## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize
and govern companies of AI agents
> - The README is the project’s front door, while `ROADMAP.md` is the
detailed statement of shipped and planned product direction
> - The existing README roadmap had fallen behind capabilities that are
already available and did not explain the product’s organizing model
> - That drift made current features look unfinished and left the
relationship between tasks, organization, training, and infrastructure
implicit
> - This pull request synchronizes the roadmap preview with the detailed
roadmap and introduces the four-pillar product framing
> - The benefit is a more accurate, coherent first impression for users
and contributors, with theme-aware visuals that render correctly on
GitHub
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- **Subsystem affected:** Documentation (`README.md`, `ROADMAP.md`, and
documentation assets); no runtime subsystem changes.
- **Problem or motivation:** The README roadmap understated shipped
capabilities, the detailed roadmap had corresponding stale statuses, and
the README did not clearly explain the four product pillars that connect
Paperclip’s task, organization, training, and infrastructure surfaces.
- **Proposed solution:** Refresh both roadmap views from one ordered
list, add the four-pillars section and light/dark graphic, and keep
future capabilities explicitly marked as planned or partial.
- **Alternatives considered:** Updating only `ROADMAP.md` would leave
the project’s front page stale; updating only the README would create a
second source of truth; a single non-theme-aware image would be less
legible for half of GitHub’s color schemes.
- **Roadmap alignment:** This change directly updates `ROADMAP.md` and
its README preview rather than introducing an unplanned runtime feature.
- **Additional context:** Searched open pull requests for related README
roadmap/four-pillars work and found no duplicate.
## What Changed
- Added a **The four pillars** section covering Agentic Task Manager,
Org Chart for Agents, Agent Employee Training, and Agentic OS, with a
theme-aware `<picture>` graphic.
- Flipped four roadmap entries from ⚪ to ✅: Cloud / Sandbox agents,
Artifacts & Work Products, Deep Planning, and Enforced Outcomes.
- Added shipped ✅ entries for MCP Tool Gateway & Apps, per-agent Secrets
Manager access, activity logging and action attribution, self-healing
recovery, and agent evals/feedback; expanded the skills entry to include
Skill Studio and Skills Store.
- Added planned ⚪ entries for Bring-your-own-ticket-system and Connected
Apps, resolving the README FAQ inconsistency around external ticket
systems.
- Moved Cloud deployments to 🟡 and documented the shipped multi-tenant
isolation, local-to-cloud sync, and cloud-managed bootstrap scope.
- Synchronized the README preview and `ROADMAP.md` ordering/statuses: 18
✅, 9 ⚪, and 1 🟡 entry.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Focused Node consistency check confirms README and `ROADMAP.md` have
the same 28 ordered entries/statuses and expected 18 ✅ / 9 ⚪ / 1 🟡
counts.
- `file doc/assets/four-pillars-light.png
doc/assets/four-pillars-dark.png` confirms both assets are valid
3840×2160 RGB PNGs.
- Visual QA rendered the README through GitHub’s GFM API in Chromium at
GitHub content width under both light and dark `prefers-color-scheme`
modes; the correct graphic swapped per theme, all links resolved, the
section placement/table were correct, and `ROADMAP.md` matched the
README preview.
### Visual Evidence
**Light theme**
**Dark theme**
- Prettier was not run because this repository does not expose a
configured `prettier` binary; markdown whitespace was checked with `git
diff --check` and the rendered QA above.
## Risks
- Low risk: documentation and image assets only; no application code,
API contract, schema, dependencies, lockfile, or workflow changes.
- Roadmap status wording can become stale as product work evolves, so
future shipped capabilities should update both the README preview and
`ROADMAP.md` together.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning,
terminal/tool use, GitHub API access, and Paperclip control-plane
integration. The model context-window size was not exposed by this
execution environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - Human approvals, issue interactions, and execution decisions already
capture high-value decision moments
> - Those moments are currently transient and cannot be reused as stable
evaluation or training examples
> - Reusable examples need a server-owned, immutable snapshot so later
comments or runs cannot leak into the recorded state
> - Human notes need to remain editable and auditable without changing
the captured state
> - This pull request adds the database model, snapshot capture service,
API, export format, and attention-feed enrichment for decision training
> - The benefit is a durable, inspectable foundation for evaluating
whether agents can reproduce good human decisions from only the context
available at decision time
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting (`server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`).
