within a single runner — the
only lever is spreading them across runners
> - This pull request shards that lane into 3 even partitions that run
on separate runners, mirroring the 4-way sharding already used for the
serialized route suites
> - The benefit is the lane drops from ~7.7m to ~2.4m/shard, cutting
overall PR wall time roughly in half (~8.5m → ~4.2m)
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the underlying issue is
described inline following the feature-request template.
### Problem or motivation
PR CI wall time had crept back up to ~8.5m. On a recent fully-green run,
the `General tests (server)` job took 7.72m — more than double any other
job and the clear critical path. Of that, 7.23m was pure test execution
(dependency install was a cached 0.27m). The job ran all server suites
that are not route/authz tests (213 files) one after another, because
the server vitest project pins `maxWorkers: 1`, making these suites
inherently serial within a single runner.
### Proposed solution
Shard the general-server lane across 3 parallel runners — the same
technique the route/authz suites already use — so the suite set is split
into even, deterministic partitions that run concurrently. Add a
regression test that proves the shards always cover the full suite set
with no gaps or overlap.
### Alternatives considered
- **Raise `maxWorkers` for the server project** to parallelize within
one runner — rejected: the server suites share process-level state
(DB/port), which is exactly why `maxWorkers: 1` is pinned.
- **Two shards instead of three** — would leave the lane at ~3.6m, still
above the next bottleneck (Canary Dry Run, ~4.1m wouldn't be the gate).
Three lands the lane comfortably below it.
- **Do nothing / accept the slow lane** — rejected: it gates every PR.
### Roadmap alignment
Developer-experience / CI tooling. Not core product roadmap work; does
not overlap with planned features in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: the `general-server` general-test
group now accepts `--shard-index` / `--shard-count`. It enumerates the
full server test set (the whole `server/src` tree, minus the route/authz
suites that already run in their own serialized shards) and splits it
deterministically by modulo. The non-sharded local invocation (`pnpm
test:run:general --group general-server`) is unchanged.
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: the `general_tests` matrix runs
`general-server` as 3 parallel shards (1/3, 2/3, 3/3). Workspace groups
are unchanged. The `verify` gate already aggregates the whole matrix
result, so the required check name is unaffected.
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: a `node:test`
suite asserting the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition
of the general-server set, that no route/authz suite leaks into it, and
that shard flags are rejected for the parallel workspace groups. Wired
into the `policy` job.
## Verification
- New partition test passes locally: `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` (3/3).
- Confirmed the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition of
all 213 files (71/71/71).
- Ran a live thin shard (3 real server suites, including one outside
`__tests__`) — 23 tests passed, confirming positional-include execution
works end to end.
- This PR's own CI is the authoritative check: all three `General tests
(server (n/3))` jobs went green on the prior run, collectively covering
every suite the old single job ran.
## Risks
- Low risk. No product code changes — only test orchestration and CI
matrix. Shard partitioning is deterministic and is now covered by an
automated test that fails if the partition ever develops a gap or
overlap. Modulo-on-sorted-filenames balances duration reasonably,
matching the approach already proven by the serialized route shards.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking + tool use
(agentic coding via Paperclip).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — no UI change)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(inline comments explain the sharding rationale)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending this PR's run)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending review)
- [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, distributed primarily via the `paperclipai` npm package and its
`@paperclipai/*` workspace packages.
> - The release subsystem (`scripts/release-package-*`) decides which
workspace packages CI republishes at the unified calver version each
release, and `replaceWorkspaceDeps()` rewrites every internal
`workspace:` dependency to that calver version at publish time.
> - The gap: a package that publishes from CI can declare a `workspace:`
dependency on a package that is NOT enrolled for CI publish. The
dependency spec gets rewritten to a calver version that is never
actually published, so the dependent becomes uninstallable.
> - This shipped for real: a recent change made `@paperclipai/server`
depend on `@paperclipai/skills-catalog`, but skills-catalog was not on
the calver release train — so canary builds after that merge failed to
resolve `@paperclipai/skills-catalog@<calver>` and `npx
paperclipai@canary run` broke.
> - This PR addresses it durably by (a) putting every remaining internal
package on the CI release train so no internal dependency can dangle,
and (b) adding a fail-fast guard so this class of break can never ship
again.
> - The benefit is that canary and stable installs resolve all internal
dependencies, and any future unpublishable workspace edge fails the
release build with a clear, named error instead of producing a broken
package.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8327 (introduced the `server -> skills-catalog` runtime dependency
that surfaced the gap).
No public issue tracks this; describing it in-PR:
- **Problem:** After #8327, `npx paperclipai@canary run` failed for
builds past the merge because `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` was
rewritten to a calver version that was never published (the package was
not enrolled for CI publish). Versions before the merge still ran.
- **Root cause:** A `publishFromCi:true` package can declare a
`workspace:` dependency on a package that is not `publishFromCi:true`;
the release-time version rewrite then points at a non-existent published
version.
## What Changed
- Enrolled every remaining internal package on the calver release train
by setting `publishFromCi: true` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`: `skills-catalog`,
`teams-catalog`, `plugin-workspace-diff`, `plugin-kubernetes`,
`plugin-novita-sandbox`. There are now zero `publishFromCi:false`
entries.
- `skills-catalog`, `teams-catalog`, `plugin-workspace-diff` already
existed on npm — CI simply republishes them at calver.
- `plugin-kubernetes` and `plugin-novita-sandbox` were not on npm; their
one-time first publish was bootstrapped so the
`check-release-package-bootstrap` gate passes.
- Added `findUnpublishableWorkspaceEdges()` to
`scripts/release-package-map.mjs`, wired into
`buildReleasePackagePlan()`. The release map build now fails fast
(surfaced by the `check` CI already runs) whenever a
`publishFromCi:true` package declares a runtime `workspace:` dependency
(`dependencies`/`optionalDependencies`/`peerDependencies`) on a
non-`publishFromCi:true` `@paperclipai/*` package, naming the offending
edge.
- Added tests covering positive/negative detection, all three dependency
sections, unknown-package edges, off-train edges, and the live manifest.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` → 9/9 pass
(includes a test asserting the live manifest has no unpublishable
edges).
- `node scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs
scripts/release-package-manifest.json` → passes, naming all five
newly-enabled packages (all confirmed present on npm).
- Confirmed via `npm view` that all five packages resolve on the public
registry.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only enrolls already-existing (or
freshly-bootstrapped) packages onto the existing release train and adds
a build-time validation. No runtime code paths change. The new guard can
only *fail* a release that was already going to ship a broken package.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7), extended thinking, with tool use /
code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — no UI changes)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A —
no doc-facing behavior change)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Visual QA and screenshot-based review depend on a working headless
browser in agent sandboxes.
> - Playwright can provide the Chromium binary, but some sandboxes lack
the host shared libraries that Chromium needs to launch.
> - Those sandboxes often do not have sudo, so `playwright install-deps`
cannot install system packages.
> - This pull request adds a user-space provisioning script for the
Chromium runtime dependency closure.
> - The benefit is that QA can bootstrap a render-capable Chromium
environment without requiring root access or changing app runtime code.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this exact QA provisioning gap.
Problem: in no-sudo Linux sandboxes, Playwright's bundled Chromium may
fail to launch because the host is missing required shared libraries
such as libatk, libcups, libgbm, libpango, and libasound.
Expected behavior: QA agents should be able to provision a local prefix
that lets Playwright launch bundled Chromium headlessly and render text
without root access.
Related public PR: #7301 covers broader runtime tooling/dependency
setup, but this PR is a focused userspace script for the no-sudo
Chromium dependency case.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/qa/provision-headless-chromium.sh`.
- The script downloads the dependency closure for Playwright's Ubuntu
24.04 Chromium runtime packages with `apt-get download`, extracts the
`.deb` files into a user-space prefix, and emits an env file that sets
`LD_LIBRARY_PATH` and `FONTCONFIG_FILE`.
- The script also configures extracted fonts and an isolated font cache
so headless rendering paints text.
## Verification
- Ran `bash -n scripts/qa/provision-headless-chromium.sh`.
- The handoff verification states the script was run from a clean prefix
on Ubuntu 24.04 arm64 as a non-root user, then Chromium 145 launched
headless and rendered text at 1440x900 and 390x844 in light and dark
mode.
## Risks
Low risk. This adds a standalone QA utility script and does not modify
application runtime, package manifests, CI configuration, migrations, or
production code.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with shell and GitHub CLI
access. The original script was prepared by an agent workflow; Git
Expert amended public-facing references and prepared the PR.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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
> - Sandbox-provider plugins (cloudflare, daytona, e2b, exe-dev,
kubernetes, modal, novita) and `plugin-workspace-diff` are published as
standalone npm packages, but during local dev they need the in-repo
`@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` symlinked in
> - Each of these plugins shipped a `postinstall` lifecycle script that
traversed *out* of its own package directory (`node
../../../../scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs`) to do that linking
> - The publishable manifest is built by a `prepack` whitelist that
drops the `scripts` field, so npm consumers don't see the postinstall
today — but that safety property depends entirely on `prepack` running
on every publish. A publish that skips lifecycle scripts would ship a
tarball whose postinstall escapes its package directory at consumer
install time
> - This pull request removes the escape-the-package-dir lifecycle
script from every plugin source manifest and moves the dev linking to a
single root-level postinstall that iterates the excluded plugin
directories itself
> - The benefit is that plugin tarballs can no longer carry an
install-time script that reaches outside their own directory, regardless
of whether `prepack` runs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is a follow-up hardening change flagged during review of the Novita
sandbox provider PR (#7595).
**Problem (security):** Excluded plugin packages each carried
`"postinstall": "node ../../../../scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs"`. The
relative path traverses outside the package root. Today the published
manifest is sanitized by a `prepack` whitelist that drops `scripts`, so
consumers are unaffected in the normal publish path. The risk is that
this is a defense-in-depth gap: if a publish ever skips lifecycle
scripts (e.g. `npm publish --ignore-scripts` is *not* used, or a tool
publishes the raw manifest), the tarball would ship a postinstall that
runs out-of-tree code at the consumer's install time.
## What Changed
- Added a single root `package.json` `postinstall`: `node
scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs`.
- Rewrote `scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs` to iterate the excluded
plugin directories itself (`packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/*` + the
orchestration smoke example) instead of relying on each plugin to invoke
it from its own cwd. Preserves both prior behaviors: leave a real
installed SDK dir alone, and skip when already correctly symlinked
(idempotent).
- Removed `scripts.postinstall` from all 7 sandbox-provider plugins
(cloudflare, daytona, e2b, exe-dev, kubernetes, modal, novita).
- Removed `scripts.postinstall` from `plugin-workspace-diff` (a pnpm
workspace member — pnpm already links the SDK, so the script was a no-op
there).
## Verification
- `node scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs` from repo root: links the SDK
into the excluded plugins and reports skipped (already-linked) dirs;
re-running is idempotent.
- `grep -r "link-plugin-dev-sdk" packages/plugins/*/package.json
packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/*/package.json` returns no matches —
no plugin source manifest references the linker any longer.
- All affected `package.json` files re-validated as parseable JSON.
## Risks
Low risk. Dev-only tooling: the linker only runs at the repo root during
local install and only touches `node_modules/@paperclipai/plugin-sdk`
symlinks inside excluded plugin dirs. No change to published plugin
behavior or runtime code. Worst case if the root postinstall failed to
run, local dev of an excluded plugin would not find the SDK symlink —
easily re-run manually.
## Model Used
Claude Opus (claude-opus-4-8), extended reasoning, with tool use / code
execution in an agentic coding harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues 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 (added
`scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.test.js`, wired into
`test:release-registry`)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — no UI change)
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A)
- [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.
> - Paperclip already separates agent adapters from execution
environments, so agents can run locally, over SSH, or through sandbox
providers.
> - Sandbox provider plugins let Paperclip add new cloud runtimes
without changing each agent adapter.
> - Novita Agent Sandbox is a cloud runtime for AI agent workloads with
isolated filesystems, command execution, templates, timeout controls,
and pause/resume behavior.
> - Paperclip currently has sandbox provider examples for Daytona and
Cloudflare, but not Novita.
> - This pull request adds a Novita sandbox provider plugin using the
existing provider-plugin lifecycle.
> - The benefit is that Paperclip users can run existing adapters such
as Codex, Claude, Gemini, OpenCode, Cursor, or ACPX inside Novita Agent
Sandbox environments.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#7596
## What Changed
- Added `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/novita` as a standalone
sandbox provider plugin package.
- Registered provider key `novita` with `kind: "sandbox_provider"` and
`environment.drivers.register` capability.
- Implemented Novita environment lifecycle hooks: validate config,
probe, acquire lease, resume lease, release lease, destroy lease,
realize workspace, and execute commands.
- Added config support for `apiKey`, `domain`, `template`,
`requestedCwd`, `timeoutMs`, `requestTimeoutMs`, `secure`, `autoPause`,
and `reuseLease`.
- Added README documentation for setup, configuration, and lifecycle
behavior.
- Added tests for manifest shape, config parsing, safe shell command
wrapping, stdin delimiter safety, and env-key validation.
## Verification
From `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/novita`:
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm test`
The tests avoid live Novita API calls and cover the provider's static
contract and command-wrapping behavior. Live end-to-end verification
requires a Paperclip instance with the plugin installed and a Novita API
key configured as either a Paperclip secret or `NOVITA_API_KEY` in the
worker environment.
## Risks
- This adds a new direct dependency on the Novita Sandbox JS SDK
(`novita-sandbox`). Socket/Snyk should review the package as part of
normal dependency checks.
- The implementation relies on Novita SDK command execution semantics;
live provider behavior should be verified with a real Novita sandbox
before marking the plugin production-ready.
- `reuseLease` maps Paperclip release behavior to Novita `betaPause()`.
If pause is unavailable for a selected template, the plugin falls back
to best-effort kill during release.
