## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The heartbeat service admits wake requests while an issue has an
active execution run.
> - That admission branch mixes wake policy, database reads, and
database writes in one service.
> - This structure makes the wake-queue boundary hard to test and
extend.
> - This pull request moves the admission policy and its database
adapter into the wake-queue module.
> - The result keeps heartbeat orchestration small and makes the
admission behavior testable in isolation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The heartbeat service now delegates deferred wake admission to the
wake-queue module. The module keeps the existing merge, defer, and
ordinary-wake outcomes.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — REST API and orchestration services.
**Current behavior**
The heartbeat service contains a 146-line branch that reads wake state,
chooses an outcome, and writes the result.
**Proposed behavior**
The wake-queue module owns the pure admission decision and the adapter
reads and writes. The heartbeat service calls one module method.
**Reason and benefit**
This boundary reduces service coupling and lets module tests cover the
admission policy. The change keeps the existing reason strings and
outcomes.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change preserves the current behavior and public API.
**Additional context**
This pull request follows [PR
#13132](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13132), which
merged the first slice of this refactor. I searched GitHub for duplicate
and related pull requests before opening this pull request.
## What Changed
- Move deferred wake admission policy into
`server/src/modules/wake-queue`.
- Add module ports and a PostgreSQL adapter for the admission reads and
writes.
- Keep the existing wake outcomes and stored reason strings.
- Extend the module boundary check to reject service imports from the
application layer.
- Add unit and adapter tests for the moved behavior.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs` passes.
- The `server/src/modules/wake-queue` suite passes 58 tests.
- The eight pinned heartbeat and queued-comment tests remain unchanged
and require CI verification.
- Every continuous-integration check must reach a terminal green state
before merge.
## Risks
The refactor changes the location of wake admission logic. A missed
adapter condition could change deferred wake behavior. The tests cover
the policy outcomes and the adapter writes. The residual tenant-scope
risk remains documented in the review record.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The implementation
author ran the tests and prepared the commit set.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (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 heartbeat service dispatches scheduled retries and queued
runs.
> - The service kept policy decisions and database writes in one large
file.
> - This layout made policy branches harder to test and transaction
boundaries harder to inspect.
> - This pull request moves the policy rules and database transactions
into a run-dispatch module.
> - The benefit is a smaller service, pure policy tests, and clear
transaction ownership.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The server heartbeat service promotes scheduled retries and cancels
stale queued runs.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — REST API and orchestration services.
**Current behavior**
The heartbeat service contains the policy rules and the database writes
for these dispatch paths.
**Proposed behavior**
A run-dispatch module owns pure policy functions and semantic database
transactions. The public service contracts stay unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
The new layout separates branch rules from database effects. It makes
each policy branch easier to test and keeps each operation’s row writes
in one transaction.
**Breaking changes**
None. The public service contracts stay unchanged.
## What Changed
- Move scheduled-retry promotion and queued-run staleness rules into
pure functions.
- Add table-driven unit tests for each policy branch.
- Move promotion and cancellation writes into semantic transactions.
- Keep row locking, company isolation, and post-commit effects
unchanged.
## Verification
- `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passes.
- `tsc --noEmit` from `server/` reports no errors.
- The focused server test command passes 228 tests in six files.
- Full pull request CI passes.
- Greptile reports 5/5, and all review threads are resolved.
## Risks
The main risk concerns changed transaction boundaries in scheduled-retry
promotion and queued-run cancellation. The focused tests retain coverage
for locking, transactionality, company isolation, and transport
contracts. The public service contracts do not change.
## Model Used
Codex, GPT-5, with code execution and tool use. The context window is
not provided by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I have addressed 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 recovery service monitors active runs and applies
watchdog decisions
> - The watchdog rules and database operations lived in one large
recovery service
> - This structure made the rules harder to test and made company
scoping harder to inspect
> - This pull request moves the watchdog into domain, application, and
adapter layers
> - The benefit is a smaller recovery service, pure policy tests, and
clear company-scoped ports
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The active-run output watchdog that detects silence, suppression, and
terminal evidence.
**Current behavior**
The recovery service contains the watchdog policy, use cases, database
operations, and process control in one file.
**Proposed behavior**
A feature module separates pure policy, use cases and ports, and
Postgres and process adapters. The recovery service delegates its public
watchdog methods to this module.
**Reason and benefit**
The separation makes policy decisions easy to test. Company identifiers
on every reader and writer port make tenant scope clear. Smaller service
methods reduce change risk.
**Breaking changes**
None. The recovery service keeps its public methods and call sites.
Related public watchdog work includes
[#7043](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7043) and
[#7770](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7770).
## What Changed
- Add the `server/src/modules/active-run-watchdog/` feature module with
domain, application, and adapter layers.
- Move watchdog policy, use cases, Postgres access, and local process
control into the module.
- Keep the recovery service public methods and delegate them to the
module.
- Add 53 pure module test cases and retain 8 Postgres integration cases.
- Add company scoping and transaction rollback coverage.
## Verification
- Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/modules` and confirm 3
files and 53 cases pass.
- Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` and confirm
1 file and 8 cases pass.
- Run the full server suite in pull request CI.
- Compare the type-check result with a fresh baseline on the same
checkout.
## Risks
The main risk is a behavior change in recovery decisions during the move
across layers. The pure policy tests cover the moved rules. The
integration tests cover database behavior, company scope, and
transaction rollback. Pull request CI runs the full server suite.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, runtime-managed context window, tool use, code
execution, and repository review support.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] 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>
Nicky Leach