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip has no durable dataset for converting human decisions into
evaluation-ready examples. Teams need to capture pending or resolved
decisions with the exact issue context, comments, runs, and repository
evidence available at a cutoff, while preventing future context from
leaking into the example.
### Proposed solution
Store immutable, schema-versioned snapshots anchored to durable
interaction, approval, or execution-decision records; keep notes
separately editable with history; expose human-only CRUD, list, and
JSONL export APIs.
### Alternatives considered
Client-generated snapshots were rejected because they duplicate cutoff
logic and cannot reliably enforce no-leakage boundaries. Automatic
outcome backfill was deferred so captured examples remain faithful to
what was known at capture time.
### Roadmap alignment
Supports the roadmap direction of turning completed work and decision
patterns into reusable organizational knowledge.
### Additional context
The implementation records explicit commit-resolution confidence
(`exact`, `nearest_run`, `workspace`, or `none`) so downstream
evaluation can distinguish evidence quality.
## What Changed
- Added the `decision_training_examples` schema and idempotent migration
with company, issue, and source/author indexes.
- Added shared types for decision-training records, notes history, and
versioned snapshots.
- Added a single server-side snapshot capture path with inclusive
comment cutoffs, pre-cutoff run capture, durable decision payloads, and
explicit commit-resolution confidence.
- Added create, list, detail, notes-only update, delete, and JSONL
export routes with human-only write authorization and activity logging
that skips no-op note submissions.
- Added per-user `trainingExampleId` enrichment to attention items.
- Added focused embedded-Postgres tests for cutoff boundaries,
post-cutoff leakage, immutable snapshots, human-only writes, duplicate
prevention, notes history, attention enrichment, and export shape.
- Updated UI test and Storybook attention-item factories for the new
required `trainingExampleId` contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts`
— 10 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
## Risks
- The migration adds a new table and indexes only; it does not rewrite
existing rows or install resolve-time hooks.
- Snapshot JSON can grow with long comment threads and run histories; v1
intentionally favors complete, inspectable examples over aggressive
truncation.
- Commit SHA resolution is evidence-based and records `exact`,
`nearest_run`, or `none` so downstream consumers can account for
confidence.
- The API is additive, but future UI work must continue to treat the
snapshot as immutable and use notes-only updates.
> 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-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use, terminal
execution, and code-editing capabilities; context-window size is not
exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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 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 local heartbeat/runtime subsystem starts long-running local
agent processes and records their run state.
> - Operators sometimes need to rebuild and restart the Paperclip server
while local agent processes are still alive.
> - A normal restart should remain conservative, but a guarded
production hot restart needs an explicit marker, startup reconciliation,
and an inspectable report.
> - The broader hot-restart PR is currently merge-conflicted, so this
pull request lands the minimal server-side recovery path on current
`master`.
> - The benefit is that deploy operators can restart from a current
branch without reverting production changes and without marking adopted
live runs as `process_lost`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this deploy-safety fix.
Bug fix:
- What happened: the current deployable `master` branch did not include
the hot-restart marker CLI, startup adoption report path, or health
version proof needed by guarded service restarts.
- Expected behavior: a deploy operator can write a one-shot marker
before restarting, the old server snapshots eligible running child
processes, the new server reports adopted/finalized/lost runs, and
adopted live runs are not reaped as `process_lost`.
- Steps to reproduce: restart a server with running local child-process
heartbeat runs without the marker/adoption path; startup orphan reaping
has no adoption metadata and treats live detached children as lost.
- Paperclip version/commit: fixed on top of `master` at `b606869a6`.
- Deployment mode: production/local-service style deployments that
rebuild and restart the primary `paperclip.service`.
- Related PR: Refs #9628. This PR intentionally lands a smaller
deploy-safe subset because #9628 is currently merge-conflicted.