- Low migration risk for existing users because this is a new standalone
provider plugin and does not change existing adapters or built-in
providers.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Codex CLI, with repository file access, shell
command execution, GitHub CLI/API usage, and local TypeScript/Vitest
verification. Web and local documentation context were used for Novita
Sandbox SDK/API behavior.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The reference container image must be deployable on both Docker
Compose (where it starts as root and `gosu`'s a `USER_UID`/`USER_GID`
switch) and Kubernetes (where the pod is typically constrained by
PodSecurity)
> - The Kubernetes operator (paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#45) sets
`runAsNonRoot: true`, `runAsUser: 1000`, `allowPrivilegeEscalation:
false`, and `drop: ALL` capabilities by default — the unconditional
`usermod` + `gosu` flow in the entrypoint requires root + `CAP_SETUID` /
`CAP_SETGID`, making the image undeployable on any cluster enforcing
baseline or restricted PodSecurity
> - Without root, neither the user remap nor `gosu` can ever succeed —
so the fix is a runtime branch: non-root starts `exec` the command
directly (warning if the runtime UID/GID differs from the requested
one), while root starts keep the existing `usermod`+`gosu` flow
> - This also covers platforms that assign arbitrary UIDs (OpenShift
restricted SCC), which previously crashed with a cryptic `usermod:
Permission denied`
> - The benefit is one image that works for both deployment shapes with
no operator-side workaround — pure superset, no breaking change
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#45 (cross-repo) — the operator's
default pod security context (`runAsNonRoot: true`, `runAsUser: 1000`,
`allowPrivilegeEscalation: false`, `drop: ALL`) is blocked by this
entrypoint behavior. The operator shipped a stopgap
(paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#46 lets the CRD override the security
context); this PR is the image-side fix that makes the secure defaults
work out of the box. Supersedes #2904 (v1 of this branch).
No in-repo issue covers this directly — problem described in-PR
following the bug-report template:
**What happened**
The entrypoint unconditionally runs `usermod`/`groupmod`/`chown` + `exec
gosu node`, which requires root plus `CAP_SETUID` / `CAP_SETGID` — any
non-root start crashes (`gosu` cannot drop privileges; a mismatched UID
dies earlier at `usermod: Permission denied`), making the reference
image undeployable on clusters enforcing baseline or restricted
PodSecurity.
**Expected behavior**
A non-root container `exec`s the command directly (with a clear warning
if its UID/GID differs from the requested `USER_UID`/`USER_GID`, since a
remap is impossible without root). The existing root + `usermod` +
`gosu` flow is preserved for Docker Compose, where the container starts
as root and switches to the requested UID/GID.
**Deployment mode**
Kubernetes with baseline/restricted PodSecurity and OpenShift-style
arbitrary-UID platforms (failing cases); Docker Compose root-start (must
keep working).
## What Changed
- **`scripts/docker-entrypoint.sh`** — branch on the runtime UID:
- **Non-root start** → `exec "$@"` directly. If the runtime UID/GID
differs from `USER_UID`/`USER_GID`, print a one-line warning to stderr
first (the remap is impossible without root; the warning keeps
volume-permission mismatches diagnosable instead of failing cryptically
inside `usermod`).
- **Root start** → unchanged: `usermod`/`groupmod` remap when requested,
`chown` of `/paperclip` when a remap happened, then `exec gosu node
"$@"`.
## Verification
**Automated:** `server/src/__tests__/docker-entrypoint.test.ts` runs the
real entrypoint with `id`/`usermod`/`groupmod`/`chown`/`gosu` stubbed
via PATH and asserts all five privilege branches (root+defaults,
root+remap, non-root match, arbitrary non-root UID, GID mismatch) — runs
in the regular server suite, no Docker needed.
**Manual (Docker):** ran the entrypoint on `node:lts-trixie-slim` (the
image's actual base) across the full matrix, with `gosu` stubbed to a
marker:
- [x] Root start, defaults → no remap, `gosu node` invoked (Docker
Compose flow unchanged)
- [x] Root start, `USER_UID=1001`/`USER_GID=1001` → `Updating node
UID/GID to 1001` + `gosu node` (remap flow unchanged)
- [x] Non-root `--user 1000:1000` (the operator's `runAsUser: 1000`
shape) → silent direct exec, command runs as 1000:1000
- [x] Non-root `--user 1234:1234` (arbitrary UID) → warning `running
unprivileged as 1234:1234; cannot remap to requested 1000:1000`, then
direct exec (previously: crash)
- [x] Non-root `--user 1000:1001` (GID mismatch) → warning, then direct
exec
- [x] Baseline check: master's entrypoint fails for any non-root start
(gosu/usermod require root)
End-to-end cluster verification under restricted PodSecurity exercises
the same branch as the `--user 1000:1000` case above; the operator
repo's deploy is the natural place for that smoke test once this ships
in an image tag.
## Risks
- **Backward-compatible.** Docker Compose / root-entrypoint path is
byte-for-byte the same flow — `usermod`/`gosu` runs whenever the
container starts as root.
- **Behavior change only for previously-broken starts.** Non-root
containers used to crash; they now run. The only observable difference
for a *working* deployment is none.
- **Mismatched non-root UID/GID warns instead of failing.** Deliberate:
the remap is impossible without root, and arbitrary-UID platforms
(OpenShift) rely on group-writable volumes; a hard fail would keep them
broken. The stderr warning preserves diagnosability.
- **No new env vars, no API surface.** Pure entrypoint behavior change
gated on the runtime UID.
- **Restricted PodSecurity ready.** The non-root branch needs no Linux
capabilities — works under `drop: ALL`.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.6; rebase, non-root generalization, and verification
matrix by Claude Fable 5 (1M context).
## Checklist
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] Thinking path traces from project context to this change
- [x] Model used specified
- [x] Checked ROADMAP.md — not in conflict with planned core work
(agent-runtime sandbox images use `tini`, no gosu — unaffected)
- [x] Tests run locally and pass (new `docker-entrypoint.test.ts`
covering all five privilege branches, plus a manual Docker matrix on the
real base image; see Verification)
- [x] No UI changes
- [x] Documented risks above
- [x] Will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge
Unblocks the default (non-overridden) security context of
paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#45 / #46.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Sandbox providers are the seam that lets agent runs execute in
isolated environments; today the only first-party remote provider is
Daytona, a hosted third-party service
> - Self-hosters running Paperclip on their own infrastructure (often
Kubernetes already) have no first-party way to run agent sandboxes on a
cluster they control
> - That gap matters for teams with data-residency, sovereignty, or cost
constraints who cannot or will not send workloads to a hosted sandbox
service
> - This pull request adds a Kubernetes sandbox-provider plugin as a
standalone, workspace-excluded package: it implements every
SandboxProvider hook the Daytona provider does, on infrastructure the
operator owns
> - The benefit is that any Paperclip deployment with a Kubernetes
cluster gets multi-tenant, network-isolated, quota-bounded agent
sandboxes with zero new external dependencies
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue. Following the feature template:
- **Problem:** Paperclip's remote sandbox execution requires a hosted
third-party provider. Self-hosters cannot run agent sandboxes on their
own Kubernetes clusters with a first-party provider.
- **Proposed solution:** A `@paperclipai/plugin-kubernetes`
sandbox-provider plugin with two backends: long-lived sandboxes via the
[kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox)
CRD (multi-command exec, adapter-install pattern) and one-shot
`batch/v1` Jobs (stable APIs only, no extra controllers).
- **Alternatives considered:** Driving kubectl from a generic shell
provider (no lifecycle/lease semantics), or requiring a hosted provider
(exactly the constraint this removes).
## What Changed
This is **stage 1 of 3** of a staged contribution (direction agreed with
maintainers): the plugin package alone. Stage 2 (server integration:
lease params, provider registration) and stage 3 (agent runtime images +
CI) are companion PRs that will be cross-linked from a comment here.
- New package `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes`
(workspace-excluded, like the path already carved out in
`pnpm-workspace.yaml`): src, unit + kind integration tests, operator
prerequisite manifests, README, smoke-test guide
- Implements the full SandboxProvider hook surface the Daytona provider
implements: `validateConfig`, `probe`, `acquireLease`, `resumeLease`,
`releaseLease`, `destroyLease`, `realizeWorkspace`, `execute`
- Two backends: `sandbox-cr` (default; long-lived pod via the
agent-sandbox `Sandbox` CR, supports multi-command exec) and `job`
(one-shot `batch/v1` Job; nothing beyond k8s 1.27+ required)
- Per-run adapter resolution: one environment serves mixed harnesses;
the per-run `adapterType` hint is read through a local optional type
extension, so the plugin typechecks and builds against the current
plugin SDK and simply falls back to the environment's configured default
adapter until stage 2 lands
- Exec-env wrapping: the Kubernetes exec API carries no environment, so
commands are wrapped to receive the run's env
- Fast-upload interception for workspace realization, scoped per lease
- Per-tenant isolation: derived namespace per company, RBAC,
ResourceQuota, restricted-PSS pod security (runAsNonRoot, drop ALL,
seccomp RuntimeDefault, no SA token automount)
- Network egress policy in two flavors: native `NetworkPolicy` and
`CiliumNetworkPolicy` (FQDN allowlists)
- Image allowlist with glob matching, registry override, and per-run
image override validation
- Per-run Kubernetes Secrets carrying agent credentials, ownerRef'd to
the Job or Sandbox CR for cascade GC
## Verification
- Standalone build, exactly as the README documents:
```bash
cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes
pnpm install --ignore-workspace
pnpm test # 147 unit tests, 17 files, all green
pnpm typecheck # clean against the in-repo plugin SDK on master
pnpm build # dist/ emitted, manifest + worker entrypoints present
```
- A kind-cluster end-to-end integration test is included
(`RUN_K8S_INTEGRATION_TESTS=1 pnpm test
test/integration/end-to-end-run.test.ts`)
- Beyond CI: this provider has been verified in a production
multi-tenant deployment against five harnesses (opencode, pi, codex,
gemini, claude code) with real billed runs
## Risks
- **Zero behavior change for any existing deployment.** The package is
workspace-excluded; nothing in the server imports or loads it until
stage 2's integration lands. No existing code paths are touched.
- The default `sandbox-cr` backend depends on an alpha CRD
(`agents.x-k8s.io/v1alpha1`); the README flags this and the `job`
backend uses only stable APIs as a fallback.
- Risk surface is confined to deployments that explicitly install and
configure the plugin.
- The default runtime images (`ghcr.io/paperclipai/agent-runtime-*`) are
published by the stage 3 companion PR (#7934); until that lands,
deployments must point `runtimeImage` at their own images.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context), extended thinking, with tool use (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 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 (no UI changes)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending this push)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect
files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work.
> - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file
references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI.
> - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side
workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing
arbitrary host paths.
> - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and
be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review.
> - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page
file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact
file chips.
> - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from
issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip
issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`.
Problem / motivation:
- Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents
or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal.
- The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace
browsing/searching from an issue page.
- The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size
limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging.
Related PR:
- Prior closed attempt: #4442
- Single active PR for this branch: #7681
## What Changed
- Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and
workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products.
- Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing
workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific
limits, and audit logging.
- Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser,
command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact
file chips.
- Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and
workspace file opening.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
updated the existing single PR branch.
- Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset`
consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring
stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and
stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test.
## Verification
Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`:
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts
ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts
ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx`
- 1 file passed, 25 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed.
- Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current
`public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer
PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single
active PR for the branch.
- No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add
design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work.
Current remote verification on head
`a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`:
- Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no
unresolved Greptile review threads.
- PR workflow `verify` - success.
- Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards,
serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk -
success.
- `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was
filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block.
- `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate
detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I
reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test
failure was exposed in the job logs.
## Risks
- This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention
to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown
autolink false positives.
- Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth;
very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms.
- Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access
support is implemented.
- The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer
review, but the check output says it is not a merge block.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use
environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch
inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI
inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release workflow publishes canary npm packages on every push to
`master`
> - The failing canary job built successfully and published several
packages before npm failed on `@paperclipai/mcp-server`
> - The concrete failure was npm trusted-publishing provenance returning
`TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` because an equivalent Sigstore
transparency-log entry already existed
> - The package version was not visible on npm afterward, so the release
script could not safely treat that error as success by itself
> - This pull request adds a narrow recovery path for that npm
provenance failure and keeps the existing registry verification as the
final source of truth
> - The benefit is that transient duplicate transparency-log failures do
not break canary publication when a package can be republished without
provenance or is already visible on npm
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Bug fix, no public GitHub issue found in duplicate search.
- What happened: the Release workflow canary publish failed in
`publish_canary` after npm returned `TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` while
publishing `@paperclipai/mcp-server@2026.609.0-canary.2`.
- Expected behavior: canary publishing should either recover from npm's
duplicate transparency-log failure when the package can still be
published, or fail later in registry verification if the package never
appears.
- Steps to reproduce: inspect
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/27230012891/job/80411422155
from push `05cb18cf28074a6d1074c7575c5a44133146e368`.
- Deployment mode: GitHub Actions Release workflow, npm trusted
publishing.
- Duplicate search: no open PRs or issues found for `canary publish TLOG
provenance release` or the failing run/job IDs.
## What Changed
- Added `publish_package_to_npm` in `scripts/release-lib.sh` to wrap
canary/stable package publishing.
- Detects npm's duplicate Sigstore transparency-log error and checks
whether the package version is already visible on npm.
- Retries that exact package once with `--provenance=false` when npm hit
the duplicate tlog error but the version is not visible yet.
- Keeps unrelated publish failures as hard failures.
- Added shell-helper tests with fake `pnpm` and `npm` commands, and
included them in `pnpm test:release-registry`.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs`
- `pnpm test:release-registry`
- Confirmed `pnpm publish --dry-run --no-git-checks --tag canary
--access public --provenance=false` is accepted by pnpm 9.15.4.
## Risks
- Low risk: the recovery only triggers when npm output contains both
`TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` and the duplicate transparency-log message.
- Publishing without provenance is a fallback for canary continuity; if
npm still does not expose the package, the existing registry
verification step still fails the release.
- The same helper is used by stable publishing too, but only for this
exact npm provenance failure path.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
This is a release reliability bug fix. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; it does
not duplicate planned core product work.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-class model, tool-enabled local shell
and GitHub CLI workflow, medium reasoning mode.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The skills layout separates runtime Paperclip skills in `skills/`
from maintainer/agent workflow skills in `.agents/skills/`.
