## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Operators need a board-level way to monitor a changing slice of
company work without repeatedly rebuilding filters or reading raw task
threads.
> - Existing summaries are useful snapshots, but they do not provide a
dedicated query-backed card with refresh policy, change tracking, update
history, and per-update cost visibility.
> - The capability needs to be safe to evaluate before it becomes part
of the default product surface.
> - This pull request adds end-to-end experimental Status Cards, from
schema and query compilation through update orchestration and operator
UI.
> - The entire feature is gated behind the `enableStatusCards`
experimental toggle, including its route and sidebar entry.
> - The benefit is a governed, inspectable way to keep focused
operational rollups current while preserving explicit controls over
refresh frequency and spend.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`, `ui/`, and
bundled skills/docs).
### Problem or motivation
Operators cannot currently define a reusable natural-language view of
company work, compile it into an inspectable query, and keep its summary
current as matching issues change. Rebuilding filters and rereading task
threads makes board-level monitoring repetitive and hides the
relationship between source changes, refresh cost, and the resulting
summary.
### Proposed solution
Add experimental Status Cards that compile operator intent into a query,
summarize matched work, record each update, expose
manual/interval/reactive refresh policies and costs, and preserve the
last good result across stale, updating, paused, and error states. The
capability is off by default and fully gated behind `enableStatusCards`,
including its route and navigation entry.
### Alternatives considered
- Extend existing one-off summaries: rejected because status cards
require persistent query provenance, refresh policy, update history, and
card-specific cost controls.
- Add a dashboard-only filter widget: rejected because it would not
provide governed background refresh, an update ledger, or an inspectable
compile pipeline.
- Ship the surface by default: rejected in favor of an experimental
toggle while behavior and operator value are evaluated.
### Roadmap alignment
This advances Paperclip’s board-level execution visibility and
output-first product goals. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate
status-card initiative was found.
### Additional context
No related open PR was found in the public GitHub search for status
cards. The PR-only design wireframes were removed from the repository
after review; the published prototype remains external to the production
source tree.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped status-card schema, CRUD APIs, compile
provenance, update ledger, shared contracts, validators, and OpenAPI
coverage.
- Added the text-to-query compile pipeline, bundled `status-card-query`
agent skill, query versioning, and authorized write-back flow.
- Added the experimental board, create flow, lifecycle tiles,
detail/settings/debug drawers, archived view, routing, navigation, and
instance setting.
- Added a change-gated update engine with manual, interval, and reactive
refresh policies, trigger selection, active hours, and daily token caps.
- Added per-update token/cost recording, today and lifetime rollups, and
policy-derived cost previews.
- Added operator documentation and agent-authoring hardening for compile
and update behavior.
- Added PR-prep integration coverage for settings/startup wiring and
replaced raw UI values with design-system tokens.
- Removed the PR-only `design/pap-15023-status-cards` wireframe
artifacts so the repository contains only production feature assets.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passes on the PR head; includes `ui` `tsc -b`
passing. The UI compile gate was also independently recorded as passing
at `6d7f3cf96b` on July 23, 2026.
- `pnpm build` — passes.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passes with all three gates clean.
- `pnpm test:run` — 2,880 tests passed and 1 skipped; the sole failure
was an unrelated 10-second `afterAll` database-cleanup timeout in
`execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — passes on
immediate focused rerun (25/25).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — passes (31/31).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardSettingsForm.test.tsx
src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardTile.test.tsx
src/pages/StatusCards/format.test.ts src/lib/status-card-state.test.ts`
— passes (26/26).
- Recorded pre-PR QA: compile-pipeline e2e PASS; full lifecycle and cost
QA PASS; security re-review PASS after write-back hardening; UX
approved.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/status-card-migrations.test.ts`
— passes; reapplies migrations `0185`–`0189` against an already-migrated
embedded Postgres database.
- `pnpm --filter /db check:migrations` — passes migration numbering and
safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter /db typecheck` — passes.