- Duplicate search: searched public PRs/issues for `hot restart` and
`process_lost adoption`; #9628 is the directly related prior
implementation.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/request-hot-restart.ts` to write a one-shot hot-restart
intent marker under `PAPERCLIP_HOME`.
- Added `server/src/services/hot-restart.ts` for intent/report path
resolution, parsing, atomic writes, shutdown snapshots, and marker
cleanup.
- Wired server shutdown/startup so explicit hot restarts snapshot active
runs, skip the normal heartbeat drain, reconcile live child processes on
boot, and write `hot-restart-report.json`.
- Preserved adopted run metadata so normal orphan reaping does not
regress adopted live runs to `process_lost`.
- Added `serverVersion` health proof alongside existing `version`, plus
docs and regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 2 files
passed, 100 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `env PAPERCLIP_HOME="$PAPERCLIP_RUN_SCRATCH_DIR/hot-restart-cli-smoke"
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx
../scripts/request-hot-restart.ts --server-pid 12345`
- Branch ancestry checked after `git fetch origin master`:
`origin/master` was `b606869a6`, and `HEAD..origin/master` was empty.
## Risks
- Medium risk: process adoption depends on PID/PGID metadata and the
service manager leaving child processes alive for the guarded restart.
- Normal restarts remain conservative, but an incorrect marker PID
intentionally falls back to graceful drain instead of adoption.
- The PR is server-only and does not include the broader
UI/experimental-setting work from #9628.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex coding agent in a Paperclip execution
workspace; tool use and shell/code execution enabled; context window not
surfaced by this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Heartbeat recovery keeps assigned issues moving when a run or
continuation path disappears
> - Accepted issue-thread interactions can create a continuation wake
after an agent previously parked for review
> - The recovery sweep could requeue that accepted-interaction wake
while the queued-run gate cancelled it using the older pre-acceptance
park summary
> - That cancellation path had no bound, so recovery could repeat the
same wake and cancellation indefinitely
> - This pull request makes accepted-interaction evidence supersede the
older park and caps repeated recovery cancellations at three attempts
> - The benefit is that accepted work resumes normally, while genuine
repeated failures become a visible dependency wait or escalation instead
of a cancel loop
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9331
The accepted-interaction continuation recovery added by #9331 can
encounter a stale continuation summary written before approval. The
sweep requeues a continuation carrying the accepted interaction
timestamp, but queued-run invalidation cancels it because the older
summary says to wait for review. Recovery then sees the accepted
interaction without a successful run and requeues again. This PR
prevents that stale-summary cancellation and adds a bounded fallback if
three equivalent cancellations have already occurred.
## What Changed
- Let queued continuation wakes with a parseable `interactionResolvedAt`
bypass a pre-acceptance waiting-for-review park summary.
- Count consecutive unsuccessful continuation runs for the same issue
and agent since interaction acceptance; after three review-park
cancellations, convert a real dependency wait or use the existing
visible escalation path.
- Add focused regression coverage for the park bypass, unchanged
non-interaction park behavior, below-cap requeue, cap escalation, and
successful-run skip.
- Document the accepted-interaction precedence and bounded requeue
contract in execution semantics §9.2.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "accepted
interaction continuation recovery|accepted interaction recovery after
its continuation succeeds|requeues accepted interaction continuations
stranded"`
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts -t
"pre-acceptance review park|continuation summary parks executor work"`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
## Risks
- Low risk: the park bypass only applies when the queued context
contains a parseable interaction resolution timestamp.
- The retry bound is scoped to unsuccessful `issue_continuation_needed`
runs for the same company, issue, agent, error code, and post-acceptance
time window.
- No schema, migration, API, or UI changes.
> 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-5.5`, high-reasoning coding mode
with repository tool use and command execution; context-window size was
not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [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 `/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 is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI agents and their work.
> - Its server recovery layer classifies blocked issue graphs and
restores interrupted heartbeat execution.
> - A dependent issue could remain dispatch-suppressed by a cancelled
blocker without producing operator-visible attention when the dependent
still displayed as todo or backlog.