> - Three maintainer workflow skills still lived under root `skills/`,
making them look like runtime skills shipped through the Paperclip skill
path.
> - Root `skills/` is documented as reserved for Paperclip runtime
skills, so these task-oriented maintainer skills belong with the other
`.agents/skills` entries.
> - This pull request moves the three requested skill packages, updates
the direct smoke path, and adds regression coverage for the
maintainer-only skill boundary.
> - The benefit is a cleaner skills boundary without changing skill
contents or runtime behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10471.
No public GitHub issue exists for this repository-maintenance change.
Inline feature/enhancement issue description follows the feature request
template fields:
### Problem or motivation
Root `skills/` is documented as reserved for Paperclip runtime skills,
but `terminal-bench-loop`, `paperclip-create-plugin`, and
`diagnose-why-work-stopped` lived there even though they are
maintainer/agent workflow skills.
### Proposed solution
Move those three skill packages to `.agents/skills/`, update the
terminal-bench loop smoke script to read the new local path, and cover
the moved skill names in the existing runtime-skill discovery test
fixture.
### Alternatives considered
Leaving the skills in root `skills/` would preserve direct old paths,
but it keeps blurring the runtime-skill boundary. Moving them into the
app-shipped skills catalog would be the wrong fit because these are
maintainer workflow skills, not bundled company skills.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a small maintenance cleanup around the existing Skills
Manager/workflow-skill organization and does not introduce a
roadmap-level core feature.
## What Changed
- Moved `terminal-bench-loop`, `paperclip-create-plugin`, and
`diagnose-why-work-stopped` into `.agents/skills/`.
- Updated the terminal-bench loop smoke script and skill self-check text
to use `.agents/skills/terminal-bench-loop/SKILL.md`.
- Added regression coverage in
`server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` that places these
three skills under `.agents/skills` while asserting runtime discovery
still lists only root runtime skills.
## Verification
- `pnpm smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill --source-issue-id
"$PAPERCLIP_TASK_ID" --run-key PAP-10471-move-skill-path`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts`
- `rg -n
"skills/(terminal-bench-loop|paperclip-create-plugin|diagnose-why-work-stopped)"
. --glob '!node_modules' --glob '!dist' --glob '!ui/dist'` returned no
matches.
## Risks
- Low risk: this is a file-location change plus direct path/test
updates.
- Maintainer agents that referenced the old root paths directly will
need to use `.agents/skills/...` instead.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell/tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## 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
Fixes#7551
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable
company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch.
> - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that
can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company.
> - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package
contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI
workflows, and the board UI.
> - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped
company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent
creation, and preserved catalog provenance.
> - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into
one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`.
> - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI,
package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync.
## What Changed
- Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional
team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests,
and migration notes.
- Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and
services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams.
- Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source
policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager
reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection.
- Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior,
including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden
agent-run installs.
- Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures,
and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary
navigation.
- Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed
generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai
typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and
`public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`.
- Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`,
generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts.
## Risks
- Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared
contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code.
- Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must
keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks
strict.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy;
CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh.
- The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so
future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
>
> ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and
plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed
on the Paperclip task branch for review.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session;
exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and
local test/typecheck tooling.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents across isolated execution
workspaces; the local cwd is the only persistence boundary between runs.
> - Workspace lifecycle (worktree_prepare → execute →
workspace_finalize) and the wake/accept flow are what guarantee that
dependent issues see a consistent worktree.
> - PAPA-380 / PAPA-431 / PAPA-432 / PAPA-440 surfaced three holes in
that contract: silent env reuse across assignees, dependent wakes firing
before finalize, and `issue.interaction.accept` advancing before
finalize landed.
> - PAPA-441 / PAPA-442 then needed to document the "no remote git"
contract and prevent future adapter/runtime code from quietly
reintroducing `git push` as a backdoor sync.
> - This pull request lands those server fixes, the static
`check-no-git-push` enforcement, the AUTHORING.md cross-link, and the
Cody-review follow-ups on the PAPA-430 thread.
> - The benefit is that finalize is a real barrier — board accepts,
dependent wakes, and operator-set env all respect it — and adapter code
can't bypass it via raw `git push`.
## What Changed
- **server (PAPA-380, PAPA-431):** `execution-workspace-policy` refuses
silent env reuse when the assignee's resolved env disagrees with the
workspace it would inherit. The inheritance protection is now scoped to
the actual inheritance signal — explicit issue-level `environmentId` is
honored even when the agent's default env is `null`.
- **server (PAPA-432):** `heartbeat.ts` gates dependent wakes on
`listUnfinalizedExecutionWorkspaceIds`, and writes a
`workspace_finalize` row on the succeeded path. Write failures now
surface instead of being swallowed so dependents aren't silently
stranded behind a missing row.
- **server (PAPA-440):** `issue-thread-interactions.acceptInteraction`
adds a workspace_finalize precondition for `request_confirmation` (not
`suggest_tasks`). Accept returns 409 if finalize hasn't succeeded for
the latest workspace operation.
- **ci (PAPA-442):** new `scripts/check-no-git-push.mjs` static check
scans `packages/adapters/`, `packages/adapter-utils/`, `server/src/`,
and `cli/src/` for any `git push` invocation (string or args-array).
Wired into the `policy` PR job and `test:release-registry`. Operators
can opt in per-call with `// paperclip:allow-git-push: <reason>`.
Release scripts are out of scope by design.
- **docs (PAPA-441):** `AUTHORING.md` documents the no-remote-git
contract and cross-links the static check so adapter authors learn the
rule and the enforcement together.
- **review follow-up (PAPA-430, Cody):** three fixes — env resolver bug,
accept-gate scope (request_confirmation only), and finalize record write
on the succeeded path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` → 33/33
pass
- `node scripts/check-no-git-push.test.mjs` → check covers string form,
args-array form, comment exclusions, and per-line allow-comment.
- Manual: server compiles; the policy job runs the check in <1s before
heavier jobs.
## Risks
- **Behavioral shift in accept:** boards accepting
`request_confirmation` while finalize is in-flight now get 409s. This is
intentional — they can retry — but it changes timing on a hot path.
`suggest_tasks` is unaffected.
- **Workspace policy:** the env-reuse refusal is a new error path.
Issues that previously silently reused an env from a different-assignee
workspace will now fail-loud; the resolver still honors explicit
issue-level `executionWorkspaceSettings.environmentId`.
- **CI rule:** any future legitimate `git push` in scoped dirs must be
marked with the allow-comment, which is the intended ergonomic.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking), via Claude
Code in the Paperclip executor adapter.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — server/CI/docs only)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Closes related issues: PAPA-430, PAPA-380, PAPA-431, PAPA-432, PAPA-440,
PAPA-441, PAPA-442
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through
company-scoped control-plane workflows.
> - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed,
reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup.
> - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills,
optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills
have clear provenance.
> - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and
managing company skills.
> - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog,
company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI.
> - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills
are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog
listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills.
- Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled
and optional skill content plus validation/build tests.
- Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI,
server, and UI contracts.
- Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog
operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance.
- Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains
explicit across local adapters.
- Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed
company skills.
- Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills
Paperclip skill reference.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no
`pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included
in the final PR diff.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`.
- Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default
branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`.
- Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four
provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database
from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump
contains a duplicate-column foreign key
(`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The
default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the
focused run above.
- Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and
no migration-file changes relative to `master`.
## Risks
- Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server
APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI.
- Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention
because they affect reusable company setup and portability.
- No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no
migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff.
- No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be
handled by the repository lockfile workflow.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the
`codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool
access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata is not exposed
in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run targeted tests locally and documented the local
workspace-runtime seed failure above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally
omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and
reviewer inspection
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Fresh self-hosted deployments need an operator path before any
invite exists.
> - Umbrel installs are private LAN deployments, so a one-time browser
claim is appropriate only when the deployment is private and unclaimed.
> - Public deployments and installs with active invites must keep the
existing invite-only model so admin creation is not exposed broadly.
> - GitHub PR #2927 established the useful direction, but it needed to
be adapted onto current `master` rather than merged as-is.
> - This pull request adds that adapted private-only claim flow across
server, UI, docs, and regression coverage.
> - The benefit is that a fresh private Umbrel-style install can be
claimed from the browser without weakening public deployment access.
## What Changed
- Added a first-admin claim service and access route support for
one-time admin claim eligibility on private unclaimed deployments.
- Updated the bootstrap/access UI so eligible private installs show a
setup claim path, while public and invited deployments keep invite-first
behavior.
- Added a bootstrap-pending setup UX lab covering claim, invite, public,
and signed-in access states.
- Updated deployment and local development docs for authenticated
private/public behavior and the Umbrel-style claim path.
- Added server and UI regression tests for private claim, public
no-claim, active invite fallback, existing board/no-access flows, and
health exposure reporting.
- Stabilized PR handoff verification by serializing the aggregate server
Vitest workspace run, forcing `NODE_ENV=test`, and relaxing the
heartbeat batching test around legitimate recovery follow-up runs.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts`
- `pnpm test:run`
- QA validation: PAP-10115 passed browser validation with screenshots
for private fresh install claim, active invite versus claim conflict,
public invite-only/claim-absent behavior, existing invite fallback, and
normal board/no-access flows.
- GitHub closeout: issue #2579 and PR #2927 were updated with the
accepted direction: adapt the implementation, do not direct-merge #2927
as-is.
## Risks
- The claim endpoint must remain private-only and one-time; a regression
here could expose admin creation on public deployments.
- Existing invite behavior must remain intact for public deployments and
installs that already have an active invite.
- The stable Vitest harness now serializes the aggregate server
workspace group; this is slower, but it avoids DB-backed suite
collisions under root workspace mode.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
>
> ROADMAP.md checked: this is a scoped deployment bootstrap/access fix
and does not duplicate a listed roadmap project.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` for product
engineering, implementation, and verification, with tool-enabled local
code execution. Paperclip QA browser validation was performed in
PAP-10115 by the assigned QA agent; exact adapter model metadata for
that QA run is not exposed in this PR context.
## 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 operators spend most of their time scanning the board,
inbox, sidebar, and local dev status surfaces
> - Small UI and dev-ops frictions make repeated operator workflows feel
slower than they need to be
> - The working branch contained several independent quality-of-life
improvements mixed with larger cloud work
> - Grouping these smaller UI/dev-ops changes together keeps review
overhead reasonable without merging them into feature PRs
> - This pull request collects the operator-facing QoL polish into one
standalone branch
> - The benefit is a cleaner board navigation and local dev recovery
experience without depending on cloud upstream sync
## What Changed
- Relaxed forced 44px touch targets for small inline widgets.
- Fixed mobile mention menu scrolling and sidebar spacing on
touch/mobile layouts.
- Synced inbox hover state with j/k selection.
- Moved plugin sidebar entries into the Work section.
- Added manual dev-server restart action/banner behavior.
- Logged plugin bridge 502 causes for better diagnosis.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx
ui/src/components/DevRestartBanner.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/dev-server-status.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` initially failed only
because plugin SDK `dist` was not built in the fresh worktree.
- Rerun after build: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` passed.
- The remaining targeted UI/dev-server tests passed on the first
post-install run.
## Visual Evidence
- Sidebar layout and plugin Work section: 
- Inbox/task row selection and hover-state surface: 
- Dev restart banner desktop: 
- Dev restart banner mobile: 
## Risks
- Mostly UI/dev ergonomics with low data risk.
- Sidebar and inbox changes touch frequently used navigation surfaces,
so visual review on desktop/mobile is still useful.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use.
Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the
local Paperclip adapter runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip keeps its core release process declarative through
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`, which decides which packages CI
is allowed to publish.
> - The Modal sandbox provider now exists as a first-party plugin
package under `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal`.
> - The original Modal PR intentionally left `publishFromCi` disabled
until the package had been published and the registry bootstrap concern
was cleared.
> - The latest reviewer comment confirms that bootstrap step is
complete, so the remaining gap is only release automation configuration.
> - This pull request flips the Modal manifest entry to `publishFromCi:
true` so future CI-driven releases can publish
`@paperclipai/plugin-modal` the same way the other releasable packages
do.
> - The benefit is that Modal releases no longer require a manual
exception in the release pipeline.
## What Changed
- Updated the `@paperclipai/plugin-modal` entry in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json` to set `publishFromCi` to
`true`.
## Verification
- Ran `node -e 'const
m=require("./scripts/release-package-manifest.json"); const
e=m.find(x=>x.name==="@paperclipai/plugin-modal");
if(!e||e.publishFromCi!==true){throw new Error("modal publishFromCi not
true")}; console.log(JSON.stringify(e))'`
## Risks
- Low risk. This only changes release-manifest metadata; the main
failure mode is CI attempting to publish the Modal package before
registry credentials or release conditions are ready.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex local agent, GPT-5-based coding model in the Codex
runtime (exact deployment model ID not exposed in this workspace), with
tool use and shell execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through company-scoped
control-plane workflows and extensible runtime integrations.
> - Sandbox providers are part of that extension surface because they
let agents execute isolated work without baking each provider into the
core server.
> - Modal already offers managed sandboxes with filesystem, process,
timeout, and networking controls that map onto Paperclip's sandbox
provider contract.
> - The repo did not have a Modal provider plugin, so teams wanting
Modal-backed sandboxes had no first-party integration path.
> - This pull request adds a standalone
`packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal` plugin that implements the
provider contract, worker entrypoint, docs, and tests.
> - The benefit is that Modal can now be installed as a provider plugin
without expanding the core control-plane surface area.
## What Changed
- Added a new `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal` package with
the plugin manifest, worker entrypoint, and exported plugin surface.
- Implemented Modal-backed sandbox lifecycle support for creation,
command execution, file operations, networking options, termination, and
metadata translation.
- Added focused Vitest coverage for config validation, env handling,
lifecycle flows, networking behavior, and error mapping.
- Documented installation, configuration, and usage requirements in the
plugin README.
- Removed misleading `MODAL_TOKEN_*` fallback behavior so authentication
relies on supported Modal credentials only.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- `cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal && pnpm test`
## Risks
- Low to medium risk: this is isolated to a new plugin package, but
runtime behavior still depends on live Modal account credentials and
service-side sandbox semantics.
