## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs need credentials for a specific provider and sign-in
method.
> - Connections already owns accounts, grants, and access permissions.
> - AI authentication should use those same boundaries.
> - This pull request adds the storage, API, adoption, and runtime
foundation.
> - Legacy agents keep their authentication until they explicitly adopt
a managed connection.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
AI credentials are configured separately from Connections. Agents cannot
consistently reuse a responsible user's account or a permitted shared
account.
**Proposed solution**
Manage AI accounts with the existing Connections grants and permissions.
Keep model and harness selection independent from credential selection.
Preserve legacy authentication until validated adoption.
**Alternatives considered**
A separate credential registry would duplicate ownership and access
policy. Automatic fallback would risk using the wrong account.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the shipped Apps, multi-user, secrets, and agent-runtime
capabilities. The maintainer requested the feature and reviewed the UI.
Related groundwork: #11899 (connection permissions), #10910 (connection
wizard), #11692 (Claude subscription profiles), and #11854 (Codex
account rotation).
## What Changed
- Add AI-purpose/runtime-auth contracts and an additive, idempotent
migration.
- Add Claude, OpenAI, OpenRouter, and Grok provider capabilities and
catalog entries.
- Store credentials on grants. Resolve responsible-user defaults or
explicit permitted grants.
- Isolate managed credentials and provider sessions across accounts.
Block missing credentials without ambient fallback.
- Keep imported legacy secrets unchanged during reconnect. Use
independent local Codex/Grok sign-in attempts for rotating credentials.
- Add authorization, migration, concurrent refresh, retry, cancellation,
and legacy-compatibility tests.
This is part 1 of a two-PR stack. The app UI follows in #13248. Merge
the foundation first.
## Verification
- Updated against master `04e364236`, preserving upstream provider login
and connector workflows.
- Full workspace typecheck, production build, Storybook build, and token
gates passed on the integrated branch. Final local-login changes passed
59 focused tests; new-agent and inbox regression suites passed 63 tests.
- Browser checks verified automatic local Claude account detection,
resumable Codex login commands, retry, focus restoration, and
desktop/phone layouts. Commands create their isolated directory before
invoking the CLI.
- All current-head CI checks passed on `2a996560a`, including all
server/workspace tests, browser shards, runner verification, typecheck,
build, and canary dry run. Greptile reviewed that commit at 5/5 with no
unresolved threads. Earlier local full-suite attempts hit the Mac
PostgreSQL shared-memory limit; the complete suites passed in CI.
- Renumbered the additive AI migration to `0276` after upstream
migrations and regenerated its snapshot. Existing legacy agents retain
their configuration.
- Added local login status checks, owner-scoped retry, managed OpenCode
remote homes, credential-aware model discovery, and task
connection-repair delivery.
## Risks
- Managed credential failures intentionally block execution. They do not
restore legacy fallback.
- Preview-era copied Codex/Grok subscriptions require independent
reconnect.
- The integrated branch has live provider acceptance coverage. This
update verifies local Claude detection and Codex API-key task repair; it
does not add a new subscription authorization/refresh or Daytona stress
pass.
- Runtime-auth connections must stay excluded from tool and channel
handling.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and browser testing. The exact runtime model identifier and
context-window size are not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Unify full and quick task search around PostgreSQL term coverage, explicit relevance bands, and conservative typo recovery. Preserve matching evidence and navigation, and add a judged corpus, regression tests, and documented performance measurements.
Validation: local typecheck, build, focused PostgreSQL tests, and task-list tests pass. All final-head CI gates pass and Greptile is 5/5.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Channels connect external conversations to company tasks and agent
execution.
> - Slack, Discord, and AgentMail already provide durable delivery and
access controls.
> - People also need to reach an agent from Apple Messages and send
photos.
> - Photon provides shared Pro DMs, dedicated numbers, and authenticated
event recovery.
> - This pull request connects Photon to the existing channel services.
> - People can message an agent while Paperclip retains task ownership
and approval authority.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: channel services, shared contracts, database constraints,
Apps, and agent Channels UI.
**Problem or motivation**
Paperclip has no iMessage channel. A person cannot use Apple Messages to
start a task, send a photo, or answer an agent's pending question.
**Proposed solution**
Add experimental **iMessage Photon** with Pro-compatible shared DMs or a
dedicated Photon Cloud number per agent channel. Reuse channel
admission, identity links, task generations, publication, and
interaction continuation. Keep groups disabled for shared allocation.
Dedicated lines support groups that an operator explicitly enables.
Require a fresh linked message and a published agent response before
setup completes.
**Alternatives considered**
Shared allocation has no owned phone number, so it reserves one project
and allows DMs only. Dedicated allocation reserves one stable number.
Local Mac access needs a separate deployment model. The upstream Photon
Chat SDK adapter does not persist the poll mappings and send receipts
required here. This change uses the lower-level SDK without adding
another agent runtime.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends Connected Apps and agent communication through the existing
channel subsystem. It does not add a parallel tool connection or agent
loop. GitHub searches for Photon and iMessage found no matching provider
implementation.
**Additional context**
This ships behind the existing experimental channel gate. Dedicated-line
release qualification remains incomplete. Real Photon Pro DMs passed
task/reply, native poll, text answers, confirmation rejection, media,
restart, pause, reconnect, revocation, and removal tests. An
operator-supplied iPhone camera HEIC also passed the full round trip.
Dedicated groups remain unqualified. See [the verification
record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) and [the
implementation plan](doc/plans/2026-09-11-imessage-photon.md).
## What Changed
- Add the provider catalog entry, shared setup contracts, and a forward
migration. A global partial index reserves the dedicated number or
shared project until its endpoint is archived.
- Add Cloud project inspection, vaulted project credentials,
selected-line token renewal, and a leased receiver. Persist checkpoint
updates under the receiver lease. Shared project replay accepts sparse
increasing sequences only after a complete recovery barrier.
- Connect DMs and enabled groups to existing task generations, sender
authorization, ordered delivery, and publication services. Keep each
iMessage conversation on its task after completion; only explicit `/new`
or `/close` releases the binding. Publish committed inbound comments
live and label their human bubbles “Sent from iMessage” in both
task-chat renderers.
- Persist immutable text/file send identities, upload receipts, poll
IDs, option IDs, per-person drafts, and canonical interaction
continuation proofs.
- Add source-bound file recovery, bounded HEIC/HEIF conversion, JPEG
previews, and related Live Photo companion video retention.
- Add the three-step setup flow and channel management surfaces with
official branding. Preserve the experimental gate and existing
pause/disconnect behavior.
- Add interactive production-component Storybooks for setup, access,
recovery, and ongoing conversations. Add provider, integration, catalog,
and browser regression coverage. Document setup, recovery, supported
boundaries, and qualification gaps.
## Verification
- Live Photon Pro, SDK 2.1.0: linked iPhone messages create a task and
receive native Codex replies in Apple Messages. Unlinked senders cannot
start work.
- Three real follow-ups each reopened the same completed task. Incoming
bubbles appeared on its open page without reload and showed “Sent from
iMessage.” The third follow-up ran after restarting the server on
`4d7222110`; the agent correctly repeated its previous reply from before
the restart.
- Native polls after restart, sequential text drafts, required-field
correction, explicit submission, approval rejection with a required
reason, and native continuation passed against Photon.
- PNG, text documents, synthetic HEIC, and a real iPhone camera HEIC
passed in both directions. The camera photo produced a 3024×4032 JPEG
preview. The native agent described it and returned the received HEIC
byte-for-byte.
- Pause/resume, reconnect, identity revocation, removal, `/status`,
`/new`, `/close`, and stale answers after close passed live. Messages
suppressed by pause did not become work on resume. Removal stopped
intake and removed credential bindings.
- All 304 focused tests passed on `4d7222110`. These cover Photon
unit/integration behavior, both task-chat renderers, live comment
hydration, completed-task continuity after restart, enabled groups,
duplicate delivery, and explicit reset/close. The selected Teams
completion-boundary regression also passed. Full workspace
typecheck/build and token gates passed for the conversation fix; the
final UI changes passed their affected typecheck/build and tests.
- All 26 new Photon Storybook Playwright cases passed in light and dark
themes, including the complete shared-DM setup journey and 390px mobile
follow-ups. UI typecheck and the Storybook build passed. These stories
use simulated Photon responses and do not replace the live evidence
above.
- The full chat-adapters browser suite previously passed all 39 cases.
Migration checks passed, and migration 0275 applied to the isolated live
instance with the earlier Photon migration already applied.
- The local full Vitest run was previously interrupted by the host's
embedded-Postgres shared-memory limit; it is not a full-suite pass. All
30 applicable CI checks passed on preceding head `7a5419cac`, with two
skipped checks and Greptile 5/5. Head `24f8e1aae` adds an explicit
required-story discovery guard to the 26 passing Storybook cases.
Greptile rates this final head 5/5 with no unresolved review threads.
All 30 applicable CI checks passed, with two optional checks skipped.
- A repeated live send key suppressed the duplicate but returned gRPC 6
/ SDK `internalError` without an original receipt. Paperclip keeps
unknown delivery unresolved. This provider behavior is covered by a
regression test.
- See [the verification
record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) for package
versions, redacted live evidence, deterministic coverage, and remaining
qualification gaps.
## Risks
- Dedicated group qualification remains unrun; groups are disabled for
the approved Pro scope. Real iPhone camera HEIC passed transport,
preview generation, agent inspection, and return. Keep the channel
experimental; the dedicated-line release matrix remains incomplete.
- Shared recovery and attachment aliases were verified against the live
gateway. Duplicate writes currently return an error without the original
receipt; unresolved sends require operator resolution. The
implementation fails visibly on invalid replay ordering, a reset cursor,
or changed identity.
- The HEIF converter passed on macOS arm64 and in Linux CI. Windows HEIF
binaries have not been executed in this work. Linux musl has no packaged
converter. Unsupported conversion retains the original and reports the
missing preview.
- The migration adds a global reservation across companies for Photon
numbers and shared projects. Paused and revoked endpoints keep that
reservation until removal.
- Integration touches shared channel services. Existing provider browser
coverage passes; broad repository verification is recorded above.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded under repository policy.
The repository bot owns lockfile updates. The additional Superagent
supply-chain scan is neutral/inconclusive because these new dependencies
are not yet in the committed lockfile. Its security scan passed; all
required CI checks pass.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
execution, browser testing, and tool use. The exact served model
identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No
sub-agents 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 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.
> - Native runs report their outcome through paperclip_finish.
> - The server previously turned incomplete reports into human approval
requests.
> - Those requests could block a later successful run, even when no
person had requested review.
> - This pull request creates review cards only for explicit attention
requests and withdraws proven old fallback cards.
> - Agents receive useful completion feedback, while explicit approval
gates and task state protections remain in force.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related: #13266 removed reviews caused by policy upgrades. This change
removes the separate completion fallback.
**What happened?**
An agent reported needs_review while waiting for checks without
requesting a human decision. Paperclip created a generic Native
completion review. A later successful report could not complete the task
because that old card remained pending.
**Expected behavior**
Ordinary low-risk work completes after a valid done report, a successful
run, and workspace finalization. Incomplete work stays with the agent.
Explicit approval requests remain visible and must be resolved.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Complete a native run with needs_review and no attention requests.
2. Continue the task and submit a successful done report.
3. Observe that the old implementation leaves the task in review behind
a generic confirmation card.
## What Changed
- Require explicit attention requests to create native review cards.
Route each request independently and preserve pending or declined
decisions.
- Withdraw only pending system cards with matching old decision,
assessment, effect, contract, and prompt provenance. Preserve history
and explicit or answered requests.
- Reassess an affected current result without overwriting later task
edits, runs, contracts, or workspace failures.
- Return pending approval links and required actions through the
completion tool. Reject contradictory done reports and empty review
requests before accepting a result.
- Allow one corrective continuation for incomplete results, then expose
a recovery action.
- Update status fixtures, database regressions, runner tests, and the
completion contract documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after merging current master.
- `pnpm build` passed after merging current master.
- The combined branch passed 89 completion and Agent Chat tests. Other
targeted tests passed: 170 external-chat and reconciliation tests; 50
runner-resume and control-plane tests; 13 arbiter tests; 7 chat delivery
tests; 21 runner completion and runtime-context tests.
- The full local test attempt exposed old review fixtures and a missing
fake-provider binary. The fixtures are fixed and the helper is built.
All affected suites pass in fresh reruns. The timing-sensitive Discord
test also passed on rerun.
- All latest-head CI checks passed, including build, typecheck, general
and serialized tests, runner verification, browser tests, and canary dry
run. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved comments.
## Risks
- Cleanup changes existing pending cards. It requires exact system
provenance and only applies to low-risk agent-claim contracts. It does
not delete history or dismiss explicit requests.
- Status still commits after the turn and workspace finalization.
Completion feedback reports current constraints and does not claim an
early status commit.
- Incomplete reports now request a bounded corrective run instead of an
automatic approval. Repeated failures expose recovery.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and
test tools. The exact deployment identifier and context window size are
not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution
history.
> - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task
properties.
> - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned
project tasks.
> - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one
squash merge.
> - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance
and shared UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid
runner tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat
store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing
controls.
**Proposed solution**
Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task
composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned
project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own
disabled-by-default experimental setting.
**Roadmap alignment**
This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO
Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat).
Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The
maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack.
Consolidates the reviewed runtime
[#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend
[#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI
[#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers
with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received
Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes
the complete feature.
## What Changed
- Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility,
immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state.
- Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause,
and fence old provider context and delayed writes.
- Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment,
task lists, and rollups.
- Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary
assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat
subtasks.
- Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including
multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and
durable project-created cards.
- Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent
navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag.
- Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four
Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots.
- Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message,
and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on
ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls
are stopped even if teardown fails.
- Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with
idempotent replay for development databases.
## Verification
- Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build,
typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile
5/5 and no unresolved findings.
- Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and
production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests,
all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88
focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session
regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three
lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server
typecheck also passes. Current head
`1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no
unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates
passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry,
canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards
([CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)).
Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped
fixtures do not count as passing coverage.
- The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32
screenshots:
[report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat).
It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior
evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head.
- Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an
agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project
task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained
history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns
are blocked.
## Risks
- Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests
cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and
ordinary task behavior.
- Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is
idempotent and preserves existing development chat history.
- This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's
request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from
Conference Room.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code
execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window
size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test
subjects in the linked paid campaign.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (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 controls agent work across service deployments.
> - A run can provision a remote sandbox before a process or invocation
event exists.
> - Each container previously treated its own missing process handle as
proof that the run was orphaned.
> - Overlapping deployments could therefore fail a run owned by another
container.
> - This pull request records and renews a controller lease before
provisioning.