> - Separately, a monitor-triggered run that lost its process before
disposition could consume the monitor's one-shot wake without scheduling
the existing bounded continuation.
> - Both gaps strand useful work even though Paperclip already has the
relevant blocker-attention and process-loss recovery mechanisms.
> - This pull request widens the existing classification path and reuses
the single process-loss retry for monitor dispatches with no future
wake.
> - The benefit is visible, routable recovery without weakening
dependency checkout rules or introducing an unbounded retry loop.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public GitHub issue or pull request was found.
### What happened?
Two server recovery cases could leave work stranded:
1. A non-terminal, agent-assigned issue with an unresolved cancelled
blocker remained ineligible for checkout, but blocked-chain liveness
classification only inspected issues already displaying `blocked` or
`in_review`, so the existing `blocked_by_cancelled_issue` attention was
not surfaced.
2. A one-shot issue monitor cleared its next check when dispatched. If
that monitor-triggered run ended as `process_lost` without a tracked
local child, the existing bounded retry gate rejected it and no future
monitor wake remained.
### Expected behavior
- Cancelled blockers continue to be unresolved dependencies, and their
dependents receive blocker attention regardless of whether the dependent
currently displays as backlog, todo, blocked, or in review.
- A monitor-triggered run lost before disposition receives exactly one
bounded continuation when no future monitor check exists; a second loss
follows the normal recovery-action escalation path.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create an agent-assigned todo issue blocked by a cancelled issue and
run issue-graph liveness classification.
2. Observe that no cancelled-blocker finding appears before this change.
3. Dispatch a due issue monitor, clear its one-shot
`monitorNextCheckAt`, and mark the resulting untracked run
`process_lost`.
4. Observe that no retry is queued before this change.
### Environment
- Paperclip commit: `3e348b96b`
- Deployment: built from source / local test environment
- Adapter: not adapter-specific; core server recovery
- Database: embedded test database
## What Changed
- Inspect non-terminal, agent-assigned issues with unresolved blocker
edges during blocked-chain liveness classification.
- Include cancelled dependents in the existing blocked-inbox attention
query while preserving company-scoped relation checks.
- Allow monitor-triggered `process_lost` runs with no future monitor
wake to use the existing single bounded retry.
- Mark monitor recovery retries as continuation-needed context and
retain the existing second-loss escalation behavior.
- Document cancelled-blocker and monitor-dispatch recovery semantics.
- Add focused regressions for liveness findings, attention propagation,
one retry, and second-loss escalation.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts` — 3 files, 126 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk and server-only. The liveness scan inspects more unresolved
dependency shapes, which can produce additional existing attention
entries for previously invisible cancelled blockers.
- Monitor recovery remains bounded by `processLossRetryCount < 1`, and
the extra path only applies when the dispatch was monitor-triggered and
no future monitor check exists.
- No schema, migration, authorization, API-contract, or UI changes.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI `gpt-5.4` through Codex CLI, with reasoning, repository tool
use, command execution, and test execution capabilities.
## 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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 8/8 and focuses on end-to-end coverage,
operator docs, evals, and release notes
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The complete stack needs discoverable browser scenarios,
operator guidance, threat modeling, eval coverage, and a parity proof
before merge.
- Proposed solution: Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites,
docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver
script registration.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/07-ui-apps-activation`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for flag audit and e2e/browser acceptance;
Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release
notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `node --check scripts/e2e-mcp-user-stories.mjs`
- `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
--list` — 43 tests discovered
- `git diff pap10341-split/08-e2e-docs
6b40e3876d9297105d4ec306e47e46d351c86172` — empty (0 bytes)
## Risks
- Browser suites depend on runtime services and environment setup; this
PR validates discovery locally while QA owns full flag-on/flag-off
execution.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 7/8 and focuses on Apps/Gateways UI and
feature-flagged activation
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The standalone UI foundation needs feature-flagged routes,
navigation, app detail flows, gateways, Storybook scenarios, and QA
configuration.