- Modal's current docs target a newer Node baseline than the repo
default, so the first live install should confirm credential loading and
sandbox startup behavior in a real Modal workspace.
- No UI or schema changes are included in this PR.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` agent (GPT-5-class Codex
coding model; exact backend model ID is not exposed by the runtime),
with tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators need to inspect what agents changed inside execution and
project workspaces.
> - The existing workspace detail views did not provide a first-party
rich diff surface for staged, unstaged, head, renamed, binary,
oversized, and untracked changes.
> - The plugin system is the intended extension point for optional rich
UI surfaces.
> - This pull request adds a workspace diff plugin plus host services
and shared contracts so Changes tabs can render workspace diffs through
plugin slots.
> - The diff-renderer dependency should stay owned by the plugin package
rather than the core UI app.
> - The dependency surface must stay aligned with repository PR policy,
including intentionally omitting `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the PR.
> - The benefit is a more reviewable workspace surface without
hard-coding the renderer into every page.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`, including diff
normalization, plugin manifest/worker/UI entrypoints, and focused plugin
tests.
- Kept `@pierre/diffs` scoped to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`;
removed the core UI lab diff-renderer surface and direct UI package
dependency.
- Added shared workspace diff types and validators, plus plugin SDK
surface for workspace diff host services.
- Added server workspace diff service support and route coverage for
execution/project workspace diff flows.
- Wired Execution Workspace and Project Workspace Changes tabs to load
the diff plugin, including loading/error fallback behavior.
- Added UI tests and fixtures for the Changes tabs and plugin bridge
behavior.
- Added the new plugin package manifest to the Docker deps stage so PR
policy can validate dependency coverage.
- Addressed review hardening around empty untracked patches, workspace
path exposure, project workspace read capability checks, and default
base refs.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff test`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/workspace-diff.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-diff-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/ProjectWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs`
- Browser screenshot captured from the local worktree dev server:
https://files.catbox.moe/ofdpsp.png
- Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master`,
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` is not included in the PR diff,
`ui/package.json` is not included in the PR diff, and `pnpm-lock.yaml`
is not included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium UI integration risk: the Changes tab depends on the plugin slot
and host diff service path.
- Medium dependency risk: this adds `@pierre/diffs` in the plugin
package, but `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally omitted per packaging
instructions because repository automation manages lockfile updates.
- Current CI blocker: downstream frozen installs fail until the
repository policy path for new plugin package dependencies is chosen.
- Diff rendering edge cases are covered for common working-tree and head
diff states, but very large repositories may still expose performance
limits.
- No migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 class coding model, tool-enabled local execution
environment. Exact context window was not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip publishes its CLI, server, UI, and adapter packages
through the shared release workflow.
> - Canary releases are driven by the GitHub release workflow on pushes
to `master`.
> - The release workflow does not publish every public package
automatically; it uses `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` as the CI
enrollment source of truth.
> - The Grok adapter is public and already present in the manifest, but
its `publishFromCi` flag was still disabled.
> - Because of that flag, normal canary publishes skipped
`@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local` even when the main package received a
canary.
> - This pull request enables Grok in the release manifest so future
canary runs include it.
> - The benefit is that Grok adapter canaries stay aligned with the rest
of the package release set.
## What Changed
- Set `packages/adapters/grok-local` / `@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local`
to `publishFromCi: true` in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`.
## Verification
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check`
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs list | grep
'@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local'`
- `pnpm test:release-registry`
## Risks
- Low risk: this is a release manifest-only change.
- Future canary releases will attempt to publish
`@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local`; this assumes the package remains
publishable and trusted publishing/package access are correctly
configured for the existing npm package.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub
tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a control-plane repo that
relies on GitHub Actions as part of its release and verification safety
net.
> - The PR workflow in `.github/workflows/pr.yml` is the core CI path
protecting pull requests before merge.
> - Baseline measurement work in [PAPA-335](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-335)
showed the old single `verify` job was the critical-path bottleneck,
with general tests and build serialized together.
> - Follow-up implementation in [PAPA-338](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-338) and
[PAPA-339](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-339) split that work into parallel lanes
and removed redundant clean-runner prebuild work.
> - [PAPA-340](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-340) now needs real post-change PR
workflow evidence, not local inference, to compare against the May 15,
2026 baseline and decide whether phase-2 work is still justified.
> - This pull request publishes the already-implemented CI speedup
branch so GitHub can run the actual `PR` workflow against it.
> - The benefit is that CI timing decisions are based on measured runs
from the exact workflow shape we intend to ship.
## What Changed
- Split the PR workflow so `policy` fans out into separate `Typecheck +
Release Registry`, grouped `General tests`, and `Build` jobs.
- Kept the serialized server matrix, canary dry run, and e2e jobs intact
while removing the old monolithic `verify` bottleneck.
- Reworked grouped general-test execution in
`scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` so the workflow can run balanced
non-serialized lanes.
- Replaced redundant clean-runner prebuild gates with the idempotent
`ensure-build-deps` path used by the relevant CI entrypoints.
## Verification
- `ruby -e "require 'yaml'; YAML.load_file('.github/workflows/pr.yml');
puts 'yaml-ok'"`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-server --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-a --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-b --dry-run`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-workspaces-b`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-workspaces-a`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-server`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-hello-world-example typecheck`
## Risks
- Required-check and branch-protection settings may still reference the
old single `verify` job name.
- Parallel CI lanes can expose hidden ordering assumptions or
clean-runner bootstrap gaps that local grouped dry-runs did not surface.
- Because the branch is behind current `master`, merge conflicts or
unrelated upstream drift could affect the measured runtime until the
branch is rebased.
> Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this work is CI throughput maintenance for the
existing PR verification path, not duplicate feature work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local`, GPT-5-class coding agent
with repository read/write, shell execution, and GitHub CLI/tool use.
The runtime does not expose a more specific backend model ID in-session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so
adapter quality directly affects what runtimes the control plane can
supervise.
> - Local CLI adapters are one of the core execution surfaces because
they turn real coding tools into Paperclip-managed employees with
heartbeats, transcripts, and reviewability.
> - Grok Build was installed on the Paperclip host, but Paperclip had no
built-in `grok_local` adapter, so the runtime could not be configured
through the normal server/UI/CLI adapter path.
> - That gap needed to be closed with the same built-in registry,
environment diagnostics, transcript parsing, and skill/instructions
behavior that the other local adapters already rely on.
> - After the initial adapter landed, a real follow-up run showed that
Grok streaming text was being rendered one fragment per line, which made
transcripts harder to read even though the runtime itself was working.
> - This pull request adds the built-in `grok_local` adapter end-to-end
and then fixes the transcript parser so streamed Grok output is
coalesced into readable assistant/thinking blocks.
> - The benefit is that Grok Build becomes a first-class Paperclip
runtime with a usable operator experience instead of a partially wired
runtime with noisy transcript output.
## What Changed
- Added a new built-in `@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local` package with
server, UI, and CLI entrypoints.
- Implemented Grok execution, session handling, environment diagnostics,
config building, skill syncing, and parser coverage inside the new
adapter package.
- Registered `grok_local` across the built-in adapter inventories and
capability/display metadata in server, UI, CLI, and shared constants.
- Added adapter route coverage for the new built-in type.
- Fixed Grok transcript readability by emitting streamed `text` and
`thought` fragments as deltas so the shared transcript builder coalesces
them into readable message blocks.
- Added regression tests for the Grok parser and transcript coalescing
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapters/grok-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts
ui/src/adapters/transcript.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-grok-local build`
- Manual runtime verification on the Paperclip host during
implementation and follow-up review:
- confirmed the Grok CLI was installed and authenticated
- confirmed the worktree dev server could be restarted cleanly and
health-checked after the parser follow-up
- No screenshots attached. This change is primarily adapter plumbing
plus transcript formatting behavior; reviewers can verify via the
Grok-backed run surfaces directly.
## Risks
- This adds a new built-in adapter, so any missed registration surface
could create inconsistencies between server, UI, and CLI behavior.
- The adapter depends on Grok Build's current event/output shape; if
upstream Grok streaming JSON changes, transcript parsing or session
extraction may need follow-up updates.
- The transcript readability fix intentionally changes how Grok
fragments are grouped, so any downstream code that implicitly expected
one entry per fragment would behave differently.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` agent runtime.
- GPT-5-class coding model with tool use, shell execution, file editing,
and repo inspection enabled.
- Exact backend model ID/context window were not surfaced to the agent
in this Paperclip session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through
company-scoped issues, comments, approvals, and execution workspaces.
> - Operators need the Inbox to show not only active work, but also
blocked work that may need human or agent attention.
> - The existing inbox experience did not have a dedicated blocked-work
surface, so blocked tasks were harder to triage and resume deliberately.
> - Backend consumers also needed a compact attention signal that
distinguishes actionable blockers from covered or waiting blocker
states.
> - This pull request adds a Blocked Inbox tab backed by issue
blocker-attention metadata, shared validators, and UI helpers.
> - The benefit is a clearer triage path for stalled or blocked
Paperclip work without exposing external wait internals in the
operator-facing UI.
## What Changed
- Added shared issue blocker-attention types, validators, and exports
for the API/UI contract.
- Added backend blocker-attention computation and issue route support
for blocked inbox data.
- Added the Blocked Inbox tab, blocked reason chips, filtering/search
UI, responsive layouts, and Storybook stories.
- Updated inbox helpers and page behavior so toolbar controls only
appear where they apply.
- Added coverage for shared validators, server blocker-attention
behavior, blocked inbox UI helpers/components, and the Inbox page.
- Added a screenshot helper script for the blocked inbox Storybook
stories.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by making urgency sorting deterministic
for null stop times, avoiding full blocked-inbox list enrichment for
counts, and hardening the screenshot helper.
## Verification
- Rebased the branch cleanly onto `public-gh/master`.
- Confirmed the diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Confirmed the diff does not include database migration files.
- Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts
ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx
ui/src/components/BlockedReasonChip.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/blockedInbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`.
- Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck`.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is scoped inbox/operator triage work and
does not duplicate a listed roadmap feature.
- Greptile Review is green on the latest head and all four Greptile
review threads are resolved.
- GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head: policy, security/snyk,
e2e, verify, Canary Dry Run, Greptile Review, and serialized server
suites 1/4 through 4/4.
## Risks
- Medium review surface because this touches the shared issue contract,
server issue services, and the Inbox UI together.
- Blocker-attention classification may need product tuning after
operators use it on real blocked queues.
- UI screenshots were not attached in this PR-opening pass; the branch
includes `scripts/screenshot-blocked-inbox.mjs` and Storybook stories
for visual capture.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with shell, git, GitHub CLI,
GitHub connector, and Paperclip API tool use. Reasoning mode: medium.
Context window: not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies.
> - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without
expanding the core product surface.
> - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin
authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without
reaching into internal package paths.
> - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that
keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers
coherent.
> - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the
server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the
agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs.
> - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local
folders with a documented, repeatable happy path.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local
plugin scaffolding.
- Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution,
dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior.
- Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package
layouts.
- Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher
behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example.
- Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin
authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter
paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck
&& pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai
cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk
packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example
test`
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command
behavior, and the local development watcher.
- Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the
new docs call out that trust boundary.
- No database migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled local shell and git
workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details were not
exposed in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs
and tests, not board UI rendering.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work
must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness.
> - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but
source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues,
blockers, and comments.
> - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns
recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue.
> - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class
active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution
outcome.
> - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend
reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions.
> - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source
issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path.
## What Changed
- Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared
types/constants/validators, and an idempotent
`0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master`
migrations.
- Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped
recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid
locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes.
- Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue
detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked,
cancelled, or false-positive outcomes.
- Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class
blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked
without a blocker selection path.
- Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices,
active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage.
- Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership,
races, stale comments, and UI behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
— 5 files, 72 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering check.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec
vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- UI states are available in
`ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot
capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`.
## Risks
- Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership
toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in
new places.
- Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after
`master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for
anyone who previously applied the old branch-local
`0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration.
- Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for
already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be
watched in CI and Greptile review.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git,
GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents, and its release flow depends on
explicit package enrollment for automated publishing.
> - The release registry tooling uses
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json` as the source of truth for which
public packages CI is allowed to publish.
> - The cursor cloud adapter plus the Cloudflare and exe.dev sandbox
plugins are public packages that now need to ship through the normal CI
release path.
> - Leaving those entries at `publishFromCi: false` keeps release
automation and registry validation out of sync with the intended package
set.
> - This pull request updates only those three manifest entries and
leaves the release tooling itself unchanged.
> - The benefit is that CI release enrollment now matches the packages
we intend to publish, with the existing manifest checks continuing to
guard correctness.
## What Changed
- Enabled CI publishing for `@paperclipai/adapter-cursor-cloud` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`.
- Enabled CI publishing for `@paperclipai/plugin-cloudflare-sandbox` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`.
- Enabled CI publishing for `@paperclipai/plugin-exe-dev` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`.