> - A recovery worker must revoke an expired owner before it finalizes
the run.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Merged PR #13272 records startup adapter identity and restores explicit
user continuation. This PR adds controller ownership on top of current
master. Refs #7997 and #10442 for related replica and ownership
problems. Related #13138 addresses silence and detached local processes;
this change does not infer death from silence.
**What happened?**
During an overlapping hosted service deployment, a new container reaped
a legacy conversation run that another container was provisioning. The
run had no PID or adapter invocation yet.
**Expected behavior**
A live controller keeps its run. After controller loss, one recovery
worker takes cleanup authority and the old controller cannot dispatch
further work.
**Steps to reproduce**
Claim a legacy run in controller A. Start controller B against the same
database before A finishes provisioning. Run the startup reaper in B.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Observed on `663c44cb2b9c28336d38d0b4a6971f4f1964bce6` in a hosted
Railway deployment with a Daytona environment.
## What Changed
- Add nullable controller boot ID, lease deadline, and execution stage
columns. Claim ownership in the queued-to-running update.
- Renew ownership independently of run output. Abort and reject dispatch
if renewal fails.
- Serialize reaper revocation against renewal. Let unfinished recovery
claims expire after a restart.
- Restrict graceful shutdown to legacy runs owned by the current
controller.
- Hand ownership back to the existing native coordinator when runtime
selection becomes native.
- Add twelve database regressions and document the lease contract.
Update the task-drain regression to require controller expiry before
reaping.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/legacy-controller-lease.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain-admission-release.test.ts`: 14
passed after rebasing onto master (`f12b647ae`).
- Queue-interruption regressions in
`heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`: 2 passed after preserving the new
cleanup promotion from #13275.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`: passed after
rebuilding runner TypeScript outputs for the updated master. Broad local
tests are omitted at the maintainer’s request; CI owns broad coverage.
- Latest-head CI passed on `f255e8e4d5ab2b24b12638a02434e6aa8a2285c5`:
[run
34658248569](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34658248569).
All test shards, browser suites, typecheck, build, canary, and security
checks passed. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads.
## Risks
- Additive, idempotent migration; historical rows retain the previous
recovery behavior.
- Database unavailability aborts new dispatch rather than permitting an
unfenced controller to continue.
- Lease expiry is permission to clean up, not evidence that remote
inference stopped. Follow-up PRs add persistent cleanup and automatic
continuation.
- Mixed-version deployment still includes old binaries whose reapers do
not understand controller leases.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, using reasoning, repository inspection, code
execution, and test tools. The precise backend revision and
context-window size are not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Legacy conversation adapters can run in Daytona sandboxes.
> - A server restart during provisioning can occur before the invocation
event exists.
> - Recovery then lacks the old adapter identity and leaves a hold that
ordinary user retries cannot clear.
> - A remote launch can also fail when its host relay looks for Node in
the sandbox PATH.
> - This pull request records the adapter at claim time and restores
explicit user continuation after verified cleanup.
> - Users can recover from the task or inbox while the failed run and
uncertain action history remain intact.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13237, #13239, #13254. Those changes cover recorded conversation
runs, native user continuation, and explicit remote Stop. This change
covers legacy failure before `adapter.invoke` and exact task/inbox
Retry.
Refs #9771 for overlapping generated-command quoting. This change also
supplies the absolute host Node executable. Refs #13163 and #13264 for
the separate native restart and retained-workspace work.
**What happened?**
A legacy Daytona run interrupted during provisioning became
`process_lost` without an invocation event. Recovery preserved an
execution hold, and Retry or a new task reply could not resume it.
Cleanup could also run before the Daytona plugin was ready. On a macOS
host, a subsequent ACP relay launch failed with `env: node: No such file
or directory` because the remote launch environment did not contain the
host Node path.
**Expected behavior**
An interrupted conversation can continue after its previous execution
stops. Explicit Retry and new user replies should start a fresh turn
with the task history. Cleanup failures must remain visible and
recoverable. The host relay must use the host Node executable.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use a legacy Claude adapter with a Daytona environment.
2. Interrupt the server after it acquires the sandbox lease and before
it records `adapter.invoke`.
3. Restart and inspect the task hold.
4. Retry from the task or inbox, or send a new task reply.
5. Confirm the old sandbox has stopped and one new response arrives.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced from master at `3bafac12f796fbea02e609e1074a9639f872e9c4`.
The branch is rebased on `51b0e01ea`, including #13261 and #13270.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source on macOS with a real Daytona sandbox and the legacy
Claude ACP adapter.
## What Changed
- Count new browser specs with the scheduler's median duration in the
shard-balance check. This fixes a false policy failure after new specs
arrive from both branches. The balance threshold is unchanged.
- Persist server-owned adapter identity in the queued-to-running claim
before provisioning starts.
- Wait for provider plugin startup before restart cleanup. Keep failed
cleanup leases as active ownership blockers.
- Admit exact board retries and new user comments after verified
termination. Retain the old run, task history, approvals, and unknown
action outcomes.
- Adopt repeated Retry requests. Permit one scoped cleanup attempt per
explicit user Retry after the automatic limit, with an activity record.
A later user Retry can recover after a transient provider failure;
automatic attempts remain capped.
- Resume replies deferred during cleanup, including historical legacy
startup failures.
- Launch the host ACP relay through the absolute host Node executable.
- Add a task-level Retry button and return actionable blockers when
retry admission is refused.
- Add database regressions and three browser recovery journeys. Exclude
installed third-party dependency skills from the shipped-skill audit.
## Verification
- Current head: `d23c84181`, rebased on `51b0e01ea`. Conflict resolution
retains the saved-message recovery, local stop receipts, and wait
reasons from #13270 alongside exact legacy Retry support.
- Real Daytona: interrupted the server after lease acquisition and
before adapter invocation. Restart cleanup confirmed provider
termination. Task Retry cleared a seeded historical hold and a real
Claude agent returned `Recovery verified.` in the task. Removed the
disposable sandbox and environment after testing.
- All three browser recovery journeys passed again after the final
rebase. Task Retry, Inbox Retry, and a new reply each produced one fresh
successor, completed the task, preserved the failed run, and retained
the answer after reload.
- All 29 e2e/server shard-partition tests passed. The balance check now
uses the scheduler's median fallback for unmeasured specs, with the same
balance threshold.
- Server typecheck passed after rebuilding the generated runner
dependencies. The combined recovery/route run passed 136 of 137 tests.
Its remaining route test timed out during the first cold module import
at its explicit 10-second limit; an isolated rerun reproduced that
timeout and passed the other 51 route cases. The complete CI suite
passed on this head. The same route file passed all 52 cases in CI,
including the first cold import in 7.5 seconds.
- Before the final rebase, recursive typecheck, full build, UI token
gates, 132 targeted server tests, and the complete [CI
workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34650004085)
passed. The subsequent CI failure was the shard-balance accounting
mismatch fixed here.
- Greptile reviewed `d23c84181` at 5/5 with no outstanding actionable
findings. The complete [current CI
workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34653327949)
passed on attempt 2. All test, typecheck, build, and canary jobs passed
on the first attempt. Docker setup timed out fetching BuildKit from
Docker Hub; retrying that job and its dependent aggregate succeeded.
## Risks
- Recovery admission changes executable authority. Company, task, agent,
user, approvals, process ownership, and provider termination checks
remain required.
- Explicit continuation starts a fresh conversation with history. It
does not certify unknown external action outcomes or rerun
non-conversation adapters automatically.
- Changing task status alone does not clear an execution hold. The task
now offers an explicit Retry action.
- Historical adapter claims and invocation events take precedence over
current agent settings. Known process or webhook runs retain their hold.
Pre-upgrade rows with no adapter evidence may receive only a new
explicit user turn after termination proof; they do not become eligible
for automatic replay.
- No schema migration or sandbox-image change is required. This branch
has not been deployed to production.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution,
browser automation, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID
and context window are 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
- [ ] 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>
Preserve verified native process-stop evidence and retry saved user messages through normal continuation admission after recovery cleanup. Show the current wait reason and serialize delivery so a saved message starts one fresh turn.
Validated with 410 focused tests, typecheck, build, token gates, all PR CI checks, and Greptile 5/5.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Connections give agents controlled access to external services.
> - Experimental channels already map conversations to tasks and durable
work queues.
> - Email needs inbox ownership, recipient envelopes, delivery records,
and explicit sends.
> - This pull request adds AgentMail to that infrastructure and keeps
the provider key in the server vault.
> - Agents can receive and send email from local or sandbox execution
while the board follows each conversation in its task.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Agents need dedicated email addresses. Incoming email should become
assigned work. Internal task comments and progress must never become
outgoing email by accident.
**Proposed solution**
Add experimental AgentMail connections, an inbox assignment wizard,
durable email intake and publication, task email cards, and
authenticated API, CLI, and native runtime actions. Agents use Paperclip
credentials to request sends. Paperclip owns the provider key and
enforces access and task authority.
**Alternatives considered**
A general mailbox MCP connector does not provide durable task binding or
publication boundaries. A separate mailbox application duplicates task
collaboration. The board instead directs the agent through the normal
task conversation.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing experimental connections and task
infrastructure. Product scope and interaction design were reviewed with
the maintainer. Related connection authority work: #11831 and #11818.
The duplicate search found no competing task-based AgentMail
integration.
## What Changed
- Add AgentMail catalog data, shared contracts, company-scoped email
records, and an additive migration.
- Add vaulted setup, inbox assignment, access grants, trust guidance,
and provider-side allowlist guidance.
- Support WebSocket and signed-webhook intake through a shared durable
pipeline, deduplication, catch-up, and task wakeups.
- Queue explicit new conversations and replies with immutable send
intents, idempotency, delivery state, and uncertain-send resolution.
- Show inbound and outbound email cards in normal task conversations.
Keep internal messages internal.
- Add task-scoped CLI actions and the sandbox callback routes required
for Daytona execution.
- Provide a dedicated AgentMail skill automatically only to agents with
active authorized inbox assignments. Keep email instructions out of the
universal Paperclip skill.
- Advertise connector-owned `agentmail_inboxes`,
`agentmail_read_thread`, `agentmail_send`, and `agentmail_delivery`
tools only in eligible native sessions. Recheck live authority on
execution.
- Isolate Codex CLI connector skills by agent and skill revision.
Deliver the assigned skill in the run prompt for adapters that use
shared skill directories, including resumed turns. Keep automatic skills
out of manual persistent sync. Show them as read-only and document the
pattern in the connector playbook.
- Fix AgentMail health checks that entered local-stdio validation and
optional missing Codex credential cleanup in sandboxes.
- Add API, pipeline, authorization, sandbox, browser, and Storybook
coverage.
## Verification
- Live AgentMail testing covered WebSocket intake, signed webhooks,
restart catch-up, and a full receive → task → Daytona Codex CLI →
explicit reply → Delivered round trip. The reply was verified in the
other inbox. The normal task composer also initiated an outgoing email
child task.
- The connector-skill change was verified in the browser: AgentMail
appears once as an automatic, read-only skill with its assigned address.
Disabling experimental chat connections removes it; re-enabling restores
it. A regression test covers assignment data arriving after library
data.
- Connector regression coverage passed 178 runtime utility, email
integration, skill-route, and heartbeat tests. All 17 Codex execution
tests passed, including per-agent skill isolation, model identity,
revision changes, removal, and prompt delivery without shared skill
files.
- After rebasing onto master, all 44 focused email, heartbeat, and
native-authority tests passed. All 313 native-session executor tests
passed. The UI regression suite passed all 3 tests. These test sets
overlap earlier focused runs.
- Full workspace typecheck and build passed after the rebase. Token
gates passed. Earlier focused Playwright task/setup coverage and the
Storybook build also passed.
- Native connector tool execution uses deterministic integration tests.
Live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter; the new
shared-home prompt fallback has deterministic coverage.
- The full repository suite is run by CI. The earlier unsharded local
full-suite attempt was stopped after the equivalent CI suites passed and
is not reported as a completed local run. Greptile reviewed
`7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb` at 5/5 with no unresolved
threads. All server, workspace, serialized server, and browser suites
passed in CI. The build job hit a five-second timeout in a runner
transport test; both variants and the full 80-test file passed locally
with unchanged timeouts. The build passed on retry on the same commit
without code or timeout changes. All required CI gates, including the
final `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` summaries, are green on
`7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb`.
## Risks
- Email from external senders can start normal agent work. Setup
recommends a low-trust agent and AgentMail sender controls. Sender
addresses never grant board membership.
- Provider timeouts can leave uncertain sends. Retries retain their
idempotency key; expired windows require reconciliation or operator
resolution.
- Connector skills and native tools are assignment-dependent and require
current access. Revocation denies retained calls; assignment changes
select a new runtime context.
- Activation remains behind the experimental-channel setting. The native
runner path has deterministic coverage; live Daytona qualification used
the Codex CLI adapter.
- Schema changes are additive. Inbox ownership is unique across
companies. Disconnect preserves provider inboxes and task history.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
and browser testing. The exact deployment model ID and context-window
size were not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A task can cause an agent to create more tasks.
> - Those tasks can belong to other projects or have another parent.
> - The subtask view does not show all work created from the current
task.
> - This pull request adds a Tasks tab with separate subtask and
creation groups.
> - Operators can follow created work without changing its parent or
project.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Operators need to see all work that an agent creates while running for a
task. Parentage alone does not describe this relationship. Legacy and
native runs must follow the same rules.
**Proposed solution**
Show all subtasks in one section. Separately group tasks created from
the source task by their current project, with a No project group when
needed. A created subtask appears in both sections. Use saved run
context and recorded creation activity to find the source task.
**Alternatives considered**
Making all created tasks children would change their hierarchy. Removing
overlap between sections would hide the creation relationship. This
change keeps the two memberships separate.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing Activity log & action attribution capability.
It does not add a new roadmap area. Related PR: #9727 adds a stored
source-task field and inbound attribution UI. This PR adds the outgoing
task list using existing run and activity records and does not require
that schema change.
## What Changed
- Add a company-scoped createdFromIssueId filter to issue lists.
- Save the actor run during task creation, including legacy child-helper
calls.
- Recover historical run attribution from creation activity when the
origin run is absent.
- Render the production Tasks panel with all subtasks and independently
grouped created work.
- Keep progress only for subtasks. Add folding, hover fades and project
links.
- Fetch all result pages and refresh on issue activity. Show load
failures with Retry.
- Add database, API, UI and pagination tests, design-guide examples and
Storybook pages.
## Verification
- Before rebase: 158 targeted tests passed. Workspace typecheck,
UI/server builds, Storybook build and token gates passed.
- After rebase: full workspace typecheck and build passed. The cursor
fix passes 26 focused tests and UI/server typechecks.