- Proposed solution: Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components,
navigation/route activation, remaining page integrations, Storybook
stories, and QA Vite configuration.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is
`pap10341-split/06-ui-tools-foundation`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: UXDesigner sanity pass on Apps/Gateways flows and
flag-off behavior; Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components, navigation/route activation,
remaining page integrations, Storybook stories, and QA Vite
configuration.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean
- Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 17 files, 147 tests
passed
## Risks
- Navigation or flag regressions could expose incomplete experiences;
activation remains controlled by existing experimental settings.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
## UI Evidence
QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and
verified clean rendering:
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 6/8 and focuses on UI API, shared
components, and Tools/Profile surfaces
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: Operators need typed clients and administration surfaces that
compile independently before navigation exposes them.
- Proposed solution: Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components,
Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the
new company-scoped API.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is
`pap10341-split/05-runtime-integration`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: UXDesigner sanity pass on Tools/Profile surfaces;
Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles
pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new
company-scoped API.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean
- Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 28 files, 183 tests
passed
## Risks
- Large dead-code UI additions can drift from activation routes; PR 7
supplies the registration layer and top-level parity catches omissions.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
## UI Evidence
QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and
verified clean rendering:
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI
agents for work.
> - Local coding adapters currently spawn their CLI processes directly
on the Paperclip host.
> - CLI-native approval and sandbox flags do not provide a reliable host
filesystem or network boundary.
> - An agent can therefore inspect unrelated host files or fetch
external material when an operator needs stronger isolation.
> - The confinement must stay opt-in so existing local adapter behavior
does not change unexpectedly.
> - This pull request adds a shared Linux Bubblewrap spawn layer for
workspace filesystem and deny/allowlist network scopes.
> - The benefit is enforceable defense in depth around Codex and Claude
local runs while preserving explicit provider connectivity.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### What happened?
`codex_local` and `claude_local` processes could read arbitrary host
paths and make unrestricted outbound network requests because Paperclip
did not impose a spawn-level boundary.
### Expected behavior
Operators can opt into a workspace-only filesystem view and either deny
network egress or allow exact provider/API hosts, independently of CLI
approval flags.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Run current `master` on Linux and configure a Codex or Claude local
adapter.
2. Ask the agent to read a canary file outside its active workspace.
3. Ask the agent to `curl` a public host.
4. Observe that both operations succeed without a Paperclip-level
confinement option.
### Environment
- Paperclip commit: `c36f1a4af` / current `master` base.
- Deployment mode: Linux local dev or self-hosted server.
- Installation: built from source.
- Adapters: Codex and Claude Code.
- Database: not related.
## What Changed
- Added a shared Bubblewrap process wrapper with opt-in
`filesystemScope: "workspace"`, managed/extra path mounts, private
`/tmp`, and Linux-only validation.
- Added `networkScope: "deny" | "allowlist"`; both use a private network
namespace, while allowlist mode exposes an exact-host HTTP(S) proxy over
a Unix-socket bridge.
- Wired Codex and Claude local CLI execution through the wrapper and
forced scoped auto runs onto the CLI lane because ACP processes are not
covered.
- Added unit and gated Bubblewrap canaries for outside-file denial,
workspace writes, direct network denial, allowlisted forwarding, and
rejected destinations.
- Documented both scopes, provider allowlist examples, Bubblewrap
requirements, and default-off behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/local-process-sandbox.test.ts
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts` — 34 passed, 4
gated Bubblewrap tests skipped by default.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local build`
- Attempted the gated tests with a vendored Bubblewrap binary; this
container blocks unprivileged namespace setup (`setting up uid map:
Permission denied` / loopback `RTM_NEWADDR: Operation not permitted`),
so kernel-level execution remains for CI or a namespace-enabled Linux
host.
## Risks
- Bubblewrap must be installed and unprivileged user/mount/network
namespaces must be enabled on the host; scoped runs fail clearly if the
prerequisite is missing.
- Allowlist mode depends on the coding CLI honoring standard
`HTTP_PROXY` / `HTTPS_PROXY` variables; custom providers must list every
required exact hostname and port.