## Verification
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check`
- `pnpm test:release-registry`
## Risks
- Low risk. This is a manifest-only change, but a wrong enrollment flag
would affect release automation, so the release-registry checks are the
main guardrail.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.4 via Paperclip `codex_local` (`adapterConfig.model:
gpt-5.4`), high reasoning effort, with tool use and shell/code
execution. The adapter does not expose a separate context-window value
in this environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
> _Stacked on top of #5685 → #5686 → #5687. Diff against master includes
commits from earlier PRs in the stack — review focuses on the two new
commits (`Add long-secret textarea variant to JsonSchemaForm
SecretField` + `Add exe.dev sandbox provider plugin`)._
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Each agent runs in a sandbox environment, and operators choose the
provider — today E2B, Daytona, and (in this stack) Cloudflare
> - exe.dev offers per-VM sandboxes via a small CLI / HTTP API — useful
for operators who want full Linux VMs (vs container/runtime-only
sandboxes)
> - The plugin shape mirrors the e2b plugin: lifecycle hooks (`new`,
`ls`, `rm`) drive exe.dev's CLI; SSH plumbing handles direct VM access
for adapters that need it
> - exe.dev VMs come up bare — `node` is not preinstalled, so the
Paperclip sandbox callback bridge (a Node script) needs Node 20
installed at VM init via `--setup-script`. The plugin defaults the setup
script to a Nodesource install
> - The auth field accepts long SSH private keys, which need a textarea
variant of the existing `SecretField` in `JsonSchemaForm` — added behind
a `maxLength > THRESHOLD` opt-in so other secret fields are unaffected
> - The benefit is that operators get exe.dev as a fully working sandbox
provider out of the box, with no manual VM provisioning required
## What Changed
**Shared UI support (`Add long-secret textarea variant to JsonSchemaForm
SecretField`):**
- `ui/src/components/JsonSchemaForm.tsx` + new
`JsonSchemaForm.test.tsx`: when a secret-formatted field declares
`maxLength` larger than the existing single-line threshold, render a
monospace textarea instead of the masked input. Short secrets (API keys,
tokens) keep the existing masked-input + show/hide toggle behavior.
**The exe.dev plugin (`Add exe.dev sandbox provider plugin`):**
- `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/exe-dev/`: plugin entry, manifest,
plugin runtime, README, and 19-test Vitest suite.
- Manifest fields: API token (with `secret-ref` + `/exec` permission
notes — needs `new`, `ls`, `rm`), API URL override, optional SSH
username, optional SSH private key (uses the new `JsonSchemaForm`
textarea variant via `maxLength: 4096`), optional SSH identity-file
path, optional setup script.
- Default `--setup-script` is a Nodesource Node 20 install. exe.dev VMs
come up bare and the Paperclip sandbox callback bridge is a Node script,
so without Node preinstalled the bridge can't start. Operators can
override by supplying their own setup script.
- `runLifecycleCommand` redacts env values from the executed command
before surfacing it in error messages, so secrets passed via
`--env=KEY=VALUE` don't leak into operator-visible failures.
- The plugin distinguishes exe.dev's SSH onboarding failures (`Please
complete registration by running: ssh exe.dev`) from general SSH
failures and surfaces a clear remediation message.
- `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`: register the new plugin for
CI publish alongside the existing daytona / e2b providers.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --no-coverage
ui/src/components/JsonSchemaForm.test.tsx`
- `(cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/exe-dev && pnpm test)` — 19
passing
For an operator-side smoke test:
1. Get an exe.dev API token with `/exec` permission for `new`, `ls`,
`rm`.
2. Register the plugin in your Paperclip instance, configure an
environment with the token.
3. Create a sandbox env whose provider is `exe-dev`, then run a Codex or
Claude job against it. The default Node 20 setup script should bring the
VM up automatically.
## Risks
- Adds a new sandbox provider plugin that follows the existing daytona /
e2b shape; behavior on existing providers is unchanged.
- The `JsonSchemaForm` textarea variant only engages for fields that opt
in via `maxLength` larger than the existing threshold. All existing
secret fields (which don't declare a `maxLength`) keep their current
rendering. Test coverage pins both paths.
- The redaction in `runLifecycleCommand` is a defense-in-depth measure;
the test suite exercises the redaction path. If the redaction misses a
future env-arg shape, the worst case is restored behavior (secrets in
error messages), which is what the existing daytona / e2b plugins also
do today.
- Default setup script downloads from `deb.nodesource.com` over HTTPS at
VM init. Operators on air-gapped networks or with a different package
strategy can override the setup script.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context)
- Capabilities used: extended reasoning, tool use (Read/Edit/Bash/Grep)
## 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 — UI change is a textarea variant of an existing secret
field; will attach screenshots before requesting merge
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(plugin README, manifest descriptions)
- [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>
> _Stacked on top of #5685 → #5686. Diff against master includes commits
from earlier PRs in the stack — review focuses on the two new commits
(`Extend sandbox callback bridge for Worker-hosted plugins` + `Add
Cloudflare sandbox provider plugin`)._
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Each agent runs in a sandbox environment, and operators choose which
provider backs that sandbox — today E2B and Daytona are bundled with the
platform
> - Cloudflare Workers + Durable Objects + the Sandbox SDK offer a
credible new option: globally distributed, cheap idle, and
operator-deployable as a single Worker
> - To plug it in, Paperclip needs (a) a provider plugin that speaks the
`PaperclipPluginManifestV1` lifecycle and (b) a small operator-deployed
Worker — the **bridge** — that adapts Paperclip's runtime RPCs to the
Cloudflare Sandbox SDK
> - The plugin extends the existing sandbox-callback-bridge with a
`bridge.transport: "worker"` discriminator so the platform routes
runtime RPCs through the Worker bridge instead of the in-process runner
> - This pull request adds the plugin, the bridge Worker template, and
the supporting adapter-utils + server hooks the new transport needs
> - The benefit is that operators can run sandboxes on Cloudflare's edge
with no new platform code beyond installing the plugin and deploying the
Worker
## What Changed
**Shared support (`Extend sandbox callback bridge for Worker-hosted
plugins`):**
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-callback-bridge.{ts,test.ts}`:
expose `expectedHostHeader` so plugin-side bridge clients can verify the
canonical request envelope before forwarding.
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/command-managed-runtime.{ts,test.ts}`:
relax the always-fresh runner construction so callers can re-use a
runner across exec calls (Worker-hosted bridges hold the runner inside a
Durable Object).
- `server/src/services/environment-runtime.ts` +
`environment-runtime.test.ts`: route Worker-hosted bridges through the
same env-shaping path as E2B and pin the `requestEnv` contract.
- `server/src/services/plugin-environment-driver.ts`: thread an optional
`issueId` through the runtime descriptor so bridges can scope leases to
the originating issue (used by Cloudflare to map a sandbox to the
issue/workflow for billing and audit).
- `packages/plugins/sdk/src/protocol.ts`: add `issueId?` to
`PluginEnvironmentDriverBaseParams` and the new `bridge.transport:
"worker"` discriminator that the new plugin declares.
- `server/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`: pin the
heartbeat path against the new runtime descriptor.
**The Cloudflare plugin itself (`Add Cloudflare sandbox provider
plugin`):**
- `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare/`: plugin entry,
manifest, plugin runtime (lifecycle + bridge client), config parsing,
and Vitest coverage. Manifest declares `bridge.transport: "worker"` so
the platform routes runtime RPCs through the bridge client.
- `bridge-template/`: a Worker template the operator deploys with
`wrangler`. Owns Durable Object-backed sessions (`sessions.ts`),
exec/stream routes (`exec.ts`, `routes.ts`), and an HMAC auth layer
(`auth.ts`) that pins the `Host` header surface. Includes the
SDK-contract-correct exec implementation, lease recovery, and chunked
stdout/stderr streaming.
- Tests cover lease/session handoff (`bridge-template/src/exec.test.ts`,
`routes.test.ts`), bridge client request shaping
(`src/bridge-client.test.ts`), and end-to-end plugin behavior
(`src/plugin.test.ts`) including streamed exec output. 27 tests in
total.
- `README.md` walks the operator through deploying the bridge Worker,
registering the plugin, and configuring the runtime.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --no-coverage
packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-callback-bridge.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/command-managed-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`
- `(cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare && pnpm test)` — 27
passing
For an operator-side smoke test:
1. Deploy the bridge: `cd
packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare/bridge-template &&
wrangler deploy`
2. Register the plugin in your Paperclip instance, point its bridge URL
at the deployed Worker, set the HMAC shared secret.
3. Create a sandbox environment whose provider is `cloudflare`, then run
a Codex or Claude job against it.
## Risks
- Adds a new `bridge.transport: "worker"` code path, but the existing
E2B / Daytona transports go through the same shaped helpers and have
explicit test coverage that pins their behavior unchanged.
- The Worker bridge stores session state in a Durable Object; operator
instances must be aware of the corresponding Cloudflare costs (DO
requests, storage). Documented in the README.
- The `issueId` plumbing is optional throughout — existing plugins that
don't supply it continue to work.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context)
- Capabilities used: extended reasoning, tool use (Read/Edit/Bash/Grep)
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A, no UI change
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(plugin README, bridge-template README)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - There are many adapter types, one per agent-runtime product (Claude,
Codex, OpenCode, Cursor local CLI, etc.)
> - Cursor shipped a public TypeScript SDK on 2026-04-29 that exposes
Cursor's full hosted-agent platform (cloud VMs, harness, MCP, skills,
hooks)
> - Paperclip had no first-class adapter for this — agents that wanted
to use Cursor's managed cloud runtime had to fall back to the local CLI
adapter, which loses the cloud session, streaming, and durable run model
> - This PR adds a new `cursor_cloud` adapter built directly on
`@cursor/sdk`, with Paperclip's heartbeat mapped to Cursor's
durable-agent + per-run model
> - The benefit is that any Paperclip agent can now drive a Cursor cloud
agent across heartbeats with native session reuse, streaming, and
cancellation, while Paperclip remains the source of truth for issue/task
state
## What Changed
- New built-in adapter package `packages/adapters/cursor-cloud` (15
files, ~1.7k LOC) backed by `@cursor/sdk` ^1.0.12
- `src/server/execute.ts` — SDK-first lifecycle: `Agent.create` /
`Agent.resume` / `Agent.getRun` / `agent.send` / `run.stream` /
`run.wait`, with session reuse keyed on the (runtime env type, env name,
repo set) tuple
- `src/server/session.ts` — codec for `cursorAgentId` + `latestRunId` +
repo metadata, persisted in `runtime.sessionParams`
- `src/server/test.ts` — environment probe via `Cursor.me()` and
optional model validation via `Cursor.models.list()`
- `src/ui/parse-stdout.ts` + `src/cli/format-event.ts` — normalize
Cursor SDK message types (`status`, `thinking`, `assistant`, `user`,
`tool_call`, `tool_result`, `result`) into Paperclip transcript events
for the UI and CLI
- Registrations: `packages/shared/src/constants.ts`,
`packages/adapter-utils/src/session-compaction.ts`,
`server/src/adapters/{registry,builtin-adapter-types}.ts`,
`ui/src/adapters/{registry,adapter-display-registry}.ts` +
`ui/src/adapters/cursor-cloud/index.ts`, `cli/src/adapters/registry.ts`,
plus workspace deps in `cli`/`server`/`ui` `package.json`
- `ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.tsx` — hide local-Cursor
`mode`/thinking-effort field for `cursor_cloud` (different config
surface)
- 11 vitest tests covering execute paths (fresh create, matching-resume,
active-run reattach, non-finished result), session codec round-trip,
transcript parsing, and config building
## Verification
Reviewer steps:
```bash
pnpm install
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-cursor-cloud typecheck # → clean
pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/cursor-cloud # → 11/11 passing
```
End-to-end check against a real Cursor cloud agent (requires
`CURSOR_API_KEY` and Cursor GitHub-app install on the target repo):
1. Create a `cursor_cloud` agent in Paperclip with `repoUrl` set to the
test repo, `repoStartingRef: main`, and `env.CURSOR_API_KEY` set
2. Trigger a heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.create({ cloud: { env: {
type: "cloud" }, repos: [...] } })`, streams events, terminates on
`finished`
3. Trigger a second heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.resume` or
`agent.send` follow-up depending on prior-run state, reusing
`cursorAgentId`
4. The Paperclip UI/CLI transcript reflects Cursor `status` / `thinking`
/ `assistant` events as they stream
5. Cancellation from Paperclip maps to `run.cancel()` or Cloud API v1
`cancelRun` for cross-heartbeat cancellation
A direct-SDK smoke run against a real repo (devinfoley/my_test_project @
main) confirmed: `Cursor.me()` ok → `Agent.create` → `agent.send` →
`run.stream()` (30 events) → terminal status `finished` in ~11s.
## Risks
- **New adapter, additive only.** No existing adapter or registry is
replaced; current `cursor` local-CLI adapter is untouched. Default
behavior of any existing agent is unchanged.
- **External dependency on `@cursor/sdk`.** Cursor's SDK is v1.0.x and
may evolve. Mocked unit tests cover the public surface used here; if the
SDK breaks compatibility we update the adapter independently.
- **Cost/budget.** `cursor_cloud` runs on Cursor's billed cloud VMs;
operators must understand they are spending money outside Paperclip's
budget controls when they enable this adapter. Same shape as other
API-billed adapters.
- **No webhook support in V1.** The SDK already provides
stream/wait/cancel/reattach, so V1 does not require a public callback
URL. If a future use case needs out-of-band wakes, we add a Cloud API v1
webhook bridge as a separate change. This is called out in the issue
plan document.
- **Lockfile.** Per repo policy, `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally not
in this PR — CI's lockfile workflow will update it on merge given the
manifest changes.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic Claude (via Claude Code / Paperclip `claude_local`
adapter)
- Model: `claude-opus-4-7` (Claude Opus 4.7), knowledge cutoff January
2026
- Mode: standard tool-use with extended reasoning
- Context: ~200k token window
- Capabilities used: code generation, multi-file edits, shell/test
execution, GitHub PR workflow
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (11/11 in
`packages/adapters/cursor-cloud`)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (4 new test files,
11 cases)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (the only UI change is hiding the local-Cursor mode field on
the `cursor_cloud` adapter — happy to attach a screenshot if the
reviewer wants one)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (issue
plan document supersedes the pre-SDK design; tracked in PAPA-203)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Its release automation publishes canary packages to npm and then
validates the published registry state before considering the release
healthy
> - The failing canary run `25139465018` showed that npm can expose a
newly published version through version-specific endpoints before the
root package document has fully converged
> - That made a successful canary publish look like a failed release
because the verifier trusted stale root metadata too early
> - This pull request hardens the registry verification path by
preferring version-specific manifest checks, retrying
convergence-sensitive failures, and distinguishing permanent failures
from propagation lag
> - While validating that change in CI, a separate teardown race in
`heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` surfaced and was hardened
so the PR could pass reliably
> - The benefit is that transient npm propagation lag no longer fails a
successful canary publish, while genuine registry-state and
dependency-integrity failures still stop the release flow promptly
## What Changed
- Hardened `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` so it prefers
version-specific manifest resolution over stale root metadata, adds
bounded registry-fetch timeouts, and classifies failures as retriable vs
non-retriable.