- The full local test command completed its general-server group with
10,563 passing tests and two failures: a missing native-runner fixture
and a concurrency-test timeout. Building the fixture and rerunning both
affected files passed all 41 tests. The local command stopped before its
remaining groups; all corresponding GitHub test shards passed on the
submitted head.
- GitHub checks on commit 3b4bf0bd8: 31 passed, including the aggregate
CI gate, all server/workspace/browser test shards, typecheck, build,
runner verification, canary dry run, policy and security checks. Two
conditional Storybook jobs were skipped by the workflow.
- Greptile reviewed commit 3b4bf0bd8 at 5/5 with no unresolved comments.
- Open Storybook at UX Labs / Tasks Created From a Task / Full Task
Page. Check that a created subtask appears in both sections. Fold each
group and use a project link. Check the No project group and first-task
arrival story.
## Risks
- Old tasks without a saved origin run or attributed creation activity
cannot be linked to a source. The code does not infer a source from a
shared creator or a comment.
- The new list filter reads run and activity records. Source, run,
activity and result stay within the requested company.
- Task creation now saves the actor run when no explicit origin run is
supplied. Existing explicit origins remain unchanged. No database
migration is required.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The runtime identifies the model family as
GPT-6 but does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window
size. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution and browser
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 manages AI agents and their tasks.
> - A failed native run can leave a durable execution hold.
> - The hold prevents automatic replay of actions with unknown outcomes.
> - It can also prevent the agent from answering a new user message.
> - A new user message should authorize a fresh turn after the prior
execution stops.
> - This pull request adds that admission path and preserves the
existing execution gates.
> - Users can continue the conversation without certifying every past
action.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Server task wake admission and native execution recovery.
**Problem or motivation**
A native task can remain blocked after automatic recovery stops. A new
user message is saved, but its run is cancelled before the agent can
answer.
**Proposed solution**
Use a new authenticated user comment to authorize a fresh turn. Check
stopped predecessor ownership and available history. Retain uncertain
action outcomes. Commit the new run and hold retirement together.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is a focused improvement to the existing self-healing runs and
recovery behavior.
Builds on merged #13237, which covers legacy conversation continuation.
This PR adds native admission and preserves native automatic-recovery
eligibility and budgets.
## What Changed
- Admit a fresh native turn for a new user comment after every held
predecessor has stopped.
- Validate the comment author, task, timing, process ownership,
controller, and cleanup leases.
- Preserve failed runs, unknown action outcomes, and the failed
incident's attempt count.
- Record the new comment and run in the existing recovery audit history.
- Validate the saved continuation source and discard consumed user-wake
authority from later automatic replacements.
- Keep pause, approval, budget, ownership, and dependency interaction
rules.
- Add database and actual wake-path regressions. Update the execution
contract.
## Verification
- [Full CI run
34626750213](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34626750213)
passed on `c58e6c087e0df7530c747d80b27d491da925a9c4`: all 31 reported
checks passed, including all server/workspace suites, browser shards,
native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and
aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped.
- Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. All review threads are
resolved, and security checks passed.
- All 218 local targeted tests passed across explicit native
continuation, continuation history, safe replacement, durable chat
wakeups, wake queue, issue liveness, native session resume, and run
dispatch. The native implementation is unchanged by the final rebase
onto master.
- Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the
final head. Complete test coverage is supplied by the green CI suites;
local tests used the targeted suites above.
- Regressions cover scoped authorization, concurrent delivery, live
ownership, later admission gates, retained message receipts, and
automatic replacement after terminal-task or reviewer changes.
## Risks
- A fresh model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip preserves
prior history and does not replay recorded calls.
- Missing process identity and remote ownership without a target-aware
stop proof retain the hold. A terminal database row alone does not prove
that execution stopped.
- No schema or dependency changes. Existing historical tasks are not
awakened by deployment.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and test execution. This session does not expose a more
specific model build ID or context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks.
> - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart.
> - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent
execution hold.
> - That hold could also reject a later user message.
> - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior
tool calls.
> - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue
within the existing retry budget.
> - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task
behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be
cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path
could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter.
**Expected behavior**
Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible
provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not
replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user
request through the normal execution gates.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter.
2. Restart the server while the provider is working.
3. Let the previous run become interrupted.
4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old
behavior.
Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for
retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation
recovery through the existing bounded scheduler.
## What Changed
- Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep
native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules.
- Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP
session history even when a write outcome is unknown.
- Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use
full task context.
- Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as
process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its
retry takes ownership.
- Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in
bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and
do not wake historical tasks.
- Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or
environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice
after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting
contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while
deferred messages and execution remain gated.
- Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution
contract.
- Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider
fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary.
Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while
still asserting both processes terminate.
## Verification
- Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Build passed: `pnpm build`.
- Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`.
- Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry
and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites
overlap.
- Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries,
restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates,
and historical holds.
- Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner
verification.
- Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general
and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not
reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed
and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local
parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing
failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and
sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased.
- Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process
recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue
application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task
chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests.
Token gates and whitespace validation pass.
- Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause
scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting
behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case
verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write.
- Final-head [CI run
34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394)
passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported
checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards,
native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and
aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped.
Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are
resolved.
## Risks
- A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not
replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes.
- Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of
requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency,
approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force.
- No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded
without changing task status or waking work.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more
specific model build ID or context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task execution controls let board users pause a task or its subtree.
> - The composer still accepted messages while a pause hold was active.
> - A paused task must require an explicit resume before the user can
send another message.
> - This pull request replaces the composer with an amber pause card and
checks board comment writes on the server.
> - The user keeps their draft and resumes through the existing task
controls.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13104. Refs #13119.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The task composer and existing task/subtree pause controls.
**Current behavior**
A paused task can still receive a board message. The pause notice sits
outside the composer, which leaves the send action available.
**Proposed behavior**
Show an amber takeover in both task chat and the classic composer.
Preserve the draft. Require the user to resume the task or the ancestor
subtree before sending. Reject board comment writes through either
supported write route while the pause hold is active.
**Breaking changes**
Board comment writes to a paused task now return HTTP 409. Agent run
reports remain supported during a pause. There is no schema migration.
## What Changed
- Add a shared amber composer takeover with task, subtree, saved draft,
pending, and error states.
- Use effective ancestor pause state in both composer interfaces.
Refresh it after pause events, task updates, and rejected sends.
- Preserve draft text and attachments. Hide editor, send, queued edit,
and pending question controls while paused.
- Check active pause holds before board comment writes can mutate tasks,
store comments, or wake agents.
- Connect the approved Storybook examples to the production component
and update the design and behavior docs.
- Add browser coverage for both composers, draft persistence, resume,
inherited holds, and rejected writes. Update ACP continuation coverage
for the explicit resume requirement.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Passed: `pnpm build`.
- Passed: `pnpm build-storybook`.
- Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check`.
- Passed: focused UI tests (398 tests) and server route tests (127
tests).
- Passed: `pnpm exec playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/paused-composer.spec.ts
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` (5 tests).
- Passed: manual browser walkthrough in a disposable local instance.
Pause with a draft, refresh while paused, resume, send, and reopen. The
draft returned, and one message persisted. The amber card and resume
dialog were readable with no clipping.
- Full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass: the general-server stage
recorded 9,072 passing tests, 6 database setup failures from macOS
shared-memory exhaustion, and 4 failed tests. This stopped the script
before its later groups. Latest-head CI runs those groups independently.
- Local follow-up: the Git file-resource load test passed on rerun (4
tests); native finalization migration passed after clearing the
abandoned browser-test database allocation. Building the native debug
fixtures fixed the missing fake provider. The remaining native-session
recovery assertion also reproduces on untouched base commit `87b3e5fc6`
(36 pass, 1 fail on both base and PR). It expects a settled-session
error but receives a semantic-input-digest error.
- The final UI build, UI typecheck, token gates, both thread suites (182
tests), and all five browser tests passed after the queued-action review
fix. All 31 latest-head CI checks passed, including all server,
workspace, browser, build, release, and security gates. Two optional
Storybook jobs were skipped by workflow policy. Greptile reviewed
`32d8fb5f5` at 5/5 with no open findings.
- Review the Paused Composer and Tasks / Execution Controls stories.
Pause a task with a draft, verify the amber card, resume, and verify the
draft can be sent once.
## Risks
- Clients that used board comments to continue paused work must resume
first. The response is an explicit HTTP 409.
- Pause state can change while a page is open. Live updates refresh the
composer, and the server rejects stale sends before their side effects.
- Resume keeps the existing dialog and optional agent wake behavior.
Agent reports from interrupted runs remain allowed.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with design, implementation, code
execution, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and
context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning
and tool calls.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (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 the relevant tests locally and they pass; the full
local-suite limits are 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
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agents that must write work and report task
outcomes through its API.
> - Local adapters select an execution engine and its permission
settings.
> - A higher ACP Node requirement can make an unchanged installation
lose access to its default engine.
> - The adapter then silently selects CLI, which can change permissions
and block API access.
> - This pull request keeps the engine choice fixed and reports missing
prerequisites before work starts.
> - It also gives explicit Codex CLI runs usable defaults and keeps
managed services on a supported Node runtime.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12215. Related changes: #11792 raised the Node requirement; #13094
addressed separate runner networking behavior. This change fixes the
engine-selection and managed-launcher paths.
**What happened?**
An unchanged agent could switch from ACP to CLI after an upgrade. Codex
CLI then used read-only permissions with networking disabled. The run
could finish without updating its task. Repeated recovery attempts used
the same unavailable setup. Managed updates also skipped the Node check
and did not refresh old launchers.
**Expected behavior**
An unavailable engine must fail with a clear setup error. It must not
silently select another engine. Explicit CLI runs must be able to write
workspace files and call the API unless the operator configures stricter
settings. Managed updates must validate Node and keep child tools on
that runtime.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run an ACP-default agent under Node 22 after the ACP minimum rises to
24.11.
2. Leave the engine unset and disable the approval/sandbox bypass.
3. Observe the old adapter select CLI and fail to write task disposition
through the API.
4. Start a managed service with an old launcher and a supervisor PATH
that selects a different Node for child tools.
## What Changed
- Remove automatic engine fallback for Codex, Claude, Gemini, and Kimi.
Check prerequisites for default and explicit ACP selections.
- Return a configuration error with proof that provider work did not
start. Stop automatic continuation retries for this error.
- Enable Codex ACP workspace networking at the actual turn boundary.
Upstream mode presets otherwise force it off even when config.toml
enables it. Preserve explicit network denial and read-only mode.
- Set workspace-write and network access defaults for explicit Codex CLI
runs. Preserve explicit sandbox modes, profiles, and network
restrictions.
- Pin the validated Node directory in managed launcher PATH. Refresh
legacy launchers during installs and npm/Git updates.
- Reject updates on unsupported Node. Keep update checks, dry runs, and
rollback available.
- Synchronize the qualified Codex ACP executable identity across server,
TypeScript runner, Rust runner, and provider-pack launch paths.
- Add regression tests and update engine and installation documentation.
## Verification
- [Full CI passed on the final
head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34387099695):
typecheck, build/native runner verification, all general and serialized
test shards, all browser shards, release registry, canary dry run, and
policy checks.
- Greptile: 5/5 on `2c1d6e2815830a5cd39e36c8a082cc0c4441b6c0`, with no
unresolved review findings. Security gates are green.
- Full workspace typecheck and build also passed locally. The final
deployed Linux build passed.
- Full Codex, Claude, Gemini, and Kimi source test suites: 804 passed, 2
skipped. Installer, updater, and launcher tests: 47 passed. Installed
ACP turn-boundary tests: 3 passed. ACP packaging tests: 14 passed.
Focused recovery classification tests also passed.
- Real Linux Codex CLI runs, both fresh and resumed, wrote a workspace
file and reached the control-plane health API with the new defaults.
- Explicit read-only and network-disabled control probes retained those
restrictions.
- A real ACP run on the final deployed Linux build wrote a file and
reached the control-plane API with HTTP 200, without engine fallback.
The same probe failed DNS before the turn-policy patch.
- Executable-identity and installed-policy contracts: 12 passed.
Affected native server tests: 197 passed. Runner factory tests: 21
passed. Rust qualification and native provider integration tests: 11
passed.
- Deployed the production changes to a Linux service on Node 24.20 after
a verified database backup. Health, bootstrap readiness, static UI,
executable/cwd identity, and guarded restart checks passed. The restart
lost no runs.
- Corrected stale Kimi skill-default and Gemini remote-archive fixtures;
both suites pass.
## Risks
- Default or legacy auto engine settings now fail when ACP is
unavailable. Operators who intend to use CLI must select it explicitly.
- Codex CLI now permits workspace writes and networking by default, and
ACP workspace-write turns permit networking by default. Explicit
operator sandbox settings remain authoritative.
- Old managed launchers keep their pinned Node until they are
reinstalled under a supported runtime. An old updater cannot repair
itself; the documentation gives the current installer command.
- Custom service wrappers and global/source installations must configure
their runtime PATH. No database migration is required.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection,
shell execution, and test tools. The exact serving model identifier and
context-window size are not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Bring governed connection reviews into task history and composer approvals. Share resolution with Connections, add scoped remembered permissions, and resume agents through durable outcome receipts.
Keep cards compact, collapse raw results, isolate untrusted provider output, bound continuation payloads, and reconcile missed live events. Add Storybook coverage, browser journeys, and service regression tests.
Verification: all PR CI gates passed, Greptile 5/5, security scans passed, five connection-review browser journeys passed, and real native Codex approval/continuation was verified against the local MCP fixture.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Projects give tasks a common source repository and execution
context.
> - The current project form asks for a raw URL and unrelated metadata.
> - Teams need to select several repos from GitHub connections they can
use.
> - This pull request implements the reviewed project form and
repository editor.
> - The server checks credential ownership and shared audiences before
discovery.
> - Existing workspace URLs and runtime identity rules remain
compatible.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Project creation accepts one raw repository URL. It does not help users
select repos from their usable GitHub connections or attach several
repos together.
**Proposed solution**
Add a shared GitHub repository picker to project creation and
Configuration. Support multiple selections, transactional persistence,
and the existing GitHub setup flow. Simplify the project form and
Configuration tab as reviewed.
**Alternatives considered**
Keep a raw URL field or add a separate repository table. The existing
workspace collection already supports several repositories and keeps
legacy URLs compatible.
**Roadmap alignment**
This builds on the shipped MCP Tool Gateway and Apps capability. It does
not change runtime credential delegation.
Related work: #11662 addresses the existing dialog's viewport limits.
#4552 addresses generic Git URLs; this change preserves those URLs in
existing workspaces.