- Exact-host allowlists intentionally reject wildcards, which is safer
but may require operators to enumerate multi-host provider setups.
- No behavior changes unless an operator enables `filesystemScope` or
`networkScope`.
> This aligns with the ROADMAP direction toward safer remote and
sandboxed agent environments and does not duplicate an open PR or issue
found in the repository search.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 (`gpt-5.5`) via Codex CLI, with reasoning, repository
tool use, shell execution, code editing, and test execution. The serving
context-window size is not exposed to the agent.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - It emits telemetry events to understand product usage — registered
event names are gated by a generated `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` registry so the
client only enqueues known, schema-approved events
> - When product teams want to instrument a new behaviour, they must
first register the event name — but schema registration is a
commit-and-release cycle, which creates friction in fast-moving product
iterations
> - A proposal lane is needed: let developers mark a `track()` call with
a typed `@ts-expect-error` proposal marker so the event name can be
reviewed and tracked in CI before the schema is formally registered
> - The existing client had no guard against unregistered event names,
so any call with an out-of-registry name (or a prototype-inherited key)
would silently enter the queue, state, and network flush path
> - This PR adds an `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard
at the entry point of `track()` to swallow unregistered calls before any
side effects, adds `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs` to scan source
for proposal markers and emit a v2 JSON manifest with provenance and
rationale, and documents the complete proposal workflow
> - The benefit is that new instrumentation can be proposed and reviewed
in code without touching the registered schema, and tooling can surface
missing rationale before events graduate to stable
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing GitHub issue covers this change. This PR introduces a new
feature.
**Feature motivation:** Paperclip's telemetry schema is intentionally
stable — registered event names are code-generated and gated. Product
engineers who want to instrument a new behaviour today must land a
schema change first, creating a two-step process that slows iteration. A
proposal lane lets developers write the instrumentation call ahead of
schema registration, protected by a compile-time `@ts-expect-error`
marker that an extractor script can surface for review. This PR
implements both the client-side safety gate and the extraction tooling.
Refs: #9518 (closed predecessor — docs-only; this PR supersedes it with
the full implementation)
## What Changed
- Added `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard at the top of
`TelemetryClient.track()`: unregistered event names (including
prototype-inherited keys) are now swallowed before any state, queue, or
network operation
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs`: scans TypeScript source
for `@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(<issue>): <rationale>`
markers; emits a v2 JSON manifest per proposed event including name,
rationale, provenance (repo-relative file + line), and a
`rationale_missing` flag for CI enforcement
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs`: test suite covering
marker parsing, multi-line markers, path validation, out-of-repo
rejection, and the v2 schema output contract
- Added `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`: documents the proposal workflow,
the canonical multi-line marker example, rationale requirements, and how
to graduate a proposed event to stable schema
- Updated `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`: added "Proposed
Events" section to the Telemetry Data Contract per the contributing
guide requirement for telemetry changes
## Verification
Run all of the following from the repo root:
```sh
# Extractor unit tests
node --test scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs
# Telemetry client + types tests
pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts \
src/telemetry/client.test.ts src/telemetry/client-types.test.ts \
--reporter=verbose
# (run from packages/shared)
# Type-check
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck
# Smoke-run the extractor in local-test mode
node scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs --ref local-test
```
All four commands pass locally.
## Risks
- **Silent drop on unregistered events:** The `Object.hasOwn` guard
fails closed — any event name not in `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` is silently
dropped. If the generated registry is missing an event that was
previously tracked, those calls will be silently lost. Mitigation: the
extractor script surfaces proposed events that need registration; the
TypeScript type system already enforces `TelemetryEventName ⊆
PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` at compile time.
- **Extractor is read-only:** `extract-proposed-events.mjs` reads source
and emits JSON; it does not modify any files. No runtime or schema risk.
- Overall risk: **low**. The guard is additive and defensive; the
extractor and docs are additive only.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6`
- Context window: 200 K tokens
- Capabilities: tool use, extended context, code generation
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The heartbeat/recovery subsystem decides whether an agent run has a
durable continuation path after the process stops.