- Updated `scripts/release-lib.sh` and `scripts/release.sh` so
post-publish registry verification retries only convergence-sensitive
failures and reports immediate permanent failures clearly.
- Expanded `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs` with
regression coverage for stale root metadata, fetch timeout behavior,
peer dependency range handling, non-retriable canary-latest cases, and
related verifier edge cases.
- Hardened
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts`
teardown to tolerate the late-comment foreign-key race that CI exposed
while validating this branch.
## Verification
- `pnpm run test:release-registry`
- `node --check scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs`
- `bash -n scripts/release.sh && bash -n scripts/release-lib.sh`
- PR checks passed on head `5c422600fc12acac61f6b7c267a4dc915df622b1`:
`policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`
## Risks
- Low risk. The main behavioral changes are limited to release
automation and verifier retry semantics, plus a test-only teardown
hardening for a CI race.
> I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This is a narrow release bugfix
and does not overlap planned core feature work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` with tool use and local code
execution enabled. This agent session runs on a GPT-5-class coding
model; the exact backend model ID/context window is not exposed by the
local adapter runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] 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 have addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The release pipeline gates new public packages behind a bootstrap
policy: `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` requires every
package marked `publishFromCi: true` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json` to already exist on npm
> - PR #5580 added the new Daytona sandbox provider plugin but had to
land with `publishFromCi: false` because the package had never been
published, so CI's release plan would have failed bootstrap validation
otherwise
> - Now that `@paperclipai/plugin-daytona` has been bootstrap-published
to npm by hand, the temporary `false` flag is the only thing keeping it
out of the standard CI publish flow
> - This pull request flips the Daytona entry to `publishFromCi: true`,
matching every other release-enabled package in the manifest
> - The benefit is that future tagged releases will publish the Daytona
plugin automatically alongside the rest of the monorepo's public
packages
## What Changed
- Single-line flip in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`:
`@paperclipai/plugin-daytona` is now `publishFromCi: true`
## Verification
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` → `Release package
manifest OK: 19 enabled for CI publish, 0 disabled pending bootstrap`
(was 18 + 1)
- `node ./scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs
scripts/release-package-manifest.json` against `origin/master` →
`Release bootstrap OK for changed manifests:
@paperclipai/plugin-daytona`, confirming npm sees the
bootstrap-published package
- No code changes; no tests required beyond the existing manifest
validators
## Risks
- Low risk. Only effect is that the next release run will include
`@paperclipai/plugin-daytona` in its publish set
- If the npm bootstrap was incomplete, CI's bootstrap check will fail
loudly before any release tag goes out — same safety net the policy is
designed to provide
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.7 (`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
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (N/A —
manifest-only flag flip, covered by existing validators)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — release config)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling
to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent
execution.
> - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane:
database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets
settings UI.
> - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not
manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without
exposing plaintext.
> - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets
Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding
context, and audit trails.
> - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated
lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current
`public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings.
> - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed
secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import
conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing
behavior.
## What Changed
- Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider
config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage,
access events, and remote import preview/commit.
- Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing,
bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime
credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext
reads.
- Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus
CLI/API documentation for setup and operations.
- Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH
environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification.
- Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift,
monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted
secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults,
soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards,
managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK
credential client churn.
- Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and
force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch.
## Verification
- `git fetch public-gh master`
- `git rebase public-gh/master`
- `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep
'^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR
diff.
- Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`;
this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and
`0083_company_secret_provider_configs`.
- Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT
EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column
additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits.
- `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile
follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under
parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`,
`cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun
(`24/24`).
- `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite
reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings.
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck` passed.
- Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual
review.
- Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites
1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`
pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child
checks.
- Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all
Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review`
check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added.
## Screenshots
Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on
`master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.
## Risks
- Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends
existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering
and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade
behavior carefully.
- Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests
cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace
guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and
service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains
deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than
an unverified merge blocker in this local branch.
- UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces;
screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection.
- Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit
parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed
when rerun directly.
- Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads;
operators must understand that imported external references resolve at
runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the
Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Agents need isolated sandbox environments to execute work safely;
Paperclip already supports E2B as a sandbox provider plugin
> - Users want to use Daytona (https://www.daytona.io/) as an
alternative sandbox backend, but no plugin existed for it
> - Without a Daytona plugin, teams that prefer Daytona's
pricing/regions/runtime can't run Paperclip agents on it
> - This pull request adds a `@paperclip/sandbox-provider-daytona`
plugin that mirrors the existing E2B plugin shape and wires up Daytona's
`@daytonaio/sdk` for sandbox lifecycle, command execution, and shell
detection
> - The benefit is that operators can pick Daytona as a first-class
sandbox provider without touching core code, broadening Paperclip's
runtime options
## What Changed
- New plugin package `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona` with
manifest, worker entry, and provider implementation backed by
`@daytonaio/sdk`
- Implements sandbox create/destroy/exec/upload/download lifecycle,
shell command detection, and config/env wiring consistent with the E2B
plugin
- Adds unit tests under `src/plugin.test.ts` and a README documenting
setup and the `DAYTONA_API_KEY` requirement
- Minor adjustments in `scripts/paperclip-issue-update.sh`,
`packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts`, and
`packages/shared/src/validators/issue.ts` to support the integration
## Verification
- Re-ran the full sandbox provider matrix on the QA Paperclip instance
using Daytona as the runtime — all 6 adapters executed inside the
Daytona sandbox with zero `environmentExecute` timeouts
- 5/6 adapters pass cleanly (or with informational warns); the only
failure is `codex_local`, which is an OpenAI quota/billing issue
unrelated to Daytona
- `pnpm --filter @paperclip/sandbox-provider-daytona test` runs the
plugin unit tests
## Risks
- New optional plugin; no behavior change for users who don't enable it
- Requires `DAYTONA_API_KEY` for runtime use — documented in the plugin
README
- Daytona SDK is a new external dependency; tracked in the plugin's own
package.json so it doesn't affect the core install footprint
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.7 (`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
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — backend plugin)
- [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, and the
release pipeline is part of keeping that control plane shippable.
> - The relevant subsystem here is the release automation in
`scripts/release.sh`, which publishes canary builds and then verifies
npm registry state.
> - The failing CI run showed a successful publish followed by an
immediate registry-state verification failure while npm dist-tag
metadata was still propagating.
> - That made the canary job flaky even when the publish itself had
succeeded, which is the wrong failure mode for release automation.
> - This pull request adds bounded retries around the post-publish
registry-state verification step instead of failing on the first stale
read.
> - The benefit is that canary releases tolerate transient npm
propagation lag while still failing clearly if registry metadata never
converges.
## What Changed
- Wrapped the post-publish `verify-release-registry-state.mjs` call in a
bounded retry loop inside `scripts/release.sh`.
- Reused the existing publish verification retry defaults and added
optional overrides via `NPM_REGISTRY_STATE_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS` and
`NPM_REGISTRY_STATE_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS` for dist-tag-specific tuning.
## Verification
- `bash -n scripts/release.sh`
- CI will also exercise the release path via the existing `Canary Dry
Run` workflow job in `.github/workflows/pr.yml`.
## Risks
- Low risk. The main behavioral change is that a genuinely broken
registry-state verification can now wait through the configured retry
window before failing.
> 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 local agent, GPT-5-based Codex runtime in Paperclip with
tool use and shell execution. The exact backend model ID/context window
is not surfaced in this local heartbeat environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for autonomous companies, so
developer throughput on the control plane repo directly affects how fast
the product can evolve.
> - The PR workflow is part of that throughput surface because every
change waits on it before review and merge.
> - This branch started from measured evidence that the PR critical path
was dominated by work that was either serialized unnecessarily or placed
on the wrong part of the graph.
> - The biggest concrete problems were: the canary dry run living inside
`verify`, the server isolated suites running one-by-one in a single
lane, and duplicate CI work that the PR path was paying for without
increasing coverage proportionally.
> - This pull request restructures the PR workflow so those costs are
reduced without removing the important coverage that was already
protecting release and test quality.
> - Follow-up fixes on the branch hardened the new entrypoints so they
work on clean GitHub runners and so the reduced PR typecheck path stays
self-maintaining as workspace packages evolve.
> - The benefit is materially faster PR wall-clock time while keeping
canary packaging checks, serialized-suite isolation, plugin SDK
consumers, and explicit TypeScript coverage where builds do not already
provide it.
## What Changed
- Moved the PR canary dry run into its own `Canary Dry Run` job so it
still runs on PRs but no longer extends the `verify` critical path.
- Split the custom Vitest runner into `general`, `serialized`, and `all`
modes, and added shard support for the isolated server suites.
- Added `test:run:general` and `test:run:serialized` scripts, then
rewired PR CI to fan the serialized server suites out across a 4-way
matrix.
- Added the required `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` build preflight before
the new reduced-scope typecheck and test entrypoints so they succeed on
clean CI runners.
- Replaced the hardcoded PR build-gap list with
`scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs`, which discovers workspace
packages whose `build` scripts skip TypeScript and runs only their
explicit `typecheck` scripts.
- Removed the redundant `pnpm build` from the PR `e2e` job because the
Playwright onboarding path boots Paperclip from source.
## Verification
- `ruby -e "require 'yaml'; YAML.load_file('.github/workflows/pr.yml');
puts 'workflow ok'"`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized --shard-index 0
--shard-count 4 --dry-run`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `pnpm test:run:general`
- `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 0 --shard-count 4`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm paperclipai onboard --yes --run`
- `curl http://127.0.0.1:3299/api/health`
## Risks
- Branch protection or required-check configuration may need to be
updated for the new standalone `Canary Dry Run` job and the
serialized-suite matrix job names.
- `scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs` assumes packages that need
explicit PR-time typechecking are the ones whose `build` scripts omit
`tsc`; if build conventions change, that heuristic needs to stay
aligned.
- Serialized test sharding preserves per-suite isolation, but the first
few CI runs should still be watched for shard-balance or naming
assumptions in downstream tooling.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.4 via the Codex local adapter, using high reasoning
effort with shell, git, and file-edit tool use in a local worktree.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous agent companies, so its
release automation is part of the core operator trust boundary.
> - The affected subsystem is npm/GitHub Actions release publishing for
the public monorepo packages.
> - The concrete failure was that a newly added package reached
`master`, the canary workflow attempted its first publish, and npm
trusted publishing was not yet bootstrapped for that package.
> - That means the problem is not just one broken run; it is a missing
pre-merge guard that lets release-ineligible packages land and only fail
once `publish_canary` runs.
> - This pull request makes release enrollment explicit, validates that
enrollment in CI, and adds a PR-time bootstrap check against npm for
changed release-enabled package manifests.
> - The result is that we keep trusted publishing, avoid teaching CI to
`npm adduser`, and move this class of failure from post-merge canary
time to pre-merge review time.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` so release-managed
public packages are explicitly enrolled instead of being inferred from
every non-private workspace package.
- Hardened `scripts/release-package-map.mjs` to validate the manifest
before release workflows rewrite versions or assemble publish payloads.
- Added `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` and wired it into
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` so PRs that change a release-enabled package
manifest fail if that package does not already exist on npm.
- Added release-package manifest coverage tests to
`scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` and included them in `pnpm run
test:release-registry`.
- Wired manifest validation into `.github/workflows/release.yml` and
documented the first-publish bootstrap policy in `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and
`doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`.
## Verification
- `pnpm run test:release-registry`
- `./scripts/release.sh canary --skip-verify --dry-run`
- Confirmed the committed diff contains no obvious PII/secrets via
targeted pattern scan before pushing.
## Risks
- Low risk overall: this is CI/release-policy code, not product runtime
logic.
- The new PR bootstrap check depends on npm metadata availability, so a
transient npm outage could block a PR that changes a release-enabled
package manifest.
- The manifest introduces a new source of truth that must stay aligned
with public package additions, but that is intentional and now enforced.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via the `codex_local` Paperclip adapter; GPT-5-based
coding agent with tool use, terminal execution, git, and GitHub CLI.
Exact served model ID/context window are not exposed by the local
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip agents rely on skills for repeatable operating procedures
> - The Terminal-Bench loop skill needs to preserve enough dispatch
configuration to reproduce real heartbeat behavior
> - A bare benchmark command can create unassigned work with no
heartbeat-enabled agent, which is a harness setup failure rather than
product evidence
> - The Paperclip heartbeat skill also needs to keep escalation biased
toward agent-owned follow-through
> - This pull request documents dispatch runner config requirements and
strengthens the agent follow-through rule
> - The benefit is fewer misleading benchmark loops and clearer agent
operating guidance
## What Changed
- Documented `PAPERCLIP_HARBOR_RUNNER_CONFIG` / runner dispatch config
as required Terminal-Bench loop input.
- Updated the Terminal-Bench loop smoke check to require the dispatch
config mention.
- Added stronger Paperclip skill guidance to avoid asking humans for
work an agent can perform.
## Verification
- `pnpm smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill`
## Risks
- Low risk: documentation and smoke expectation changes only. The
stricter smoke assertion is intentional so future edits do not drop the
dispatch config requirement.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use and local command
execution. Exact context window was not exposed in the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through a control plane
that can start, supervise, and recover agent runs.
> - Local adapters are the bridge between Paperclip issues and concrete
agent runtimes such as Claude, Codex, and other ACP-compatible tools.
> - The roadmap calls out broader “bring your own agent” and claw-style
agent support, and ACPX gives Paperclip one path to normalize multiple
ACP agents behind a single adapter.
> - The branch needed to become one reviewable PR against current
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`, without carrying stale base conflicts or
generated lockfile churn.
> - This pull request adds an experimental built-in `acpx_local`
adapter, integrates it through the server/CLI/UI adapter surfaces, and
adds regression coverage for runtime execution, skill sync, stream
parsing, diagnostics, and log redaction.
> - The benefit is that Paperclip can run Claude/Codex/custom ACP agents
through ACPX while keeping operator configuration, skills, logging, and
transcript rendering inside the existing adapter model.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/adapter-acpx-local` with server execution, config
schema, ACPX session handling, CLI formatting, UI config helpers, and
stdout parsing.