## What Changed
- Add company-scoped repository discovery from usable personal and
shared GitHub grants, with provider-ID deduplication, PAT pagination,
and partial failure handling.
- Document the repository endpoints and board access requirements in
OpenAPI.
- Validate new selections and save projects with multiple repository
workspaces in one transaction. Preserve legacy URLs and existing
selections whose access was lost.
- Implement the reviewed Create project dialog, shared repository
editor, scrolling, and mobile layout.
- Move repositories above environment variables, remove Status and Goals
controls and env help paragraphs, move Created to the bottom, and
redirect Overview to Configuration.
- Reuse GitHub setup in dialogs, preserve project drafts, and verify
popup completion through the API.
- Replace the configuration story's DOM adapter with explicit production
composition. Keep the reviewed mobile and short-viewport stories.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build-storybook`, and
`pnpm check:token-gates`.
- Passed: focused repository access, database persistence,
configuration, and connection setup tests.
- Passed: `pnpm exec playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/project-repositories.spec.ts`.
- The browser tests use a real temporary server/database. They cover
create, forty persisted repos, mobile scrolling, save/reload, legacy URL
editing, and rejection without a partial project.
- GitHub responses and popup completion use deterministic fixtures. No
real GitHub account was authorized by the test suite.
- All CI general, serialized server, and browser test shards pass on the
final commit.
- The local full-suite run overlapped review edits and was stopped;
fresh repository, OpenAPI, UI/CLI, and connection tests pass. Unrelated
local worker, built-in-agent, and routine timing/socket failures passed
isolated reruns.
- Final commit `1b3308dca`: all CI gates pass, including build, runner
verification, typecheck, canary dry run, and security checks. Greptile
is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads.
- Storybook visual regression is opt-in and was skipped by CI; the
Storybook build passed locally.
## Risks
- Repository discovery depends on provider availability. Failed
connections are reported while successful results stay usable.
- Selections identify source workspaces; they do not grant agents new
credentials. The existing primary-workspace and responsible-user
identity rules still apply.
- No database migration is needed. Existing API status, goals, dates,
and manual workspace URLs remain supported.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code
execution, and browser tools. The runtime does not expose a more
specific model deployment ID or context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server controls secrets, host files, outbound requests, and
workspace commands
> - A red-team review found cases where restricted callers could cross
these trust boundaries
> - These cases could expose credentials or let untrusted input reach
privileged resources
> - This pull request applies least-privilege checks at each affected
server boundary
> - The benefit is safer agent execution without changing the
private-instance bootstrap contract
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Several server paths used authorization, redaction, or content-delivery
rules that were too broad. Restricted agent keys could obtain
company-level operational data. Some adapter and instruction paths could
reach server-owned network or file resources without the required owner
approval.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must redact credential values, enforce restricted-key scopes,
guard outbound network access, prevent same-origin script execution, and
reserve host-level file and command controls for authorized operators.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Configure an authenticated development instance at the parent commit.
2. Exercise the affected APIs with a restricted agent key or a
non-instance-admin company user.
3. Observe that the parent commit returns privileged data or accepts a
privileged operation.
4. Repeat on this branch and observe a redacted response, a safe
download, or an HTTP 403 response.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The findings reproduce from commit `39898ab22` and are fixed by this
pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Authenticated self-hosted server and local development modes.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
## What Changed
- Redact generic secret `value` and `token` fields recursively in
structured logs.
- Classify exact and separator-suffixed `KEY` environment names as
secrets in company exports.
- Limit restricted self-identity responses and protect company run, log,
and secret catalog APIs.
- Route HTTP adapter requests through DNS-pinned SSRF protection with
exact private-origin allowlisting.
- Download HTML, SVG, and other script-capable assets with `nosniff` and
a sandbox CSP.
- Require instance-admin access for external instruction roots and
exports that read them.
- Block agent-authenticated host command persistence across supported
workspace runtime shapes.
- Apply the central runtime-management decision before workspace command
controls.
- Keep the documented first-user instance-admin claim contract
unchanged.
- Add regression tests and server-owner configuration documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- The Node 24 remediation suite passes with 365 tests. It skips 25
environment-gated tests.
- `pnpm build` passes under Node 24.
- `git diff --check` passes.
- The full local runner reaches known macOS-only general-server harness
failures before the serialized route lane. The Linux PR matrix is the
authoritative full-suite gate.
## Risks
- Restricted agent keys now receive HTTP 403 responses from company-wide
run, log, and secret catalog endpoints.
- Script-capable assets now download instead of rendering inline.
- External instruction roots now require instance-admin access.
- Private HTTP adapter endpoints now require an exact origin in
`PAPERCLIP_HTTP_ADAPTER_PRIVATE_ENDPOINT_ALLOWLIST`.
- Public HTTP adapter endpoints remain enabled. Redirects and metadata
or link-local targets remain blocked.
- No database migration is required.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used tool-enabled reasoning, repository
access, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- This pull request uses ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue thread controls plan review and agent work modes.
> - A user can accept a full plan or confirm a smaller checkbox action.
> - Only full plan acceptance must start automatic agent work.
> - The current transition did not check the interaction kind.
> - This pull request limits the transition to an accepted plan
confirmation.
> - The benefit is a safe and clear start of agent work after plan
approval.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An accepted confirmation that targeted a plan could change an issue from
planning mode to standard mode. This included a checkbox confirmation. A
checkbox action is not approval of the full plan.
**Expected behavior**
Only acceptance of a current full-plan confirmation starts automatic
agent work. Other interaction kinds and rejected confirmations keep the
current work mode.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Put an issue in planning mode.
2. Create a checkbox confirmation that targets the current plan
revision.
3. Accept the checkbox confirmation.
4. Observe that the issue enters standard mode before this fix.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem was present on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
The problem is in the core server logic and is not deployment-specific.
## What Changed
- Require a full `request_confirmation` interaction before plan
acceptance starts automatic work.
- Add service tests for acceptance, rejection, stale interaction kinds,
and unchanged standard-mode behavior.
- Check the route activity log for the planning-to-standard mode change.
- Document the plan acceptance transition in the V1 contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` passes 140
tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- `pnpm test:run` was also started. Unrelated workspace-runtime tests
failed because fixed local runtime ports were occupied or offset on the
shared host. The same failures reproduce alone. The changed test files
pass alone.
## Risks
- Risk is low. The change adds one interaction-kind guard to the
existing transition.
- A full accepted plan confirmation still changes planning mode to
standard mode and an eligible review issue to todo in one transaction.
- Checkbox confirmations, questions, rejection, and standard-mode issues
keep their previous 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 with GPT-5, reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The
runtime does not expose the exact model suffix or context window.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agents that use different model providers and
adapters.
> - Paperclip must keep agent execution rules clear and predictable.
> - The cheap-model profile added a second execution mode across
adapters, task recovery, APIs, and the UI.
> - That mode increased configuration and recovery complexity.
> - This pull request removes the cheap-model profile as a product
feature.
> - The benefit is one model-selection path for normal work and recovery
work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This change simplifies model selection across agent configuration, task
execution, recovery, and adapter capabilities.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip exposes cheap-model profiles in adapter metadata, agent
runtime configuration, task overrides, recovery rules, APIs, and the
board UI. Recovery work can select a different model profile from the
agent's configured model.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip uses the agent's configured model for normal work and recovery
work. Status-only recovery stays limited to coordination work. The API
rejects legacy model-profile configuration. A migration removes stored
model-profile values from existing agent, issue, and historical revision
records.
**Reason and benefit**
One model path reduces configuration, API, UI, and recovery complexity.
It also prevents status recovery from becoming a separate product-level
model-routing feature.
**Breaking changes**
This change removes model-profile fields and adapter capability
metadata. Existing stored model-profile values are removed by an
idempotent migration. The validators reject new legacy profile values
with clear errors.
## What Changed
- Removed model-profile types, adapter capabilities, API fields, and
model selection logic.
- Removed cheap-model controls from agent and task UI surfaces.
- Kept status-only recovery limited to coordination context while normal
continuations use the configured agent model.
- Added an idempotent migration that removes stored model-profile values
from agents, issues, and configuration revisions without changing issue
update timestamps.
- Updated tests and product documentation for the single-model behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,607 passing tests and 8
environment-sensitive failures in unrelated fixed-port and
database-deadlock suites. The same failures repeated in an isolated
rerun. CI is the final clean-room result.
## Risks
- This is an intentional breaking change for clients that send
model-profile fields.
- The migration changes legacy agent, issue, and configuration-revision
JSON. It is idempotent and preserves unrelated fields and issue update
timestamps.
- The change is cross-cutting because the removed feature existed in
adapters, shared contracts, the server, plugins, and the UI.
> 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`. Reasoning and tool use were enabled. 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] 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.
> - External tools need explicit identity and access boundaries.
> - Shared connection credentials cannot represent every user-scoped use
case.
> - Grants must stay company-scoped and support safe delegation.
> - This pull request adds connection grants, identity rules, and their
database contract.
> - The benefit is durable control over which identity an agent may use.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 3 of 11. It depends on stack 2 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add company and user connection grants.
- Add delegated identity and membership rules.
- Synchronize database, shared, server, and UI contracts.
- Register the grant-member replacement route in the OpenAPI surface in
the same layer that mounts it.
- Add migration 0231 with replay-safe guards and coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (5 passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Incorrect grant selection could expose the wrong credential scope.
- The service enforces company and subject boundaries before credential
use.
- Migration 0231 is generated, ordered after 0230, and safe to replay.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked a public issue or pull request with `Refs #`
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A company is the top-level container, and the company General page
holds its settings
> - Two of those settings did almost nothing: the brand color only
tinted the generated company icon, and the attachment size limit sat
under the deployment-level `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` cap that
already bounded every upload
> - A setting that changes one icon hue, and a setting that can only
lower a limit the operator already set, are not worth the page space or
the code that carries them
> - This pull request deletes both settings from the UI, the validators,
the API contract, the server, and the database
> - With the deployment cap as the only limit left, the message a person
sees when an upload is rejected has to name that limit in terms they can
act on, so the raw byte count becomes a human-readable size
> - The benefit is a shorter company General page for every deployment,
one attachment limit instead of two, and less code between an upload and
its ceiling
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue. The description below follows
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The company General page (`/company/settings`), the `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}` and `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}/branding` request contracts, and the
attachment upload limit on task, case, and company-import uploads.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, `packages/shared`, `packages/db`.
**Current behavior**
The company General page shows an "Appearance" section with three
controls: Logo, Brand color, and Attachment size limit. The brand color
is a hex value that feeds one thing — the hue of the generated company
pattern icon. Companies that never set one already get a hue derived
from the company name. The attachment size limit is a per-company byte
count stored on `companies.attachment_max_bytes`. Every upload path
clamps it against the deployment-level `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES`
cap, so the per-company value can only lower a limit the operator
already chose.
**Proposed behavior**
The Appearance section keeps the Logo control only. The company pattern
icon always derives its hue from the company name. Every attachment path
reads the deployment cap directly, so `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES`
is the single limit. An upload rejected by that limit says so in human
units — "File is larger than the 10 MB limit" rather than a raw byte
count. The `companies.brand_color` and `companies.attachment_max_bytes`
columns are dropped, and both fields leave the company API contract.
**Reason and benefit**
Both settings ask an operator to make a decision that changes almost
nothing. The brand color moves one icon hue on a page that also lets you
upload a real logo, which overrides the icon entirely. The attachment
limit reads as a real control but cannot raise anything, so it is a
second place to look when an upload is rejected. Removing both shortens
the page every deployment sees, removes a company-scoped read from the
task attachment upload path, and leaves one attachment limit to reason
about instead of two.
**Breaking changes**
The company API responses no longer include `brandColor` or
`attachmentMaxBytes`, and `GET /api/invites/{token}` no longer includes
`companyBrandColor`. `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}/branding` is
strict, so a request that sends `brandColor` now returns 400; the
non-strict `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}` schema strips it. Company
packages exported by older versions still import: the portability
company manifest schema is non-strict, so the retired keys are stripped
and ignored rather than rejected. Companies that stored a brand color
lose it — their icon reverts to the name-derived hue that every company
without a color already used.
## What Changed
- Removed the "Brand color" and "Attachment size limit" fields from the
company General page, along with their state, dirty checks, save
payload, and Save-button gating.
- Removed `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes` from
`createCompanySchema`, `updateCompanySchema`, and
`updateCompanyBrandingSchema`, and deleted the now-orphaned
`DEFAULT_COMPANY_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` and
`MAX_COMPANY_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` constants.
- Removed both fields from the `Company` type, the portability manifest
type and schema, and the `companiesApi.update` payload allowlist.
- Dropped `brandColor` from `CompanyPatternIcon` and its callers, so the
icon hue always comes from the company name. Deleted the now-unused
`hexToHue` helper and the now-unused `pickTextColorForSolidBg` export.
- Stopped emitting `brandColor` from the company service selection and
from the invite-summary and invite-branding payloads in
`server/src/routes/access.ts`.
- Replaced `normalizeIssueAttachmentMaxBytes` with the deployment cap:
task attachments, case attachments, and company import now use
`MAX_ATTACHMENT_BYTES` directly. The helper is deleted.
- Added `formatAttachmentSize()` next to `MAX_ATTACHMENT_BYTES` and
routed every over-limit message through it, so a rejected upload names
the limit in human units instead of raw bytes: `Image exceeds 10485760
bytes` becomes `Image is larger than the 10 MB limit`. Enforcement is
unchanged — the same single cap, the same multer limits, the same status
codes and response shapes.
- Added migration
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes.sql` and removed
both columns from the Drizzle `companies` schema.
- Kept legacy imports working: the portability company manifest schema
is non-strict, so older packages carrying the retired keys still import
with the keys ignored.
- Updated the skill API reference and the implementation spec, and
pruned the token-extraction allowlist entries that the removed code made
stale.
## Verification
Commands run from the repository root:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — pass
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — pass (includes
`check:migrations`, which validates the new migration number and journal
entry)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — pass
- server typecheck via `node_modules/.bin/tsc --noEmit` in `server/` —
pass. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` could not run
locally because it builds the Rust runner first and `cargo` is not
installed on this machine; the TypeScript step it wraps is the command
above.
- `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/company.test.ts` — 6
passed
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — 90
passed
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/assets.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — 165 passed (the
human-readable limit messages)
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-branding-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-summary-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openclaw-invite-prompt-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/companies-route-cross-company-authz.test.ts` — all
passed
- `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts` — 27 passed
- `npx vitest run` in `ui/` — 4425 passed, 1 pre-existing failure
unrelated to this change (`OnboardingWizard.test.tsx` "renders instead
of throwing when the browser denies storage access", which also fails on
`master`)
- `npx vitest run` in `server/` — see the note below
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` — no new violations; the only
reported violations are the pre-existing `PillGuy.tsx` ones present on
`master`
New tests added:
- `packages/shared/src/validators/company.test.ts` — the create and
update schemas strip the retired keys, the strict branding schema
rejects `brandColor`, and the portability manifest schema accepts a
legacy entry carrying both keys and drops them.