> - External waits need stricter semantics than local background
watchers: a killed local process is not durable, while a first-class
blocker/monitor/scheduled wake is.
> - Without that distinction, recovery can repeatedly treat
adapter-failed continuations as live work and obscure the real reason a
task stopped.
> - This pull request adds explicit durable external-wait liveness
handling and documents the expected execution semantics.
> - It also improves operator-visible recovery evidence so invalid
external-wait paths explain why they were rejected.
> - The benefit is clearer recovery behavior, fewer duplicate
continuation recoveries, and a safer contract for monitor-backed
external waits.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #5978
- Related PRs: #4988, #7495, #8502
## What Changed
- Added durable external-wait liveness classification so
local/background watchers are not accepted as durable live paths after
the owning process exits.
- Preserved first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake paths as valid
external-wait continuations.
- Added backend regression coverage for killed watcher failure,
monitor-backed durable wait resumption, normal completion, blocker
behavior, and no duplicate recovery.
- Added adapter utility coverage for terminal cleanup behavior used by
local process adapters.
- Surfaced invalid external-wait recovery evidence in the recovery
action card and run ledger.
- Updated execution semantics documentation and the V1 implementation
contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-server` equivalent lane passed in CI-clean env: 238 files, 2164
tests passed, 1 skipped.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-a` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: UI 305
files / 2430 tests; CLI 43 files / 230 tests.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-b` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env:
shared/db/adapters/plugin packages all green.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized` passed in fully
Paperclip-env-clean env: 107 serialized server suites green, including
84/84 heartbeat-process-recovery tests.
- `pnpm build` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env.
Notes: running `pnpm test:run` directly inside the Paperclip heartbeat
environment exposed local harness env contamination in existing tests
(`PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_DB_BACKUP_DIR`, and
`PAPERCLIP_WORKTREE_START_POINT`). Re-running the same lanes with
inherited `PAPERCLIP_*` and port env removed produced the CI-equivalent
green results above.
## Risks
- Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery classification for
stopped local external-wait processes, so adapters relying on unmanaged
background watchers must use blockers, monitors, scheduled wakes, or
explicit durable handoff instead.
- Low UI risk: recovery-card copy changes are covered by component tests
and Storybook screenshot QA.
- No database migration is included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/code
execution. Exact context-window metadata was not exposed in the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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>
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.
> - Operators need first-party agent capabilities for repeatable company
work, not just manually created one-off agents.
> - Built-in agents need to behave like normal company-scoped agents
while preserving approval gates, permissions, budgets, and audit trails.
> - Reflection and coaching work also needs bundled instructions, skill
content, and a routine so the feature can be installed and reset
predictably.
> - The API, database, UI, portability, and tests all need to agree on
the built-in lifecycle from not provisioned through setup, approval,
ready, paused, and reset.
> - This pull request adds built-in agent provisioning and the
Reflection Coach bundle end-to-end.
> - The benefit is a safer first-party path for Paperclip-managed agents
without bypassing the same governance model used for operator-created
agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this exact built-in agent and
Reflection Coach bundle work.
Problem/motivation:
- Paperclip did not have a first-party built-in agent lifecycle for
product-owned agents.
- Bundled agent resources such as default instructions, skills, and
routines needed managed ownership and reset semantics.
- Approval-gated companies needed built-in setup to preserve requested
adapter, budget, manager, and permission state through board approval.
- The board UI needed clear built-in badges, setup affordances,
readiness state, and bundle status without exposing secrets.
Proposed solution:
- Add a company-scoped built-in agent registry,
provisioning/reset/reconcile/status APIs, and Reflection Coach bundled
resources.
- Track bundled managed resources in the database with idempotent
migration behavior.
- Reuse existing agent approval, authorization, budget, and activity-log
paths instead of creating a bypass.
- Add UI setup, badges, gates, bundle panels, and route coverage for
built-in agents.
Duplicate search:
- Searched GitHub PRs for `built-in agents Reflection Coach
repo:paperclipai/paperclip`; only this PR was returned.
- Searched GitHub issues for the same query; no public issues were
returned.