- Merged current `origin/master` on July 24, 2026 with no conflicts;
migrations `0185`–`0189` remain unclaimed on master.
## Risks
- The feature introduces five database migrations and a new background
update path; all new DDL is repeat-safe after partial application,
migration numbering/safety checks pass, and update execution is
company-scoped and change-gated.
- Natural-language compilation can produce invalid or overly broad
queries; compile provenance, query validation, debug visibility, and
version history make failures inspectable and recoverable.
- Reactive or interval refresh could increase spend; active hours, max
refresh frequency, daily token caps, per-update cost records, and
budget-paused states bound and expose that risk.
- The branch name contains an internal execution identifier because it
is a fixed handoff branch; it was intentionally not renamed or rebased
per the release handoff instructions.
- Overall rollout risk is limited because the route, navigation,
services, and UI are disabled by default behind `enableStatusCards`.
> 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-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell
execution, GitHub CLI, and test/build execution. The runtime did not
expose a context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change; the fixed execution-workspace
identifier is documented as an authorized handoff exception
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, with the one cleanup
timeout passing on focused rerun
- [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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to manage AI-agent
companies.
> - Board operators rely on the settings UI and CLI docs to understand
which product surfaces are stable to depend on.
> - Experimental features already existed in the product, but the
operator-facing contract around them was too soft and too fragmented.
> - That created a risk that users would enable experiments without
being told clearly that they can break, change, or disappear.
> - The docs and the in-product settings page both needed the same
explicit warning language so the contract is visible at the moment of
decision.
> - This pull request adds that warning to the board-operator guide, CLI
references, and the experimental settings page.
> - The benefit is clearer operator expectations without changing the
underlying feature flags or rollout behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this docs/polish gap.
Problem description:
- Board operators could enable experimental features without a clear
operator-facing statement that those features are opt-in and come
without compatibility guarantees.
- The docs site, repo CLI reference, and in-product experimental
settings page did not present one consistent warning contract.
- This PR closes that gap by documenting the risk explicitly where
operators discover and enable those settings.
Related public search:
- Searched public issues/PRs for related work with `gh search issues
--repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features warning'` and `gh
search prs --repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features
warning'`.
- Reviewed open PR #6165 during that search and found it unrelated; it
changes experimental auth/routing flags rather than documenting
experimental-feature risk.
## What Changed
- Added a new board-operator guide at
`docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md` that defines the
Paperclip contract for experimental features.
- Registered that guide in `docs/docs.json` so it appears in the public
docs navigation.
- Added matching caveat language next to `instance
settings:experimental` in `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md`.
- Added the same caveat to `doc/CLI.md` so the repo CLI reference does
not drift from the published docs.
- Added a single page-level warning banner to
`ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx` stating that
experimental features are opt-in, carry no compatibility guarantees, and
may change, break, or be removed.
- Added a targeted UI test in
`ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` that asserts
exactly one page-level warning renders with the new risk language.
## Verification
- `jq empty docs/docs.json`
- `git diff --check`
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run
src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx`
- Manual review of the warning contract across:
- `docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md`
- `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md`
- `doc/CLI.md`
- `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`
UI note:
- This is a copy-level warning addition rather than a layout rework. I
did not attach before/after screenshots in this PR body.
## Risks
- Low risk: this changes operator-facing documentation and warning copy,
not feature-flag behavior.
- The main failure mode is wording drift across docs and UI in future
edits, which is why this PR adds the same contract to all relevant
operator-facing surfaces.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md` before opening this PR. This is docs/UI polish
around an existing experimental surface, not overlapping roadmap-level
core feature work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex Local using `gpt-5.4` with high reasoning and tool use
for coordination, review, docs changes, and PR preparation.
- Anthropic Claude Local using `claude-opus-4-8` with high reasoning and
tool use for the in-product warning and targeted UI test.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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>
Dotta
Devin Foley