## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents use connections to reach external services.
> - A fresh native task can have no service tools installed.
> - The agent needs a way to discover services and ask the responsible
person for access.
> - This pull request brings the existing connection-intent flow into
native task execution.
> - The person can connect from the task, and the agent can continue
with updated tools.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Native runner tool authority, connection intents, task interactions, and
shared connection setup.
**Problem or motivation**
A task that needs an unconnected service cannot finish its work. Leaving
the task to configure access also loses context. A resolved request must
survive a restart and resume the correct agent once.
**Proposed solution**
Expose connection discovery and access requests as server-owned native
tools. Render a durable task card and use the shared setup dialog.
Persist outcome delivery and start a fresh provider session after access
is ready.
**Alternatives considered**
Sending the person to the Connections page adds navigation and does not
solve continuation. Polling for authorization consumes runs and can
create duplicate requests.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing connection-intent runtime and setup
experience. It reuses the shared access model and the native runner.
Related: #12345, #12347. The service-slug fix in #12906 is related but
separate. Companion evaluation PR:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/21.
## What Changed
- Expose `connections_search` and `connection_request` with server-bound
company, task, agent, and responsible user. Preserve the legacy entry
points.
- Discover catalog services and authorized custom connections. Check
installation, identity, health, and executable permissions before
reporting ready.
- Keep pending cards through ordinary messages. Reuse requests and
retire stale ownership. Put Connect at the right of Not now.
- Reuse the shared setup flow in a task dialog. Keep access additive and
default to the requesting agent. Recover from cancelled or blocked OAuth
windows with a new-tab fallback.
- Persist outcome delivery with an idempotent wake key. Resume in a
fresh session and recheck ownership before dispatch.
- Add native browser fixtures, offline Storybook states, server
contracts, and evaluation fixtures. Update guidance and documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm build`: passed after replaying the change on current master.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook`: passed.
- New continuation-policy regression cases: 16 passed.
- Docker-backed PostgreSQL regressions passed for requester-only OAuth
access, assignment-only expiry, terminal expiry, and credential-free
setup metadata.
- Shared setup and task-card UI tests: 121 passed, including configured
MCP reconnect URL recovery and preserving user edits across refetch.
- Storybook browser checks: all 119 passed on the latest reconnect fix.
- `pnpm test:run`: 4,734 tests passed in the first server group, but
embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and resulting cleanup errors
prevented a complete local pass. All Linux CI lanes passed on the latest
reviewed commit. One external-object route test returned an unexplained
500 on the first run; it passed twice locally and the failed shard
passed on retry without code changes.
- Earlier feature-checkout evidence: three deterministic native browser
journeys passed, including restart delivery and an actual fixture tool
result. Legacy scripted coverage also passed. All 59 added stories were
inspected in light and dark themes.
- Live Notion testing recorded successful provider reads. The manual
test used a local-trusted instance. It does not prove
authenticated/cloud deployment or every provider journey.
- Native browser rerun reached the embedded PostgreSQL startup limit
before bootstrap, so the latest checkout’s full native browser journey
remains unverified. Both OAuth page/task regression cases passed against
isolated Docker-backed PostgreSQL 17. They verify no premature task
access, requester-only completion, additive retries, and reconnect
preservation.
- Applied both new migrations twice to isolated PostgreSQL 17. Foreign
keys remained intact, duplicate active delivery keys were rejected, and
failed delivery records did not block retries.
Reviewer path: start a fresh test drive, enable the native runner, use
an agent that can perform work directly, and ask it to summarize a
Notion page. Connect from the card, then verify the resumed provider
call and source-linked answer. The default test-drive CEO is instructed
to delegate, so it can introduce an unrelated hiring step.
## Risks
- Two additive migrations create durable deliveries and a partial unique
wake index. They are idempotent. The wake index can require a
maintenance window on large tables because migrations run in a
transaction.
- OAuth and continuation cross asynchronous boundaries. Tests cover
ownership changes, retries, additive access, and restart delivery; live
provider behavior still varies.
- The latest requester-scope fix has not yet been exercised through live
OAuth. GitHub, API-key, authenticated-user, and all recovery journeys
are not claimed as verified.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6-based Codex assisted with implementation, tests, and review
using tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact
model version, context window, or reasoning setting. Live evaluation
used `gpt-5.6-luna`; manual native testing used `gpt-5.6-sol`.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used and disclosed unavailable runtime
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this extends existing
connection work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature issue
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [ ] I have run all required 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 risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pull request workflow is the main merge gate for changes to that
app.
> - The Playwright e2e lane is expensive because every spec shares one
isolated server and runs serially.
> - Splitting that lane across runners shortens the critical path, but
the public required-check contract still needs a check named exactly
`e2e`.
> - This pull request shards the real e2e work while preserving a fast
aggregate `e2e` job for branch protection.
> - The benefit is a faster PR workflow without making otherwise-good
PRs unmergeable because a legacy required check disappeared.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI follow-up.
Related prior CI work:
- Refs #8360
- Refs #9168
- Refs #9516
Bug report:
### What happened?
Sharding the PR e2e lane directly at the workflow job level changes the
emitted check names to shard-specific names, while existing branch
protection expects a check named exactly `e2e`.
### Expected behavior
The PR workflow should be able to run e2e specs across multiple runners
while still emitting a stable aggregate check named `e2e`.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Open a PR against `master`.
2. Run the PR workflow with the e2e lane split only as a matrix job.
3. Observe that the shard checks complete, but a required check named
exactly `e2e` never appears.
### Paperclip version or commit
Current `master`.
### Deployment mode
GitHub Actions pull request workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/e2e-shard.mjs`, which partitions default Playwright e2e
specs by recorded per-spec duration.
- Added `scripts/e2e-shard-durations.json` with measured e2e spec
durations so the slow smoke-lab spec does not dominate one runner.
- Split the PR workflow e2e lane into two `e2e_shards` matrix jobs and
added a fast aggregate job named exactly `e2e`.
- Added `scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` to lock the shard
partition, ignored-spec sync, manifest coverage, and aggregate
required-check contract.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check upstream/master..HEAD`
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related e2e-shard / required-check
PRs and issues before opening this PR; no direct duplicate was found.
## Risks
Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest can drift as specs
are added or runtimes change; missing specs fall back to the median
known duration, and the focused shard test catches empty, overlapping,
or badly imbalanced partitions.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex CLI coding agent, with shell/tool execution and
repository inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta
Devin Foley