- `server/src/__tests__/company-branding-route.test.ts` — `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}/branding` returns 400 for `brandColor` and
does not call the company service.
- `server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — a legacy package
that declares `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes` imports
successfully, and neither key reaches `companies.create`.
- `server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` — the effective
task attachment limit is the deployment cap, and the route no longer
loads the company to size an upload.
- `server/src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts` —
`formatAttachmentSize()` renders the default cap as `10 MB`, keeps one
decimal place for fractional sizes and drops a trailing `.0`, falls back
to KB and bytes for small caps, steps up to GB, and never emits `NaN`
for a degenerate input.
- `server/src/__tests__/assets.test.ts` — the asset-image and
company-logo routes both return the human-readable limit message on an
over-cap upload.
## Merge with master
`master` moved while this was open, and the merge needed two
resolutions:
- **`ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.tsx`.** #12243 reworded the
user-facing
copy from "company" to "organization", and that rewording landed inside
the "Brand color" and "Attachment size limit" hints — the two fields
this change deletes. Both fields are removed, so the conflicted block is
dropped whole. The Logo field and every other copy change from #12243
are
kept.
- **Migration renumbered 0228 -> 0229.** #12307 landed
`0228_nasty_grim_reaper`, so this migration is now
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes`. Its snapshot
is
rebuilt from master's `0228_snapshot.json` with only the two `companies`
columns removed, and `meta/_journal.json` is master's journal plus a
single `idx: 229` entry. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db
check:migrations`
passes.
The snapshot was rebuilt by hand rather than taken from `drizzle-kit
generate`, because master's `0228_snapshot.json` has drifted from
master's
own schema: `issue_question_response_deliveries.error_count` is created
by
master's 0228 SQL but missing from its snapshot, and the snapshot still
carries `decision_archive_notification_outbox.error_count`. Regenerating
folds both into this migration, and the resulting `ADD COLUMN
error_count`
would fail on a fresh database where master's 0228 already created that
column. Rebuilding from master's snapshot leaves that drift exactly
where
it is and keeps this migration to the two column drops. The drift is
pre-existing on master and is not addressed here.
## Risks
- **The migration is a destructive column drop.**
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes.sql` removes
`companies.brand_color` and `companies.attachment_max_bytes`. It is safe
because both features are removed in the same change and nothing reads
either column after it. The statements use `DROP COLUMN IF EXISTS`,
matching the convention of the recent drop migrations in this
repository. The drop is not reversible: a downgrade after this migration
loses any stored values.
- **Stored brand colors are lost.** A company that had set a color now
renders the name-derived icon hue that every company without a color
already used. No other surface changes, and an uploaded logo still
overrides the icon.
- **API response shape narrows.** `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes`
leave the company payloads, and `companyBrandColor` leaves the invite
summary payload. A client reading those fields now sees `undefined`. The
bundled UI and CLI are updated in this change.
- **Legacy imports are covered.** Packages exported by older versions
still carry both keys. The manifest schema is non-strict, so the keys
are stripped rather than rejected, and a test locks that in.
- **The over-limit message strings changed.** Anything matching on the
old `... exceeds N bytes` text — a test, a script, or a client that
string-matches `body.error` — needs updating. The status codes (422) and
response shapes are unchanged, so structured clients are unaffected.
- **Attachment limits can only widen.** A deployment that had lowered a
company below the deployment cap now allows uploads up to the cap for
that company. Lower `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` if a smaller
ceiling is needed.
- **Storybook visual baselines shift** for the `CompanyPatternIcon`
matrix story, because those fixtures had brand colors. That workflow
runs only on a PR labeled `storybook-visual`, so it does not gate this
PR; regenerate the baselines if the label is added.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), Claude Opus, agentic tool use via Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The recovery service detects active runs that stop producing output.
> - The dashboard already shows suspicious and critical silence to the
board.
> - The recovery scan also creates delegated evaluation work for the
same signal.
> - Output silence alone does not prove that the run or source task
needs recovery.
> - This pull request keeps the signal and removes automatic recovery
artifacts.
> - The benefit is a visible watchdog signal without assignment changes,
wake requests, or issue noise.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #6596
- Refs #7036
- Refs #9475
- Refs #11544
- Refs #11839
- Refs #11961
## What Changed
- Keep the one-hour suspicious level and four-hour critical level in
active-run API summaries.
- Stop output silence from creating or changing issues, recovery
actions, comments, relations, assignments, and wake requests.
- Store snooze, continue, and false-positive decisions against the run
without an evaluation issue.
- Preserve terminal-source folding, orphan cleanup, and open legacy
evaluation links.
- Show informational watchdog copy and board controls without requiring
an evaluation-task link.
- Document the UI-only watchdog contract.
- Add focused server and UI coverage for artifact-free scans and board
decisions.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` (32 tests passed)
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `git diff --check`
- `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,772 passing tests. It found
30 unrelated macOS test-harness failures in eight workspace, skill,
listener, and runtime exposure files. The failures use `/tmp` and
`/private/tmp` as different paths, require Linux `/proc` listener data,
or derive invalid HMR ports from the macOS ephemeral range.
- The full Linux CI matrix passed on the latest commit. It includes
build, typecheck, server tests, worker tests, serialization tests,
canary, and e2e tests.
- Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with no actionable
findings.
## Risks
- The recovery scan keeps its existing result shape, but its created and
escalated counts remain zero for output silence.
- A false-positive decision now suppresses the signal for the full life
of that run.
- Open legacy evaluation issues remain visible and manually resolvable.
The scan does not refresh or reprioritize them.
- There is no database migration and no API schema change.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change corrects existing watchdog
behavior and does not duplicate planned core work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with extended 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)
- [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 the focused tests and non-platform
gates 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 keeps agent lifecycle changes behind control-plane
authorization
> - Plugins can create agents in a paused state until an operator
activates them
> - An agent with a direct configuration grant could not resume these
agents
> - A paused plugin-managed agent also had no stable provenance in its
pause reason
> - This pull request adds one protected resume path and preserves every
other lifecycle gate
> - The benefit is safe recovery from plugin provisioning without a
broad permission change
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8168. That pull request uses a role capability and also opens
clear-error. This change uses the current grant system and keeps
clear-error closed.
**What happened?**
A plugin can create a paused managed agent. An agent actor cannot resume
that agent, even when the actor has a direct `agents:configure` grant.
The paused agent can also have a null pause reason.
**Expected behavior**
An agent with a direct `agents:configure` grant can resume an accessible
paused agent. An agent without that grant cannot resume it.
Plugin-managed paused agents show stable plugin provenance. A completed
resume stays in effect after reconcile.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Install a plugin that declares a managed agent with `status: paused`.
2. Give a same-company agent a direct `agents:configure` grant.
3. Call `POST /api/agents/{id}/resume` with the granted agent key.
4. On the base revision, observe a board-only authorization error.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `63df7ad2b3`.
**Deployment mode**
All deployment modes. This is a server authorization and reconcile
behavior.
## What Changed
- The resume route now uses the protected `agent_config:update` decision
with `requiresChangeGrant: true` for agent actors.
- The route keeps board access, tenant non-disclosure, and invalid
organization-chain protection.
- Resume activity now records the real user or agent actor, run, and API
key.
- Plugin-managed paused agents now receive a stable provenance reason
and pause time at creation.
- Reconcile backfills only a null reason on an agent that is still
declared and stored as paused.
- Reconcile preserves manual, budget, system, and other pause reasons.
It does not pause a resumed agent again.
- The implementation specification now records the narrow resume
exception.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts` passed: 2 files and
26 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- GitHub CI passed all policy, typecheck, build, test, e2e, canary, and
security gates on commit `306edf469c`.
- Greptile reviewed all 5 changed files. Its check passed with 0
comments and 0 unresolved threads.
- The host uses Node 22.22.2. The repository requests Node 24.11 or
newer, so pnpm printed engine warnings.
- A broad `pnpm test:run` attempt did not complete its general-server
group. Runtime port fixtures failed because host port `52000` was
already bound. The isolated failing fixture reproduced the same port
conflict. The focused feature tests passed before and after the final
commit.
## Risks
The main risk is an unintended lifecycle permission increase. The change
limits agent access to resume only. It requires a protected
direct-change decision. It does not open pause, clear-error, terminate,
approval, or key-management routes. Tests cover denial, self-denial,
tenant isolation, organization-chain checks, and activity attribution.
There is no database migration.
> This change fixes a narrow gap in the completed plugin, approval, and
activity-log roadmap areas. It does not add a new roadmap feature.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol`, with xhigh reasoning, tool use, and code
execution. The runtime did not expose its 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 recovery service restores execution when a task loses its live
path.
> - The service retries the original agent for a limited number of
attempts.
> - The old fallback could select a manager or an executive and wake
that agent.
> - That fallback changed the effective recovery owner without a board
decision.
> - This pull request keeps the source owner and gives the exhausted
recovery decision to the board.
> - The benefit is a clear ownership rule with no automatic task
takeover.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #11807
Refs: #11817
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves stranded-task recovery in the server and the recovery
action card in the board UI.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server recovery orchestration, recovery observability,
board UI, and execution documentation.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip retries the original agent for a limited number of attempts.
After the retry limit, it can select a manager, task creator, CTO, or
CEO as a recovery owner. It can then wake that substitute agent. The
source task keeps its assignee, but the automatic substitute wake
creates an implicit takeover path.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip keeps the limited retry path for the original agent. If
recovery is exhausted or unsafe, Paperclip creates one board-owned
source recovery action. It keeps both source assignee fields. It does
not wake a substitute agent. The board can repair, retry the original
owner, explicitly reassign, or resolve the task.
**Reason and benefit**
Source task ownership must remain stable until a person or an approved
policy changes it. The new rule removes implicit manager and executive
takeover. It also gives operators clear evidence through the
`board_escalation_no_takeover_v1` routing marker.
**Breaking changes**
Automatic recovery no longer wakes a manager or executive after the
original-agent retry limit. Existing active agent-owned recovery actions
remain visible and can resolve. Paperclip does not schedule a new
takeover wake for those legacy actions.
## What Changed
- Route exhausted and unsafe stranded recovery to a board-owned source
action.
- Preserve agent and user assignee fields during automatic escalation.
- Keep limited same-agent continuity repair and provider quota
monitoring.
- Stop new manager, creator, CTO, and CEO recovery wakes.
- Keep legacy agent-owned recovery actions readable and resolvable.
- Add the routing marker to new board escalation evidence and
observability.
- Update recovery notices, the board UI card, tests, and execution
documentation.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Run `pnpm build`.
- Run `pnpm check:token-gates`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`.
- Run the focused recovery and UI Vitest files changed by this pull
request.
- Confirm that a paused or over-budget source owner creates one board
action, keeps the source assignee, and creates no substitute wake.
## Risks
- Operators must now make the final recovery decision after the
original-agent limit.
- Legacy agent-owned actions use their stored contract. This avoids a
rollout-time ownership rewrite.
- No database migration or API response shape changes are included.
- The tests cover concurrent escalation, paused and over-budget owners,
legacy actions, provider quota monitoring, and UI presentation.
> 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 hosted exact model revision and context
window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were
enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip runs across the CLI, server, adapters, plugins, CI, and
container images.
> - These surfaces declared different Node.js versions from 20 through
24.
> - A newer `@types/node` major can expose APIs that the supported
runtime does not provide.
> - Node.js 20 is no longer a suitable project baseline, and Node.js 24
is the current LTS line.
> - This pull request sets Node.js 24.11.0 as one repository-wide
baseline, adds a drift check, and gives users actionable startup
guidance when their runtime is too old.
> - The benefit is one clear runtime contract for development, release,
installation, and published packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #2734
Refs #11727
Refs #739
## What Changed
- Require Node.js 24.11.0 or newer in all 42 package manifests and
runtime checks.
- Use Node.js 24 in GitHub Actions, Docker images, smoke images, sandbox
setup, portable installs, and esbuild targets.
- Align every direct `@types/node` declaration on `^24.0.0`.
- Prevent Dependabot from opening major `@types/node` upgrades without a
matching runtime decision.
- Add `.nvmrc` and a CI policy check for Node version drift.
- Update ACP version gates, tests, and user documentation for the new
minimum.
- Print a non-blocking warning on CLI and server startup when Node is
unsupported, with remediation through a version manager or the
documented downloaded `install.sh` workflow.
- Deduplicate that warning when `paperclipai run` boots the CLI and
server in the same process.
## Verification
- `node scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs`
- `node --check scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs`
- `node --check cli/esbuild.config.mjs`
- `node --check scripts/generate-npm-package-json.mjs`
- `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh
scripts/e2e-install-lifecycle.sh`
- Parsed all 42 package manifests and confirmed `engines.node` is
`>=24.11.0`.
- `git diff --check`
- `vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-install-command.test.ts` passed with
3 tests.
- `vitest run cli/src/node-version.test.ts` passed with 4 tests.
- Directly exercised the shared warning helper for unsupported-version
messaging and same-process deduplication.
- The focused exe.dev suite could not resolve the locally unbuilt plugin
SDK from this isolated worktree. A full offline workspace install was
also blocked because the package-manager signature verifier requires
registry access. The full suite was not run locally; draft CI performs a
clean install and evaluates the wider impact.
## Risks
- This is a breaking runtime change for users, plugins, and deployments
that still use Node.js 20 or 22.
- Published workspace packages will now produce an engine warning or
failure in strict package managers on older Node.js releases.
- Node.js 24 can reveal dependency, native module, Playwright, or agent
CLI compatibility issues in CI.
- The bootstrap installer now installs Node.js 24 when the current
runtime is older than 24.11.0.
- The portable sandbox fallback is pinned to Node.js 24.11.0 and depends
on that upstream tarball remaining available.
- Unsupported runtimes continue booting after a warning, so a later
incompatibility can still fail at its point of use.
- The CLI and server share the warning policy through the published
`@paperclipai/shared` package; packaging checks must keep that subpath
export available.
- This PR does not commit `pnpm-lock.yaml` because repository policy
assigns lockfile generation to CI.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context
window are not exposed in this session. Reasoning, repository tools,
shell execution, and GitHub tools were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The control plane must keep each active issue on a clear execution
or recovery path.
> - A missing issue disposition can require more than one bounded repair
attempt.
> - A server restart could lose that repair path or move source
ownership to the recovery owner.
> - A parked or expired retry could also make the user interface show a
false healthy state.
> - Concurrent recovery loops must not schedule the same repair attempt
twice.