- Registered `acpx_local` across CLI, server, shared constants, UI
adapter metadata, adapter capabilities, and agent creation/editing
surfaces.
- Added ACPX runtime execution support with persistent sessions,
local-agent JWT environment handling, skill snapshots, runtime skill
materialization, and isolation/security regressions.
- Added ACPX adapter diagnostics and marked the adapter experimental in
the UI.
- Added command/env secret redaction for resolved command metadata in
adapter-utils, server event storage, and the Agent Detail invocation UI.
- Added Storybook coverage for ACPX config, transcript rendering, and
skill states, plus PR screenshots under `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2944/`.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master`; `pnpm-lock.yaml`
is intentionally not included and there are no migration/schema changes.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/execute.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/test.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/cli/format-event.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/redaction.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-skill-sync.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-adapter-environment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts
ui/src/adapters/metadata.test.ts` — 12 files, 87 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-acpx-local typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Confirmed PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`, database schema
files, or migrations.
Screenshots:
## Risks
- Medium risk: this introduces a new built-in adapter package and
touches runtime execution, adapter registration, agent config, skills,
and transcript rendering.
- ACPX and ACP agent behavior can vary by installed tool versions; the
adapter is marked experimental to set operator expectations.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is excluded per repository PR policy, so dependency
lock refresh must be handled by the repo’s automation or maintainers.
- No database migration risk: no schema or migration files changed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, git operations, and local verification. Exact hosted
context window was not exposed in this environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for
configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting
loops.
> - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups,
backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives.
> - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings,
issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke
tooling.
> - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and
workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still
preserving the full original work.
> - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this
integration PR last.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing
board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure
changes.
## What Changed
- Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings,
project workspace detail, and issue detail controls.
- Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage.
- Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf
work pause/resume controls.
- Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy.
- Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a
smoke test script.
- Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed.
- `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill`
- Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`.
- UI screenshots not included because verification is focused
component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces.
## Risks
- This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally
overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and
workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`.
- Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last.
If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward
conflict refresh in shared UI files.
- The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and
relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's board UI is the operator surface for supervising
AI-agent companies.
> - Issue threads are where operators read progress, respond to agents,
inspect markdown, and jump through long histories.
> - Large threads and rich markdown had become difficult to navigate and
expensive to render.
> - The previous rollup mixed these UI scale fixes with unrelated
backend recovery, costs, backups, and settings changes.
> - This pull request isolates the issue-thread scale and markdown
polish work.
> - The benefit is a reviewable UI slice that can merge independently of
the backend reliability, database backup, workflow, and board QoL PRs.
## What Changed
- Virtualized long issue chat threads and stabilized
anchor/jump-to-latest behavior for large histories.
- Added incremental issue-list row loading and tests for
scroll-triggered pagination behavior.
- Hardened markdown body rendering and markdown editor behavior around
HTML tags, image drops, code-copy UI, and escaped newline handling.
- Added a long-thread measurement harness at
`scripts/measure-issue-chat-long-thread.mjs` plus
`perf:issue-chat-long-thread`.
- Added focused UI/lib regression coverage for thread rendering,
markdown, optimistic comments, and message building.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/lib/optimistic-issue-comments.test.ts`
- Result: 6 test files passed, 170 tests passed.
- UI screenshots not included because this PR is covered by targeted
component tests and does not introduce a new page layout.
## Risks
- Virtualization changes can affect scroll anchoring in edge cases on
very long threads.
- Markdown/editor hardening changes are intentionally defensive, but
malformed content may render differently than before.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Paperclip is distributed as npm packages, including plugins like
`plugin-e2b`
> - The release process publishes canary and stable builds via npm
dist-tags
> - But there was no automated verification that published packages
actually landed with the correct dist-tags, and broken canary publishes
could silently ship to users
> - This PR adds a registry verification script that checks published
packages match their expected dist-tags, and wires it into PR CI so
regressions are caught before merge
> - The benefit is release integrity is verified automatically, and
broken dist-tag states are caught early
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` — verifies that
published npm packages have correct dist-tag assignments and detects
orphaned or mispointed tags
- Added `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs` — test coverage
for the verification logic
- Updated `scripts/release.sh` to include canary dist-tag safety checks
before publishing
- Updated `.github/workflows/pr.yml` to run registry verification as a
CI step
- Updated `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and `doc/RELEASING.md` with the new
verification workflow
## Verification
- `pnpm test` — all tests pass including new verification script tests
- `node scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` — runs against the
live npm registry and reports current state
- CI: the new PR workflow step runs on every PR push
## Risks
- Low risk. This is additive CI and tooling — no runtime code changes.
The registry verification is read-only (queries npm, does not publish).
The release script changes add safety checks that abort before
publishing if state is unexpected.
## Model Used
Codex GPT 5.4 high via Paperclip.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, and its
CLI import/export path is part of how operators move company state
safely between environments.
> - The `paperclipai company import/export` e2e test is supposed to
validate that portability flow inside a hermetic harness, not against a
developer's live Paperclip home.
> - This regression showed nested CLI subprocesses could silently fall
back to ambient `PAPERCLIP_*` state and mutate a real local instance by
creating extra companies such as `CLI-1-Roundtrip-Test`.
> - The first job was to pin the test subprocesses to isolated config,
home, instance, auth, and context paths, and to add a regression
assertion that proves the nested CLI writes stay inside the test-owned
state.
> - Once the PR was up, CI and Greptile exposed two follow-on issues
that were blocking merge: plugin SDK typecheck bootstrap was racing
across packages in fresh CI, and the new lock helper needed one more fix
to release its lock on failure.
> - This pull request therefore ends up doing two tightly related
things: fixing the original CLI isolation leak, and hardening the
supporting typecheck/bootstrap path enough for the fix to verify cleanly
in CI.
> - The benefit is that the portability e2e test is now actually
isolated, and the PR verification path is stable enough to catch
regressions instead of introducing its own nondeterministic failures.
## What Changed
- Hardened `cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` so
nested CLI subprocesses re-seed isolated `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`,
`PAPERCLIP_HOME`, `PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID`, `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT`,
`PAPERCLIP_AUTH_STORE`, and throwaway `HOME` values instead of falling
back to ambient machine state.
- Added a regression assertion around `paperclipai context set --json`,
then cleared the temporary `context.json` so the isolation check and the
later export/import flow stay independent.
- Passed the same isolated `HOME` into the server subprocess so both
sides of the e2e harness are symmetric.
- Introduced locking in `scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs` and
switched the server/plugin example `typecheck` scripts to use that
helper instead of launching concurrent raw `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk`
builds.
- Fixed the helper failure path so it releases the lock before exiting
non-zero, which prevents stale-lock timeouts during parallel typecheck
runs.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts
--project paperclipai`
- `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- PR checks now pass on the current head, including `policy`, `verify`,
`e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`.
## Risks
- Low risk. The product-facing behavior change is scoped to test harness
code in the CLI e2e suite.
- The CI stabilization changes only affect bootstrap/typecheck helper
paths for the server and plugin/example packages, but they do touch
shared verification plumbing; the main risk is changing how fresh build
artifacts are prepared in local/CI typecheck runs.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude via Paperclip `claude_local`, model
`claude-opus-4-7`, high-effort local coding agent, used for the initial
implementation and first peer-reviewed verification.
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local`, model `gpt-5.4`, high
reasoning-effort local coding agent with tool use, used for CI triage,
Greptile follow-up fixes, verification, and PR maintenance.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators use issue detail pages and child issue lists to understand
multi-step execution plans.
> - Ordered sub-issues currently read like a flat table, so dependency
chains and current next steps are harder to scan.
> - The branch work adds a workflow-oriented presentation for child
issues without changing the single-assignee task model.
> - This pull request makes ordered sub-issues read more like a progress
checklist while preserving normal issue list controls.
> - The benefit is that operators can see completed steps, active work,
blocked follow-ups, and dependency order at a glance.
## What Changed
- Added workflow sorting utilities and tests for dependency-aware child
issue ordering.
- Added sub-issue progress summary, checklist numbering, current-step
affordances, blocker context, and done-state de-emphasis in the issue
list UI.
- Wired issue detail sub-issue panels to use the workflow sort/progress
checklist presentation.
- Updated issue service behavior/tests for child issue ordering inputs
used by the UI.
- Added a Storybook visual review fixture and screenshot helper for the
sub-issue workflow checklist surface.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts
ui/src/lib/workflow-sort.test.ts`
- Result: 6 test files passed, 55 tests passed, 34 embedded Postgres
issue-service tests skipped because `@embedded-postgres/darwin-x64` is
unavailable on this host.
- Visual review: generated Storybook screenshots from the existing local
Storybook server on port 6006 with `node
scripts/screenshot-subissues.mjs /tmp/pap-2189-subissues-screens
http://localhost:6006`.
- Screenshot artifacts:
- Desktop dark: 
- Desktop light: 
- Mobile dark: 
- Mobile light: 
- Local Storybook note: starting a second Storybook process selected
port 6008 because 6006 was occupied, then Vite failed with an esbuild
host/binary version mismatch (`0.25.12` host vs `0.27.3` binary). The
already-running Storybook server on 6006 served the fixture successfully
for screenshots.
## Risks
- Medium UI risk: the issue list now has additional sub-issue-specific
visual states, so dense lists should be checked for spacing and
scanability.
- Low ordering risk: workflow sorting is covered by focused unit tests,
but unusual dependency topologies may still need reviewer attention.
- No migration risk: this PR does not add database migrations or touch
`pnpm-lock.yaml`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub
workflow. Context window is runtime-provided and not exposed in this
environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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, and the
sandbox-provider work just moved E2B into a standalone publishable
plugin package.
> - That plugin is intentionally excluded from the root pnpm workspace
so it can model third-party install behavior without forcing lockfile
churn in the main repo.
> - The merged architecture change exposed a follow-up release problem:
the canary publish workflow tried to publish `@paperclipai/plugin-e2b`,
but the tarball had no `dist/` payload because standalone public
packages were not being built in the release path.
> - That means the release pipeline needed a packaging fix in core
release tooling, not another architectural change in the sandbox
provider itself.
> - This pull request adds a generic release step for public packages
that live outside the pnpm workspace, instead of hardcoding E2B-specific
behavior into the release script.
> - The benefit is that standalone publishable packages can be built and
packed correctly during release, including future sandbox-provider
plugins that follow the same pattern.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs` to discover
public packages outside the pnpm workspace, run a clean package-local
install, and build them before publish.
- Updated `scripts/release.sh` to invoke that helper immediately after
the normal workspace build step.
- Kept the behavior generic by driving off the existing public package
map and pnpm workspace patterns rather than special-casing
`@paperclipai/plugin-e2b`.
## Verification
- `rm -rf packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/e2b/dist`
- `node ./scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`
- `cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/e2b && npm pack --dry-run`
- Confirm the tarball now includes the rebuilt `dist/` files instead of
only `README.md` / `package.json`
## Risks
- Low risk: this only changes the release build path for public packages
outside the pnpm workspace.
- The helper performs a clean package-local install for each standalone
public package, so release time may increase slightly as more such
packages are added.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via `codex_local`
- Model ID: `gpt-5.4`
- Reasoning effort: `high`
- Context window observed in runtime session metadata: `258400` tokens
- Capabilities used: terminal tool execution, git, GitHub CLI, and local
build/test inspection
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Sandbox environments are part of that execution layer, and the
recent core refactor moved provider-specific behavior to a generic
plugin seam
> - This pull request adds a dedicated `@paperclipai/plugin-e2b` package
so E2B can live entirely outside core host code
> - Because the feature is still unreleased, the plugin should model
third-party packaging directly instead of carrying extra
backward-compatibility complexity in core or the workspace lockfile
> - This branch therefore makes the E2B provider a standalone
publishable package, documents the package-local dev flow, and keeps the
publish manifest/runtime dependency story correct
> - The benefit is that E2B becomes a true plugin reference
implementation that can be installed by package name without reopening
core Paperclip code
## What Changed
- Added `packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b` as the E2B sandbox
provider plugin package
- Implemented config validation, lease acquire/resume/release/destroy
handlers, workspace realization, and command execution for E2B sandboxes
- Excluded the E2B plugin package from the root workspace so the repo no
longer needs `pnpm-lock.yaml` churn for its third-party dependency graph
- Added package-local development/install support plus a prepack
manifest generator so the published tarball still declares
`@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` and `e2b` runtime dependencies
- Addressed review feedback by fixing sandbox cleanup on acquire
failures, rejecting blank templates, normalizing fractional `timeoutMs`,
and always passing the configured template name to the E2B SDK
- Updated focused Vitest coverage for config normalization, validation,
acquire cleanup, command execution, and lease release behavior
- Updated the Dockerfile deps stage to copy the E2B package manifest so
the policy check stays in sync
## Verification
- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm install
--ignore-workspace --no-lockfile`
- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm build`
- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm --ignore-workspace
test`
- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && pnpm --ignore-workspace
typecheck`
- `cd packages/plugins/paperclip-plugin-e2b && npm pack --dry-run`
## Risks
- The package now relies on a prepack manifest rewrite so the
publish-time dependency list stays correct while the repo-local dev
manifest stays workspace-light
- The current repo snapshot is still unreleased, so the generated
publish manifest points at the repo SDK version until the normal release
flow rewrites versions before publish
- Real-world E2B environments may still expose edge cases around
lifecycle timing or sandbox metadata beyond the mocked unit coverage
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via `codex_local`
- Model ID: `gpt-5.4`
- Reasoning effort: `high`
- Context window observed in runtime session metadata: `258400` tokens
- Capabilities used: terminal tool execution, git, GitHub CLI, and local
build/test inspection
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The server route suite is a core confidence layer for auth, issue
context, and workspace runtime behavior
> - Some route tests were doing extra module/server isolation work that
made local runs slower and more fragile
> - The stable Vitest runner also needs to pass server-relative exclude
paths to avoid accidentally re-including serialized suites
> - This pull request tightens route test isolation and runner
serialization behavior
> - The benefit is more reliable targeted and stable-route test
execution without product behavior changes
## What Changed
- Updated `run-vitest-stable.mjs` to exclude serialized server tests
using server-relative paths.