> - This pull request keeps retry state durable, makes scheduling
atomic, and keeps source ownership stable.
> - The benefit is that recovery continues after a restart and operators
see the correct state.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A run that ended without a valid issue disposition could lose its repair
path after a server restart. Manager recovery could also change the
source owner. In addition, a parked or expired retry could make the
issue look healthy when no active work existed. Concurrent
reconciliation could also schedule the same repair attempt twice.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must keep bounded source and manager repair attempts across
restarts. Recovery ownership must stay separate from source issue
ownership. The server and user interface must report only a live retry
as active work. Each repair attempt must be scheduled at most once per
company.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start an agent run on an issue.
2. End the run without a valid issue disposition.
3. Let the first repair attempt schedule a retry.
4. Restart the server, let the retry time pass without a live run, or
start two reconciliation loops together.
5. Observe that the repair path can stop, the issue can show a false
healthy state, or duplicate retries can be created.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem existed on `master` before candidate head
`d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`.
**Deployment mode**
The problem affects self-hosted servers and local builds that use
automatic recovery.
## What Changed
- Persist bounded source-owner and manager repair lineages with stable
fingerprints and retry limits.
- Resume incomplete disposition repairs after a server restart.
- Keep recovery ownership separate from source issue ownership and
enforce source mutation authority.
- Project live retry evidence into issue and blocker summaries.
- Show recovery owner, return owner, attempt count, and retry state in
the board user interface.
- Treat expired or parked retries as attention states unless a queued or
running attempt exists.
- Atomically deduplicate disposition-repair wake requests with a
company-scoped partial unique index.
- Reuse the winning run when concurrent reconciliation loses the
uniqueness race, without duplicate scheduling activity.
- Honor disabled on-demand wake policy before recovery scheduling and
again before delayed retry promotion.
- Keep the new index migration safe for lagging seeded databases that
already contain the index.
- Add server and user interface tests for recovery, restart, ownership,
retry, concurrency, and blocker states.
- Update the implementation and execution semantics documents.
## Verification
- Focused server recovery and ownership suites: 282 tests passed on the
repaired base candidate.
- Focused user interface recovery suites: 128 tests passed on the
repaired base candidate.
- Atomic-deduplication schema and recovery suites: 111 tests passed on
the first Greptile repair.
- Recovery and scheduled-retry wake-policy suites: 126 tests passed at
`d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`.
- The exact lagging-source migration-order test passed after the index
migration became idempotent: 1 test passed and 62 unrelated tests were
skipped.
- `@paperclipai/db` and `@paperclipai/server` typechecks passed at the
current head.
- Migration generation and migration safety checks passed for migration
`0226_tan_colossus.sql`.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed on the repaired base candidate.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the repaired base candidate.
- `pnpm build` passed on the repaired base candidate.
- `pnpm test:run` passed 4,540 tests on the repaired base candidate.
Four fixed-port cases met listeners that already existed on the host.
- The two unchanged fixed-port files passed in an isolated network
namespace: 129 tests passed and 27 tests were skipped.
- Independent Security and QA reviews approved
`63c0423aab54c66f2293a20b0fb3f3b013ee3ba8`; exact-head re-review is
required after automated checks settle on
`d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`.
## Risks
- Recovery orchestration affects issue liveness and ownership. The new
paths use bounded attempts, stable fingerprints, row locks, authority
checks, and database uniqueness.
- A conservative attention state can show more warnings when a scheduled
retry has no queued or running attempt. It does not hide stopped work.
- Migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql` creates a partial unique index on a
known-large table. Migrations run transactionally, so `CONCURRENTLY` is
unavailable. The matching disposition-repair key namespace is introduced
by this release, so deployed databases have no matching rows before the
index is 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 from the GPT-5 model family used agentic reasoning, tool
use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model ID
or context window.
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5 used a 1M context window, tool use, and code
execution for part of the user interface repair, as recorded in the
commit history.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I 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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision
record.
> - Resolver routes used different authorization rules.
> - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with
normal issue access.
> - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction.
> - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy
evaluator.
> - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and
company isolation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes: #8087
Refs: #7403
Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change
keeps human-only review as an explicit policy.
**What happened?**
Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still
required board access.
This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see
the same problem without board identity.
**Expected behavior**
Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract.
The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It
must also apply all normal governance controls.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent.
2. Resolve it with another authorized agent.
3. Observe the board-only denial.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem exists on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with `pnpm dev`.
## What Changed
- Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind.
- Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task
watchdog scope.
- Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit.
- Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction
data.
- Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board
UI.
- Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression
fixtures.
- Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior.
- Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior
runs.
## Product Rules
- An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the
next action.
- `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond.
- `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator.
- `human_only` requires an authorized person.
- A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the
audience.
- These controls cannot widen the audience.
- A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent.
- A task watchdog does not receive board authority.
- An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue
action limit.
- Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions.
- The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts`
- The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice.
- The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing
provenance.
- The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks.
- The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments.
## Risks
- New interaction writes use `anyone` by default.
- Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need
stricter review.
- Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human
restrictions.
- Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery.
- Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit.
- The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind.
- Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these
rules.
> This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in
`ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID
or context window.
The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the
required labels
- [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented the risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Lock the issue before accepting or rejecting review confirmations, reauthorize against the current policy, and cover concurrent policy tightening.
Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
Recheck terminal verdict and policy mutations under a row lock, and scope interaction verdict enforcement to the review confirmation itself.
Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
Authorize verdicts and policy changes against the stored restrictive review policy, remove downgrade guidance, and cover both restrictive policies with route regressions.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - Each user can let agents tidy that user's Mine inbox
> - The profile control saves either an open policy or an agent
allowlist
> - Explicit inbox archive requests checked only the separate
`inbox:manage` grant
> - This made the saved profile control ineffective for explicit user
targets
> - This pull request makes authorization honor the target user's saved
policy
> - The benefit is that the UI control and the API now enforce the same
user choice
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An agent received `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` when it archived
an issue with an explicit `userId`. The denial occurred even when that
user had enabled inbox management for the agent in Profile Settings. The
authorization service checked only `principal_permission_grants` for
explicit targets and ignored the saved user inbox policy.
**Expected behavior**
An explicit target is allowed when the target user saved an `open`
policy or an allowlist that contains the agent. An unsaved default-open
policy must remain limited to the responsible-user path. A scoped
`inbox:manage` grant must remain an administrative override.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Save an inbox-agent allowlist for a user.
2. Include the acting agent in that allowlist.
3. Call `POST /api/issues/{issueId}/inbox-archive` with that user's
explicit `userId`.
4. Observe the incorrect `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` response
on the previous implementation.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `7ea2068ef8`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core authorization bug.
**Database mode**
External Postgres in production. The regression tests use embedded
PostgreSQL.
**Access context**
Agent bearer authentication.
Related foundations: #9658 and #9724.
## What Changed
- Read the target user's saved inbox-agent policy before the
explicit-target decision.
- Allow saved `open` policies and matching allowlists for explicit
targets.
- Keep unsaved implicit-open policies responsible-user-only.
- Keep scoped `inbox:manage` grants as administrative overrides.
- Add service and route regressions for allow, deny, archive, unarchive,
and audit metadata.
- Update the implementation contract and agent-facing inbox API
guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts` — 66 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is limited to explicit inbox targets with a saved
policy.
- A missing policy row still denies explicit cross-user access.
- A non-matching allowlist and a disabled policy still deny access
unless a scoped administrative grant applies.
> 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 the exact
model build or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository
tools, code execution, and focused test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip gives operators a summary for each workspace.
> - An execution workspace detail page used the parent project-workspace
summary slot.
> - Two execution workspaces under one project workspace could therefore
show the same summary.
> - This pull request gives each execution workspace its own summary
scope.
> - It also limits the summary snapshot and generated issue to that
execution workspace.
> - The benefit is that a new or parallel execution workspace cannot
inherit unrelated status.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An execution workspace detail page read and refreshed the summary slot
for its parent project workspace. Parallel execution workspaces could
show the same status and include issues from each other.
**Expected behavior**
Each execution workspace must have one isolated summary slot. Its
generated snapshot must include only issues assigned to that execution
workspace.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create two execution workspaces under one project workspace.
2. Add different issues to each execution workspace.
3. Generate the summary in the first execution workspace.
4. Open the second execution workspace.
5. Observe that the old implementation could reuse the first summary.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem exists on `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
The issue affects both local trusted and authenticated deployments.
## What Changed
- Added `execution_workspace` to the shared summary-slot scope contract.
- Validated execution-workspace ownership and stored generated summary
issues on the correct execution workspace.
- Limited execution-workspace snapshots to issues with the matching
execution workspace ID.
- Updated the execution workspace page to use its own summary slot.
- Updated Summarizer instructions, routine options, catalog metadata,
documentation, and regression tests.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts
ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 30 focused tests
passed; the embedded-Postgres server tests were run outside the
process-restricted sandbox.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate` — passed with 17
catalog skills.
- [Latest-head GitHub
Actions](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/31491475405)
— all 22 jobs passed on `beea14cbaf`, including typecheck, build,
server/workspace tests, serialized suites, e2e, canary, and aggregate
verification. One unrelated adapter cleanup test initially hit an
`ENOTEMPTY` temp-directory race; its single permitted rerun passed.
- Greptile — 5/5 confidence on `beea14cbaf`, 12 files reviewed, zero
comments added, and zero unresolved threads.
## Risks
- Low risk. The new scope is additive.
- Existing project and project-workspace summary slots keep their
current keys and behavior.
- A summary generated for an execution workspace now excludes sibling
workspace issues by design.
> 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 deployment does not expose a more
specific model ID or context-window value. It used agentic reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and GitHub 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 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
> - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an
authorized writer
> - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own
review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule
> - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not
represent the configured execution-stage rules
> - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints
for teams that require an independent or human verdict
> - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds
`anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies
> - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated
verdict controls
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671.
The related public work covers execution-stage independence,
self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change
is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It
keeps configured execution stages active.
## What Changed
- Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same
meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues.
- Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for
`anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for
`in_review` issues.
- Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and
pending interaction accept or reject actions.
- Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and
run tokens remain agent principals.
- Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester
for `not_creator`.
- Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed
actor, and the next step.
- Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior.
- Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and
execution-stage regression tests.
- Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts
--reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin
SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed.
- SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks
and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes.
- Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or
follow-ups.
- The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck,
server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external
security checks.
## Risks
- The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no
backfill.
- `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`.
It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester.
- Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write
access. This is intentional for this issue-level control.
- Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path.
- Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level
policy check.
> This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and
"Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap
capability.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and GitHub CLI access.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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 separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether
the work was actually delivered.
> - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into
a branch other than the workspace base.
> - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger
delivery evidence for those cases.
> - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing
persisted workspace schema.
> - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered
work, and no active run checkout are all required.
> - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown,
lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent.
> - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and
the fail-closed reaper guards.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace
cleanup.
**Current behavior**
Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active`
and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does
not contain their original commits.
**Proposed behavior**
Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery,
unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace
trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while
shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged
work retains its warning.
**Breaking changes**
The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and
persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required.
**What happened?**
A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged
forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull
request.
**Expected behavior**
Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully
terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run
holds its checkout.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base.
2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target
branch.
3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close
readiness.
Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged”
warning indefinitely.
## What Changed
- Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`,
`merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`.
- Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it
for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks.
- Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has
ground-truth merged-PR evidence.
- Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal,
active-run, and delivered-work guards.
- Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required
live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and
current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions,
inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup.
- Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their
committed HEAD was delivered.
- Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries
with oldest-entry eviction.
- Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease
cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git
index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal.
- Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior,
reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose`
— 63 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose`
after review hardening — 43 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts
src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the
final local head — 73 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15
passed
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` —
server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared
415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran
both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres
migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated
aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds
- `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
## Risks
The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality,
pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be
proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot
cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival
holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation
and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced
removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not
restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or
agent can re-provision explicitly.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID
or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test
execution, and GitHub CLI access 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>
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task assignment policies control which agents can receive work.
> - Protected-agent policy flags currently stop assignment.
> - The existing error says that the assignment requires approval.
> - Paperclip has no approval workflow for this policy.
> - This pull request models the policy as a hard block and gives the
operator an action that exists.
> - The benefit is accurate API guidance without weakening the existing
fail-closed behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #6386
**What happened?**
A protected-agent assignment denial said that approval was required. No
approval record or approval action existed for this policy, so the
message sent agents and operators to a dead end.
**Expected behavior**
The authorization result must state that protected-agent policy blocks
assignment. It must tell a company administrator to remove the block
before retrying.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Set `authorizationPolicy.protectedAgent.requiresApproval` to `true`
on a target agent.
2. Give another agent the `tasks:assign` permission.
3. Preview or attempt assignment to the protected agent.
4. Observe that the old response promises an approval step that does not
exist.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`c54936e2e9` on `master`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source. The behavior is in the core authorization service and
is not deployment-specific.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific.
## What Changed
- Added canonical `protectedAgent.blockAssignment` and
`protectedAgent.blockReason` policy fields.
- Kept the legacy approval-named flags as fail-closed compatibility
aliases.
- Changed denial copy to name the hard block and the administrator
action.
- Added authorization and plugin-host regression coverage for canonical
and legacy policy data.
- Updated the V1 implementation contract with the protected-assignment
rule.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts`
— 2 files passed, 61 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed.
The repository-wide local wrappers exceeded the execution host resource
limit before they printed a final summary. The PR check loop will use
GitHub CI as the complete test and build authority.
## Risks
- Low: assignment remains fail-closed. The change corrects the policy
name and denial guidance.
- Low: legacy fields remain supported, so existing plugin-owned policy
data does not change behavior.
- Low: the new policy schemas allow unknown keys for forward
compatibility, as the existing authorization policy schema already does.
> 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`, tool-enabled coding agent with
reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub CLI access. The runtime 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators use the same board application in self-hosted and
Paperclip Cloud deployments.
> - A Cloud tenant contains one company, so an in-app company switch
does not change the active Cloud stack.
> - Cloud operators need the sidebar and company surfaces to use the
signed-in user's stack portfolio.
> - The server must derive Cloud identity and links from trusted
instance context instead of client input.
> - This pull request adds canonical Cloud context, a trusted stack
portfolio proxy, and Cloud-aware navigation.
> - The benefit is consistent stack switching on Cloud while self-hosted
company behavior stays unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server REST routes and the React board UI.
**Problem or motivation**
A Cloud-managed instance contains one company. The existing company
switcher could only switch records inside that tenant. It could not move
the operator to another Cloud stack. The existing header also gave long
organization names too little width.