- Forced the server Vitest config to use a single worker in addition to
isolated forks.
- Simplified agent permission route tests to create per-request test
servers without shared server lifecycle state.
- Stabilized issue goal context route mocks by using static mocked
services and a sequential suite.
- Re-registered workspace runtime route mocks before cache-busted route
imports.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `node --check scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`
## Risks
- Low risk. This is test infrastructure only.
- The stable runner path fix changes which tests are excluded from the
non-serialized server batch, matching the server project root that
Vitest applies internally.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled with
shell/GitHub/Paperclip API access. Context window was not reported by
the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - A fast-moving control plane needs stable local tests and repeatable
local maintenance tools so contributors can safely split and review work
> - Several route suites needed stronger isolation, Codex manual model
selection needed a faster-mode option, and local browser cleanup missed
Playwright's headless shell binary
> - Storybook static output also needed to be preserved as a generated
review artifact from the working branch
> - This pull request groups the test/local-dev maintenance pieces so
they can be reviewed separately from product runtime changes
> - The benefit is more predictable contributor verification and cleaner
local maintenance without mixing these changes into feature PRs
## What Changed
- Added stable Vitest runner support and serialized route/authz test
isolation.
- Fixed workspace runtime authz route mocks and stabilized
Claude/company-import related assertions.
- Allowed Codex fast mode for manually selected models.
- Broadened the agent browser cleanup script to detect
`chrome-headless-shell` as well as Chrome for Testing.
- Preserved generated Storybook static output from the source branch.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts
src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts`
from `server/` passed: 2 files, 19 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/server/codex-args.test.ts --config
vitest.config.ts` from `packages/adapters/codex-local/` passed: 1 file,
3 tests.
- `bash -n scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh &&
scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh --dry` passed; dry-run detected
`chrome-headless-shell` processes without killing them.
- `test -f ui/storybook-static/index.html && test -f
ui/storybook-static/assets/forms-editors.stories-Dry7qwx2.js` passed.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-test-local-maintenance --
. ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts --config
cli/vitest.config.ts` did not complete in the isolated split worktree
because `paperclipai run` exited during build prep with `TS2688: Cannot
find type definition file for 'react'`; this appears to be caused by the
worktree dependency symlink setup, not the code under test.
- Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: the stable Vitest runner changes how route/authz tests
are scheduled.
- Generated `ui/storybook-static` files are large and contain minified
third-party output; `git diff --check` reports whitespace inside those
generated assets, so reviewers may choose to drop or regenerate that
artifact before merge.
- No database migrations.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell, git, Paperclip
API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip workspace.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Note: screenshot checklist item is not applicable to source UI behavior;
the included Storybook static output is generated artifact preservation
from the source branch.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat
runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state
> - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient
adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without
stranding work
> - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across
heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and
operator-facing run state
> - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts,
migrations, and runtime status semantics
> - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can
merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work
> - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls,
and more predictable recurring execution behavior
## What Changed
- Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and
Codex transient failure recovery handling.
- Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue
comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and
activity/dashboard bounds.
- Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue
workspace runtime management.
- Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and
`0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`.
- Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared
types synchronized.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server`
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch,
which are central execution paths.
- Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge
this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields.
- Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator
smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent runtime, shell/git tool use
enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in
this Paperclip heartbeat environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators and agents coordinate through company-scoped issues,
comments, documents, and task relationships.
> - Issue text can mention other tickets, but those references were
previously plain markdown/text without durable relationship data.
> - That made it harder to understand related work, surface backlinks,
and keep cross-ticket context visible in the board.
> - This pull request adds first-class issue reference extraction,
storage, API responses, and UI surfaces.
> - The benefit is that issue references become queryable, navigable,
and visible without relying on ad hoc text scanning.
## What Changed
- Added shared issue-reference parsing utilities and exported
reference-related types/constants.
- Added an `issue_reference_mentions` table, idempotent migration DDL,
schema exports, and database documentation.
- Added server-side issue reference services, route integration,
activity summaries, and a backfill command for existing issue content.
- Added UI reference pills, related-work panels, markdown/editor mention
handling, and issue detail/property rendering updates.
- Added focused shared, server, and UI tests for parsing, persistence,
display, and related-work behavior.
- Rebased `PAP-735-first-class-task-references` cleanly onto
`public-gh/master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes are included.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-references-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRelatedWorkPanel.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Medium risk because this adds a new issue-reference persistence path
that touches shared parsing, database schema, server routes, and UI
rendering.
- Migration risk is mitigated by `CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS`, guarded
foreign-key creation, and `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` statements so
users who have applied an older local version of the numbered migration
can re-run safely.
- UI risk is limited by focused component coverage, but reviewers should
still manually inspect issue detail pages containing ticket references
before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-using shell workflow with
repository inspection, git rebase/push, typecheck, and focused Vitest
verification.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a local-first control plane for AI-agent companies.
> - Operators need predictable local dev behavior, recoverable instance
data, and scripts that do not churn the running app.
> - Several accumulated changes improve backup streaming, dev-server
health, static UI caching/logging, diagnostic-file ignores, and instance
isolation.
> - These are operational improvements that can land independently from
product UI work.
> - This pull request groups the dev-infra and backup changes from the
split branch into one standalone branch.
> - The benefit is safer local operation, easier manual backups, less
noisy dev output, and less cross-instance auth leakage.
## What Changed
- Added a manual instance database backup endpoint and route tests.
- Streamed backup/restore handling to avoid materializing large payloads
at once.
- Reduced dev static UI log/cache churn and ignored Node diagnostic
report captures.
- Added guarded dev auto-restart health polling coverage.
- Preserved worktree config during provisioning and scoped auth cookies
by instance.
- Added a Discord daily digest helper script and environment
documentation.
- Hardened adapter-route and startup feedback export tests around the
changed infrastructure.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-database-backups-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/dev-runner-paths.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/vite-html-renderer.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts`
- Split integration check: merged after the runtime/governance branch
and before UI branches with no merge conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: touches server startup, backup streaming, auth cookie
naming, dev health checks, and worktree provisioning.
- Backup endpoint behavior depends on existing board/admin access
controls and database backup helpers.
- No database migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - V1 needs to stay local-first while also supporting shared,
authenticated deployments.
> - Human operators need real identities, company membership, invite
flows, profile surfaces, and company-scoped access controls.
> - Agents and operators also need the existing issue, inbox, workspace,
approval, and plugin flows to keep working under those authenticated
boundaries.
> - This branch accumulated the multi-user implementation, follow-up QA
fixes, workspace/runtime refinements, invite UX improvements,
release-branch conflict resolution, and review hardening.
> - This pull request consolidates that branch onto the current `master`
branch as a single reviewable PR.
> - The benefit is a complete multi-user implementation path with tests
and docs carried forward without dropping existing branch work.
## What Changed
- Added authenticated human-user access surfaces: auth/session routes,
company user directory, profile settings, company access/member
management, join requests, and invite management.
- Added invite creation, invite landing, onboarding, logo/branding,
invite grants, deduped join requests, and authenticated multi-user E2E
coverage.
- Tightened company-scoped and instance-admin authorization across
board, plugin, adapter, access, issue, and workspace routes.
- Added profile-image URL validation hardening, avatar preservation on
name-only profile updates, and join-request uniqueness migration cleanup
for pending human requests.
- Added an atomic member role/status/grants update path so Company
Access saves no longer leave partially updated permissions.
- Improved issue chat, inbox, assignee identity rendering,
sidebar/account/company navigation, workspace routing, and execution
workspace reuse behavior for multi-user operation.
- Added and updated server/UI tests covering auth, invites, membership,
issue workspace inheritance, plugin authz, inbox/chat behavior, and
multi-user flows.
- Merged current `public-gh/master` into this branch, resolved all
conflicts, and verified no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is included in this
PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-validators.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authz-company-access.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/sidebar-preferences-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openclaw-invite-prompt-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/auth-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanyAccess.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm db:generate`
- `npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list`
- Confirmed branch has no uncommitted changes and is `0` commits behind
`public-gh/master` before PR creation.
- Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is staged or present in the PR
diff.
## Risks
- High review surface area: this PR contains the accumulated multi-user
branch plus follow-up fixes, so reviewers should focus especially on
company-boundary enforcement and authenticated-vs-local deployment
behavior.
- UI behavior changed across invites, inbox, issue chat, access
settings, and sidebar navigation; no browser screenshots are included in
this branch-consolidation PR.
- Plugin install, upgrade, and lifecycle/config mutations now require
instance-admin access, which is intentional but may change expectations
for non-admin board users.
- A join-request dedupe migration rejects duplicate pending human
requests before creating unique indexes; deployments with unusual
historical duplicates should review the migration behavior.
- Company member role/status/grant saves now use a new combined
endpoint; older separate endpoints remain for compatibility.
- Full production build was not run locally in this heartbeat; CI should
cover the full matrix.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-based model, CLI/tool-use
environment. Exact deployed model identifier and context window were not
exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Note on screenshots: this is a branch-consolidation PR for an
already-developed multi-user branch, and no browser screenshots were
captured during this heartbeat.
---------
Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Local development needs to work cleanly across linked git worktrees
because Paperclip itself leans on worktree-based engineering workflows
> - Dev-mode asset routing, Vite watch behavior, and workspace package
links are part of that day-to-day control-plane ergonomics
> - The current branch had a small but coherent set of
worktree/dev-tooling fixes that are independent from both the issue UI
changes and the heartbeat runtime changes
> - This pull request isolates those environment fixes into a standalone
branch that can merge without carrying unrelated product work
> - The benefit is a smoother multi-worktree developer loop with fewer
stale links and less noisy dev watching
## What Changed
- Serve dev public assets before the HTML shell and add a routing test
that locks that behavior in.
- Ignore UI test files in the Vite dev watch helper so the dev server
does less unnecessary work.
- Update `ensure-workspace-package-links.ts` to relink stale workspace
dependencies whenever a workspace `node_modules` directory exists,
instead of only inside linked-worktree detection paths.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/app-vite-dev-routing.test.ts
ui/src/lib/vite-watch.test.ts`
- `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs
scripts/ensure-workspace-package-links.ts`
## Risks
- The asset routing change is low risk but sits near app shell behavior,
so a regression would show up as broken static assets in dev mode.
- The workspace-link repair now runs in more cases, so the main risk is
doing unexpected relinks when a checkout has intentionally unusual
workspace symlink state.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment.
Exact backend model deployment ID was not exposed in-session.
Tool-assisted editing and shell execution were used.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - That operator experience depends not just on issue chat, but also on
how workspaces, inbox groups, and navigation state behave over
long-running sessions
> - The current branch included a separate cluster of workspace-runtime
controls, inbox grouping, sidebar ordering, and worktree lifecycle fixes
> - Those changes cross server, shared contracts, database state, and UI
navigation, but they still form one coherent operator workflow area
> - This pull request isolates the workspace/runtime and navigation
ergonomics work into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is better workspace recovery and navigation persistence
without forcing reviewers through the unrelated issue-detail/chat work
## What Changed
- Improved execution workspace and project workspace controls, request
wiring, layout, and JSON editor ergonomics
- Hardened linked worktree reuse/startup behavior and documented the
`worktree repair` flow for recovering linked worktrees safely
- Added inbox workspace grouping, mobile collapse, archive undo,
keyboard navigation, shared group-header styling, and persisted
collapsed-group behavior
- Added persistent sidebar order preferences with the supporting DB
migration, shared/server contracts, routes, services, hooks, and UI
integration
- Scoped issue-list preferences by context and added targeted UI/server
tests for workspace controls, inbox behavior, sidebar preferences, and
worktree validation
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/sidebar-preferences-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx
ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx
ui/src/api/workspace-runtime-control.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` was attempted, but
the embedded Postgres suite self-skipped/hung on this host after
reporting an init-script issue, so it is not counted as a local pass
here
## Risks
- Medium: this branch includes migration-backed preference storage plus
worktree/runtime behavior, so merge review should pay attention to state
persistence and worktree recovery semantics
- The sidebar preference migration is standalone, but it should still be
watched for conflicts if another migration lands first
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Agents sometimes need to capture UI screenshots for visual
verification of fixes
> - The Paperclip UI requires authentication, so headless browser
screenshots fail without auth
> - The CLI already stores a board token in `~/.paperclip/auth.json`
> - This pull request adds a Playwright-based screenshot script that
reads the board token and injects it as a Bearer header
> - The benefit is agents can now take authenticated screenshots of any
Paperclip UI page without storing email/password credentials
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/screenshot.cjs` — a Node.js script that:
- Reads the board token from `~/.paperclip/auth.json`
- Launches Chromium via Playwright with the token as an `Authorization`
header
- Navigates to the specified URL and saves a screenshot
- Supports `--width`, `--height`, and `--wait` flags
- Accepts both full URLs and path-only shortcuts (e.g.,
`/PAPA/agents/cto/instructions`)
## Verification
```bash
node scripts/screenshot.cjs /PAPA/agents/cto/instructions /tmp/test.png --width 1920
```
Should produce an authenticated screenshot of the agent instructions
page.
## Risks
- Low risk — standalone utility script with no impact on the main
application. Requires Playwright (already a dev dependency) and a valid
board token in `~/.paperclip/auth.json`.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
- Add wget, ripgrep, python3, and GitHub CLI (gh) to base image
- Add OPENCODE_ALLOW_ALL_MODELS=true to production ENV
- Move compose files, onboard-smoke Dockerfile to docker/
- Move entrypoint script to scripts/docker-entrypoint.sh
- Add Podman Quadlet unit files (pod, app, db containers)
- Add docker/README.md with build, compose, and quadlet docs
- Add scripts/docker-build-test.sh for local build validation
- Update all doc references for new file locations
- Keep main Dockerfile at project root (no .dockerignore changes needed)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Devin Foley
Dotta
dmndbrp-oss
Joonyoung Park
scotttong
Nicky Leach
Alex
Jannes Stubbemann
Dotta
dotta
Cody (Radius Red)