**Proposed solution**
Expose a canonical public Cloud context in health data. Add a trusted
server proxy for the current user's stack portfolio. Use that data in
the board UI to switch stacks with top-level navigation. Keep the
existing company behavior on self-hosted instances. Move search into the
navigation and keep long organization names inside the sidebar panel.
**Alternatives considered**
An in-app `/stacks` route was rejected because Cloud tenant hosts
reserve that path and stack selection must wake or authenticate another
tenant. Client-supplied user identity was rejected because the server
can derive the trusted Cloud actor.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change advances the Cloud deployments milestone. It keeps the
product local-first and Cloud-ready without changing the self-hosted
mental model.
## What Changed
- Added canonical Cloud instance context and public health metadata.
- Added a Cloud-only stack portfolio proxy with trusted actor forwarding
and per-user caching.
- Prevented normal company creation on Cloud-managed instances.
- Switched the sidebar and Companies page from company actions to stack
actions on Cloud.
- Added full-page stack navigation and Cloud create-stack links.
- Moved search into the sidebar navigation so the organization name
keeps more width.
- Added truncation and hover recovery for long organization and stack
names.
- Added server and UI regression coverage for Cloud and self-hosted
behavior.
- Updated the implementation specification for the Cloud contracts.
## Verification
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passed. All three token gates are
clean.
- `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/__tests__/health.test.ts
src/__tests__/cloud-instance.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/company-cloud-floor.test.ts
src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts` passed: 5 files and 66
tests.
- `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run
src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx` passed: 1 file and 11 tests.
- Pre-PR QA report `7da87ca7` passed all 8 acceptance criteria with real
HTTP route factories and real Chromium screenshots in Cloud and
self-hosted modes.
- Security reviews passed for the canonical Cloud context and stack
portfolio proxy.
## Risks
- Cloud stack switching depends on the configured Cloud application and
tenant portfolio URLs.
- The new health `cloud` block is public by design, but it contains only
canonical public instance metadata.
- The stack proxy fails closed on self-hosted instances and derives the
user identity from the trusted actor.
- Self-hosted navigation and company creation retain their existing
paths and 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, model `gpt-5`. The run used reasoning, repository tools,
shell execution, and GitHub integration. The deployment did not expose
its 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 control plane that coordinates autonomous agent
work.
> - Agents need to collaborate on issues beyond their current
assignment.
> - Cross-issue comments and updates are useful, but an unbounded run
can create cascading side effects.
> - The control plane must preserve company-wide collaboration while
containing each run's influence.
> - Comment attribution must also show the responsible user and the
acting agent in audits.
> - This pull request adds run-bound cross-issue containment,
attribution, and agent-class wake rules.
> - The benefit is safer collaboration without restoring issue-assignee
ownership restrictions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Agent-authenticated issue comments, updates, reopen behavior, and
assignee wake routing.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server routes and services, shared contracts, database
schema and migration, and implementation documentation.
**Current behavior**
An authenticated agent can collaborate across company issues, but one
heartbeat run has no per-run side-effect boundary. Comment records also
do not persist the responsible user separately from the acting agent.
**Proposed behavior**
Require a valid heartbeat run for agent cross-issue comments and
updates. Audit each attempt and cap a run at 20 cross-issue effects.
Keep the cap in log-only mode until it automatically changes to
enforcement at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Preserve same-issue writes. Use
agent-class wakes for agent comments. Keep same-run completion comments
from reopening completed work. Record the responsible user on
agent-authored comments and activity.
**Reason and benefit**
Agents can collaborate on other issues without an assignment gate, while
each run has an atomic and inspectable side-effect limit. Operators can
identify both the acting agent and the responsible user.
**Breaking changes**
After 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC, the twenty-first cross-issue comment or
update from one heartbeat run returns a containment error. Agent
cross-issue writes without valid run context are rejected. The migration
is additive and backfills existing agent-authored comment attribution
where the source data is available.
## What Changed
- Added an atomic per-run counter for cross-issue agent comments and
updates.
- Added audit events for allowed and rejected cross-issue effects.
- Added the automatic log-only to enforcement flip at 2026-08-11 00:00
UTC.
- Added responsible-user attribution to agent-authored comments,
activity records, shared types, and validators.
- Added an additive migration and migration coverage for existing
comments.
- Updated reopen, resume, and wake behavior so agent comments create
agent-class wakes and same-run completion comments remain inert.
- Updated the implementation specification and regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
packages/db/src/issue-comment-on-behalf-migration.test.ts` — 97 tests
passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration safety checks.
- `pnpm test:run` — server batch: 3,364 passed and 2 skipped; UI batch:
3,504 passed. One unrelated CLI doctor test warned because this 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` — 8 tests passed and confirmed
the CLI failure was ambient-environment sensitive.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
## Risks
- The fixed enforcement timestamp changes production behavior
automatically on 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Audit logs before that time
provide rollout visibility.
- The per-run counter serializes on the heartbeat-run row. This prevents
concurrent attempts from racing past the cap but adds a small lock scope
for cross-issue writes.
- Existing comments can only be backfilled when their acting run or
agent attribution is recoverable.
> 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 in the Codex agent runtime. The runtime did not expose a
context-window size. Reasoning, shell tools, code editing, and test
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents coordinate through company-visible issues, comments, child
tasks, and assignments.
> - The current authorization rules give these write channels different
and narrow ownership grants.
> - Those differences prevent standard-trust agents from coordinating on
work that they can already read.
> - A responsible human user must still bound every agent action.
> - This pull request gives the four issue-write channels one
default-open rule based on issue visibility.
> - The benefit is consistent multi-agent coordination without weakening
company, user, trust-scope, or run-lifecycle controls.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves authorization for comments, issue updates, child creation,
and assignment on company-visible issues.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/` REST API authorization and issue routes.
**Current behavior**
Standard-trust agents can read company-visible issues, but narrow
ownership, parent, or mention grants can still deny related writes. Each
write channel also applies a different rule.
**Proposed behavior**
Allow standard-trust agents to comment, update fields, create child
issues, and assign work when they can read the target issue and the
responsible user is also authorized. Keep company boundaries, low-trust
scopes, checkout conflicts, status rules, pause gates, budget gates, and
explicit reopen rules unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
Agents can coordinate on visible company work without relay issues or
unnecessary manager runs. One shared rule also makes the authorization
model easier to test and maintain.
**Breaking changes**
This intentionally broadens write access for standard-trust agents on
visible issues. Existing company boundaries and governance controls
remain in force.
Related prior approaches: Refs #10233 and Refs #9768. This change
unifies the comment case with visible issue updates, child creation, and
assignment while preserving the responsible-user ceiling and excluded
trust scopes.
## What Changed
- Added a shared default-open authorization decision for visible issue
writes.
- Applied the shared rule to comments, issue updates, child creation,
and assignment.
- Preserved low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, responsible-user,
checkout, lifecycle, pause, and budget controls.
- Preserved explicit resume/restore authority for direct peer lifecycle
transitions on blocked, completed, and cancelled issues.
- Added regression coverage for cross-company denial, user intersection,
excluded scopes, comment-read structure, closed issues, child creation,
assignment, and peer updates.
- Updated the V1 implementation contract for the shared rule.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` —
217 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed.
- Independent security review covered broken access control,
object-level authorization, excessive agency, cross-company access,
responsible-user intersection, excluded scopes, and lifecycle controls;
its peer lifecycle-transition finding is fixed with regression coverage.
## Risks
- Standard-trust agents gain broader write influence on issues that they
can already read.
- Future issue-visibility controls must keep `issue:read` as the
canonical authorization hook.
- Regression tests cover company boundaries, responsible-user
intersection, excluded scopes, active checkout conflicts, closed-issue
behavior, and non-transitive mention authority.
> 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 through Codex. The runtime does not expose the exact
deployment revision or context-window size. Agentic reasoning,
repository tools, shell execution, and test execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision
> - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work
> - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle
old work
> - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and
reversible retention
> - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set
> - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts.
**Problem or motivation**
Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick
queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that
does not delete work.
**Proposed solution**
Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging
shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator
keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin
agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed,
exact item manifest.
**Alternatives considered**
Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting
old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk
query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in
`ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation
from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474.
## What Changed
- Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue
page, and aging shelf UI.
- Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides.
- Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent
notification outbox.
- Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query,
and revive actions.
- Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep.
- Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks.
- Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain
source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction
contract.
- Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused
tests, and Storybook screens.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408
files and 3,362 tests passed)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup,
and UI API tests.
- Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal
50-item page boundary.
The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime
because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The
isolated test passes when those two variables are removed.
## Risks
- The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses
idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation.
- Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set
version checks prevent stale archive writes.
- Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity,
version, or the reviewed set changes.
- Archive is reversible and does not delete source records.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used tool calls, code
execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The
context-window size is not exposed in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane for companies of AI
agents.
> - Operators use the attention feed to find decisions that need action.
> - The feed has eleven source kinds, but it has no durable queue or
triage state.
> - The feed also returns every item and lacks decision deadlines,
snooze state, and decision-focused ordering.
> - This pull request adds secure queue sidecars and enriches the
attention feed with triage data, filters, cursor pagination, and
decide-now ranking.
> - The benefit is a bounded feed that can show the most urgent
decisions first without weakening source visibility rules.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request replaces the closed
[#10634](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10634). It
combines that queue foundation with the dependent attention-feed change
as one review unit.
**Subsystem affected**
Database schema, shared contracts, server authorization and REST APIs,
and the UI attention client library.
**Problem or motivation**
The attention feed can contain hundreds of mixed decision items.
Operators cannot group them into durable queues, set a decision
deadline, snooze an item, or request a bounded page ordered by urgency.
The current client must download the full feed on each refresh.
**Proposed solution**
Store queue membership and triage state by stable attention identity.
Re-authorize each source during queue reads and writes. Enrich attention
items with queue, deadline, snooze, expiry, rule, and origin data. Add
activity and queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, decide-focused
ordering, and a decide-now count.
**Alternatives considered**
Adding queue fields to every source would duplicate schema and
authorization logic across eleven source kinds. Client-only filtering
and sorting would still transfer the full feed and would make pagination
unstable.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change improves the core decision-attention surface and operator
oversight. It does not implement the separate general-purpose work queue
milestone in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped queue, membership, triage, and append-only event
tables with actor and run provenance.
- Added queue CRUD, item membership, starter-rule discovery, and
decide-by and snooze endpoints.
- Kept source authorization on each queue mutation, read, and count.
- Added attention fields for expiry, rule, origin agent, queues,
decide-by attribution, and snooze state.
- Added activity date filters, queue filters, opaque cursor pagination,
and configurable page limits.
- Added decide-now ordering by deadline, expiry, severity, and activity.
- Added `decideNowCount` and excluded actively snoozed items from the
default feed.
- Updated the shared and UI client contracts.
- Added focused server, route, OpenAPI, and UI client tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/decision-queues-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/attention.test.ts
ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts` (72 tests passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared
--filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- The migration adds four company-scoped tables and provenance foreign
keys. Migration numbering and safety checks pass.
- Attention reads can lazily create starter queues and memberships.
Inserts are idempotent, audited, and transactional.
- Cursor validity depends on the filtered feed. The API returns a clear
validation error when the cursor item no longer exists in that feed.
- Queue reads re-check source visibility. This favors correct
authorization over fewer queries.
> 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, model `gpt-5`. The runtime used agentic reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and test execution. 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The inbox shows work that a board user owns or has joined
> - Issue detail views update a per-user read receipt
> - The Mine query treated that read receipt as user participation
> - A passive view therefore added the issue to Mine
> - This pull request separates passive reads from audited user
mutations
> - The benefit is a Mine inbox that reflects ownership and real
participation
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Opening an issue detail marks the issue as read. The Mine query treated
the read receipt as participation. The viewed issue then appeared in
Mine even when the user did not change it.
**Expected behavior**
Viewing an issue can update unread state. A view alone must not add the
issue to Mine. Issue creation, assignment, comments, and audited user
mutations must add it.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open an issue that you did not create and that is not assigned to
you.
2. Do not comment or change the issue.
3. Open the Mine inbox.
4. Observe that the issue appears in Mine on the previous
implementation.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`90ead239a8`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev from source.
**Additional context**
Related approach: #3421 changes Mine to an assignee-only filter. This
change keeps participation-based Mine behavior and corrects the
participation signal.
## What Changed
- Use an explicit audited user-mutation allowlist for Mine
participation, including comment cancellation.
- Keep passive reads, previews, denied resource requests, and archive
bookkeeping out of Mine participation.
- Record manual routine reuse as an explicit audited inbox touch instead
of a read receipt.
- Keep that inbox bookkeeping from satisfying routine activity gates.
- Add focused regression coverage for passive views, real mutations,
comment cancellation, and manual routine runs.
- Document the Mine participation contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"does not treat passive issue activity"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t
"touches a (coalesced|skipped active) routine issue|ignores inbox
bookkeeping activity"`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- GitHub latest-head CI: all required checks passed, including build,
typecheck, server suites, and e2e shards.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects only the server query that defines user
participation in Mine and the manual routine touch signal.
- Historical audited user mutations can now qualify an issue for Mine.
Passive read and archive actions remain excluded.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The runtime did not expose the exact
deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Execution semantics define when work may stop, how child work
reports upward, and how watchdog recovery proves liveness was restored.
> - The existing docs did not require a routable waiting path before
entering `blocked`, leaving permission-denial and review workflows
vulnerable to dead ends.
> - Child-to-parent reporting and low-trust review delegation also
needed explicit channels and ownership boundaries.
> - Watchdog recovery needed bounded restoration verification rather
than treating a recovery write as proof of restored progress.
> - The security-sensitive defaults were reviewed and approved before
publication.
> - This pull request documents those contracts and synchronizes the
bundled Paperclip skills that operationalize them.
> - The benefit is clearer stop conditions, safer reporting defaults,
and bounded watchdog recovery without sacrificing liveness.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue exists for this execution-semantics
documentation phase, so the problem and solution are described here in
full.
- Problem: `blocked` could be entered without a routable owner/action
path, review findings could be reported on the wrong issue or treated as
blockers, and watchdog recovery lacked bounded verification of restored
liveness.
## What Changed
- Require a routable waiting path for `blocked` and clarify that
permission denial alone is not a blocker.
- Define canonical child-to-parent completion/report channels,
review-delegation ownership, and the sanctioned courier pattern.
- Specify atomic watchdog recovery batches, fingerprint validation,
bounded restoration attempts, and human escalation.
- Document the low-trust preset default for report comments and align
both bundled Paperclip skills.
## Scope and Sequencing
- This is the contract-first P1 documentation PR. Runtime enforcement is
intentionally excluded and follows in the separately owned
implementation phases; these docs define the acceptance contract those
phases must satisfy.
- The five-file patch is approved and frozen for this PR, so review
findings about absent runtime support are tracked as
implementation-phase requirements rather than edits to this docs-only
change.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Confirmed the PR diff is exactly 5 approved docs/skill files with 91
insertions and 1 deletion.
- Confirmed the patch preserves the approved execution-semantics
contract after replay on latest `origin/master`.
## Risks
- Low implementation risk: documentation and skill guidance only; no
runtime code, schema, migration, dependency, lockfile, or workflow
changes.
- Semantic risk is limited to readers or agents applying the clarified
contracts; the security-sensitive R1a default was approved before
publication.
> 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 (exact underlying model ID and
context-window size are not exposed by this runtime), with reasoning,
terminal tool use, Git/GitHub operations, 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 private URLs or internal issue identifiers
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run the applicable docs-only checks locally and they pass
- [x] Tests are not applicable because this is a
docs/skill-guidance-only change
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must
not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status
> - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the
action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully
attributable
> - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and
#9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow
guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together
> - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior
harder to review and land as one coherent capability
> - This pull request consolidates the remaining server,
shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current
master
> - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely
archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that
behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server
authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI.
### Problem or motivation
Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's
Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the
agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run
attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed
for safe agent-managed cleanup.
### Proposed solution
Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox
items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve
actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose
policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document
conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening.
### Alternatives considered
- Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state
belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization.
- Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because
completion signals can still require human review or a decision.
- Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this
consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed
and verified together.
### Related work
- Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658.
- Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661.
- `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization
initiative.
## What Changed
- Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus
company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage.
- Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user
targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency,
and detailed activity auditing.
- Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented
reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and
Paperclip skill.
- Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub
access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human
action.
- Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties
attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane
handling.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed.
- `node --test
.agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the
repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing
`#9627` literals outside this PR's diff.
## Risks
- Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so
authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused
route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths.
- Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation
and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or
visibility.
- The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist
and disabled modes can reduce agent access.
- This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new
migration number or modification to an already-applied migration.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use,
shell execution, code review, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change
(`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) and contains no internal Paperclip
ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The `/pr-gardening` skill drives a bundled agent that scans a
company's issues for those linked to open GitHub PRs, then reports on
their state; it relies on the server's company-search **extract**
endpoint to pull PR references out of issue bodies
> - Two gaps surfaced during end-to-end QA of the gardening workflow:
the extract service silently ignored a per-issue match cap, so callers
could not bound how many matches came back per issue, and the skill's
candidate-discovery scripts fell over on large repos and on issues that
referenced deleted PRs
> - Left unaddressed, the gardener either truncated its scan
unpredictably or aborted outright, so it could not reliably enumerate PR
candidates
> - This pull request honors an explicit `matchesPerIssue` limit in the
extract search API and hardens the skill's candidate discovery against
missing/unavailable PRs and oversized `gh` output
> - The benefit is a PR-gardening workflow that scans deterministically
and finishes cleanly on real-world companies
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR following
the bug report template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`).
### What happened?
The company-search extract endpoint accepted a per-issue match limit but
did not apply it, returning matches capped only by the old hardcoded
constant regardless of the caller's request. Separately, the
`/pr-gardening` skill's candidate-discovery scripts crashed when a
scanned issue referenced a deleted PR (GitHub `Not Found (HTTP 404)` /
GraphQL `Could not resolve to a PullRequest`) and could exceed the
default `gh` output buffer on large result sets, aborting the whole
scan.
### Expected behavior
The extract API bounds matches per issue when a caller passes
`matchesPerIssue` (default 20, max 200), and omitting it preserves the
previous default. The gardening scripts skip PRs that are
deleted/unavailable and tolerate large `gh` responses without aborting
the scan.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Call the company-search extract endpoint with a `matchesPerIssue`
value against an issue containing many PR references — previously the
value was ignored.
2. Run the pr-gardening candidate scan against a company whose issues
reference a since-deleted PR — previously the scan threw instead of
skipping that PR.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` at the base of this PR (branch cut from current
`origin/master`).
### Deployment mode
Local Paperclip instance / self-hosted.
## What Changed
- **Extract search honors `matchesPerIssue`**: added the
`matchesPerIssue` field to the shared search validator/types and applied
the cap in `company-search-extract` so results are bounded per issue
(`packages/shared`, `server/src/services/company-search-extract.ts`,
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`).
- **Hardened pr-gardening candidate discovery**: `find-candidates.mjs` /
`lib.mjs` now request `matchesPerIssue=200`, treat missing/unavailable
PRs (deleted PR → `isMissingPullRequestError` / `unavailable`) as skips
instead of fatal errors, and raise the `gh` `maxBuffer` to 50 MB for
large repos.
- **Tests**: expanded `company-search-extract-{routes,service}.test.ts`
for the new limit and added coverage in `pr-gardening.test.mjs`.
## Verification
Re-run on a fresh worktree cherry-picked onto current `master`:
- `node --test
.agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` → 8/8 pass
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts` → 10/10
pass
## Risks
Low risk. `matchesPerIssue` is optional and backward-compatible
(omitting it preserves prior behavior). The skill changes only add
skip/tolerance paths and a larger buffer; no schema or migration
changes.
## Model Used
Claude — Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use /
code execution via the Claude Agent SDK.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent companies and their work.
> - Its recovery subsystem detects stranded issue execution and decides
whether to retry, escalate, or request operator intervention.
> - The existing recovery path used a mostly generic owner ladder and
generic execution contract, so transient failures could wake a manager
who then performed the deliverable instead of repairing and returning
the task.
> - Provider quota failures also entered the same takeover path even
when the correct action was to wait for capacity and retry the original
assignee.
> - Recovery actions already retain the source owner and evidence needed
to choose a cause-specific route, render a scoped contract, and measure
whether work was handed back.
> - This pull request adds a cause-keyed recovery playbook, propagates
its contract through every built-in adapter, and makes resolved recovery
actions return work to the original owner by default.
> - The benefit is bounded self-recovery that preserves task ownership,
avoids needless management takeover, and makes recovery outcomes
observable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public GitHub issue was found.
Related recovery work was reviewed but is not duplicated here: #9630
restores bounded recovery continuations, #8807 changes one
assignee-ranking case, and #9404 records runtime-failure transition
evidence. This change instead introduces cause-specific routing and
recovery contracts across the recovery lifecycle.
### What happened?
When an issue became stranded, recovery generally selected an owner
through the same fallback ladder and rendered the normal execution
contract. That made the recovery wake look like ordinary deliverable
work, even when the correct action was to retry the original agent,
repair its runtime, or wait for a provider quota reset.
### Expected behavior
Recovery should select a response by failure cause, tell the recipient
to recover rather than complete the deliverable, suppress takeover wakes
for provider quota waits, and return repaired work to its original
assignee unless the recovery owner explicitly completes it.
### Actual behavior
Recovery could escalate transient failures to management, omit the
cause-specific next action from the wake, and leave the recovery owner
assigned after the runtime problem was resolved.
### Impact
The generic path creates avoidable management work, ownership churn, and
budget consumption while obscuring whether recovery successfully
returned work to the responsible agent.
## What Changed
- Added cause-keyed routing for process loss, missing disposition,
provider quota limits, Codex output inactivity, workspace validation
failures, and fallback recovery causes.
- Added recovery-scoped wake rendering that replaces the generic
execution contract with the failure summary, original assignee, attempt
count, next action, and cause-specific playbook instruction.
- Propagated the structured recovery contract through all built-in
adapter execution paths, including Hermes local and gateway adapters.
- Added provider-quota wait monitoring so capacity failures schedule the
original assignee instead of enqueueing a takeover wake.
- Added hand-back behavior and `handed_back` / `owner_completed` outcome
accounting when recovery actions are resolved.
- Added focused routing, renderer, quota-monitor, and hand-back
regression coverage plus implementation-spec documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`
- 4 test files passed; 194 tests passed.
- Targeted `pnpm --filter ... typecheck` across
`@paperclipai/adapter-utils`, `@paperclipai/shared`,
`@paperclipai/server`, `@paperclipai/ui`, and all nine changed adapter
packages.
- 13 affected workspace packages passed typecheck.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- All UI token gates passed.
## Risks
- Recovery routing behavior changes for stranded work, so an incorrectly
classified cause could select a different recipient than before;
fallback causes retain the existing management ladder.
- Provider quota detection depends on structured failure evidence and
conservative text matching; unmatched failures continue through fallback
recovery.
- Adapter prompt plumbing changes across built-ins, covered by shared
renderer tests and compile-time call signatures.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, using reasoning, tool
use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose its configured
context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent companies
> - Agents and operators need company-scoped search to discover relevant
issue history safely
> - The interactive search endpoint intentionally returns compact
excerpts and low pagination caps for UI use
> - Automation that inventories repeated references, such as
pull-request URLs, needs exhaustive distinct matches without loading
full issue objects into an LLM context
> - Client-provided regular expressions would create an unsafe and
expensive query surface, so extraction must remain literal with
server-owned expansion modes
> - This pull request adds a bounded agent-oriented extraction endpoint
with explicit truncation
> - The benefit is deterministic, compact bulk discovery across issues,
comments, and documents while preserving company authorization and rate
limits
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
`server/` REST API and `packages/shared/` contracts.
### Problem or motivation
The existing interactive company search caps issue pagination and
snippets, so automation cannot reliably enumerate every distinct literal
or pull-request URL across issue descriptions, comments, and linked
documents without fetching large full issue payloads.
### Proposed solution
Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/search/extract` with escaped literal
matching, optional server-owned URL token expansion,
issue/comment/document scopes, status/date filters, higher issue-level
pagination caps, compact source references, and explicit
pagination/match truncation flags.
### Alternatives considered
Reusing `GET /issues?q=` would return unnecessarily large issue objects;
increasing interactive-search snippet limits would make the UI API
heavier; accepting arbitrary client regex would expose avoidable
database cost and ReDoS risk.
### Roadmap alignment
`ROADMAP.md` does not currently list a conflicting company-search or
bulk-extraction initiative. GitHub searches found no directly
duplicative open issue or pull request.
## What Changed
- Added shared query validation and response contracts for literal and
URL extraction.
- Added a company-scoped extraction service that pages issues, gathers
matching issue/comment/document sources, expands URL tokens,
deduplicates values, and reports truncation explicitly.
- Added the authenticated route using the existing company-search
authorization decision and rate limiter.
- Added targeted Vitest coverage for URL extraction, multi-source
dedupe, date/status filters, match caps, cross-company denial, and rate
limiting.
- Documented the extraction surface in the implementation specification.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts` — 30 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
## Risks
- Bulk substring search can scan large text columns. The endpoint
mitigates this with a minimum literal length, bounded issue pagination,
a 20-distinct-match cap per issue, explicit truncation, existing
company-search rate limiting, and no client-provided regex.
- URL expansion uses a fixed server-owned pattern plus an escaped
literal. A security review is requested as part of PR review to confirm
the pattern and abuse controls.
- No database migration or existing API response shape changes are
included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex CLI coding agent; exact runtime model ID and
context-window size were not exposed to the session. Tool-enabled code
execution and repository editing were used with medium reasoning effort.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable
across an organization.
> - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with
permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and
inconsistent denial handling.
> - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing
company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments.
> - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API
behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI.
> - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate
`paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR.
### Problem or motivation
Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no
explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source
classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution.
### Proposed solution
Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to
allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation
APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio
to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise
Edition implementation in the core repository.
### Alternatives considered
Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was
rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior
inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository
was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must
receive its own PR.
### Roadmap alignment
Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent
governance and removing workflow dead ends.
### Additional context
The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition
editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI
integration code.
## What Changed
- Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation
documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical
actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary.
- Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared
validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused
server tests.
- Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and
keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and
execution.
- Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead
ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an
operation is actually denied.
- Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE
discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this
PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE
repository.
- Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company
restriction exists.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx
src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg
'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches.
## Risks
- Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout
depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised.
- Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments
expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions.
- Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused
review.
- The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core
policy API as policy actions evolve.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not
exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use,
shell execution, and code review capabilities enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details available to this runtime)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked or
described the result above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the latest head
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Budgets and spend telemetry are control-plane safety features, not
just reporting
> - Local Codex and Claude adapters can execute through either ACP or
their native CLI engines
> - The ACP lane records usage and reported cost, but CLI JSON output
often reports tokens without a price
> - The CLI lane was either losing per-run usage semantics or coercing
missing cost to zero, making real usage indistinguishable from a
genuinely free run
> - This pull request preserves CLI usage as per-run totals and records
token-bearing runs without a reported price as explicitly unpriced
ledger events
> - The benefit is accurate usage accounting and a visible pricing gap
instead of silently misleading zero-cost telemetry
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9471
Refs #9230
**Bug description**
A `codex_local` run using the CLI engine can emit a final
`turn.completed` event with millions of input tokens and tens of
thousands of output tokens while the agent's spend ledger remains
indistinguishable from a true zero-usage, zero-cost run. Claude CLI
output has the same missing-price edge case.
**Expected behavior**
Token-bearing CLI runs should persist their usage. If the adapter
reports a price, the ledger should record it as reported; if the CLI
reports usage but no price, the ledger should explicitly mark the event
as unpriced rather than silently treating missing price data as a
reported `$0` cost.
**Reproduction shape**
1. Configure `codex_local` with `engine: cli`.
2. Run a task that produces a `turn.completed` usage payload.
3. Observe token usage in the run stream.
4. Before this change, missing price data is represented as ordinary
zero-cost spend and the CLI usage basis is not consistently propagated.
## What Changed
- Mark Codex and Claude native CLI usage totals as `per_run` and
propagate that basis through success and failure results.
- Stop coercing missing Claude CLI cost to `0`.
- Add `cost_status` to cost events with `reported` and `unpriced`
values, including an idempotent migration and shared validation/types.
- Persist token-bearing runs without a reported price as `unpriced`
ledger events while retaining zero cents until an authoritative price
exists.
- Add parser, execute-path, heartbeat-accounting, and cost-service
regression coverage for both local CLI adapters.
- Document the cost-status invariant and CLI accounting behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.test.ts
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` — 6 files / 102 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — includes migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
## Risks
- Existing cost rows default to `reported`, preserving current
interpretation; only new token-bearing events with absent cost are
marked `unpriced`.
- This change does not invent model pricing. Budget hard stops still
cannot charge an unknown amount, but operators and evals can now
distinguish missing pricing from a genuinely reported zero cost.
- Consumers that enumerate cost-event fields should tolerate the
additive `costStatus` field.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model `gpt-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use
and code execution; default reasoning mode.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta
Nicky Leach
Devin Foley
Dotta