## What Changed
- Added built-in agent definitions, lifecycle state derivation,
provisioning, reset, reconcile, status, and routine-control routes.
- Added the `built_in_managed_resources` migration and schema exports
for bundled instructions, skill, and routine ownership.
- Added the Reflection Coach built-in bundle with default instructions,
skill catalog content, routine template, default permissions, and
managed-resource drift handling.
- Added approval-aware provisioning behavior that preserves requested
adapter config, budgets, manager assignment, and built-in permissions
through hire approval.
- Added authorization and mutation gates for built-in agent and skill
changes, including consented Reflection Coach change paths.
- Added UI surfaces for built-in agent setup, roster/detail badges,
readiness gates, bundle status, routine controls, and route filtering.
- Added company import/export and validator coverage for built-in
managed resources and low-trust/red-team presets.
- Addressed Greptile follow-ups for pending approval reconciliation,
consent-gate error propagation, config-read authorization fallback,
approval-path manager preservation, and non-model adapter provisioning.
## Verification
Local verification:
- `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed with all gates clean.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 4
tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/components/BuiltInAgentGate.test.tsx
ui/src/components/ConfigureBuiltInAgentModal.test.tsx
ui/src/components/BuiltInBundlePanel.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 64 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts
src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` passed: 3 files, 91 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after the rebase; `pnpm --filter ui
typecheck` passed after the final UI review fix.
Remote verification on latest head
`1c61f693a4ec881d739022b0e75a8ca8bf8c2cd8`:
- Merge state: `CLEAN`.
- Greptile: `5/5`, zero unresolved Greptile threads.
- PR check rollup: all checks successful, neutral, or skipped as
expected.
- Passing gates include Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, all server
shards, all workspace shards, all serialized server suites, e2e, Canary
Dry Run, policy, review, verify, Socket, Superagent, and Snyk.
## Risks
- This adds a new managed-resource table and migration; the migration
uses idempotent create/add/index guards and passed migration safety
checks.
- Built-in agent provisioning touches approval and authorization paths;
tests cover pending approval preservation, stale retry rejection,
consent gates, and config-read fallback behavior.
- Reflection Coach creates managed instructions, skill, and routine
resources; drift/reset behavior is covered by service tests and redacted
API responses.
- Non-model adapter setup now provisions a `needs_setup` built-in row
before command/endpoint fields are complete; this matches the server
lifecycle and is covered by the setup modal regression test.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5. Exact hosted model ID,
context-window size, and reasoning-mode labels are not exposed in this
runtime; tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI/API access, and local
code editing 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's UI is governed by the design system merged in #9134 and
the component convergence in #9240 — one Card, one Badge, one nav row,
one `IssueRow`, a single multiplicative radius ladder.
> - With those primitives in place, the remaining rough edges were
interaction and alignment details on the surfaces people use every day:
the inbox, the task list, the sidebar, and the routine/task detail
pages.
> - Each item here was reported from live use and fixed against a
running instance, then verified by measurement (pixel alignment, frame
timing) rather than by eye alone.
> - The result is that the inbox and task lists now behave as one system
(same hover, keyboard nav, tree-guide, and archive language), list
nesting reads correctly, list hover is smooth, and the routine detail
page scrolls and aligns like the rest of the app.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work; describing per the feature
template.
- **Problem**: after the design-system foundation (#9134) and component
convergence (#9240), the inbox/task lists still had interaction and
alignment gaps — hover lag on long lists, keyboard navigation that only
partly matched between the two lists, workspace/parent nesting whose
guides and chevrons didn't line up, an inbox that sat offset from the
task list, and a routine detail page with an odd double-scroll and a
bespoke sub-nav.
- **Proposed behavior**: the inbox and task lists share one interaction
contract (hover, keyboard nav, collapse, archive), list nesting aligns
to the status column with clean chevrons, list hover is CSS-only (no
per-hover re-render), and the routine detail page uses a fixed
header/sub-nav with a single scrolling content region and a sub-nav that
matches the primary nav.
## What Changed
- **List hover performance**: hover is now painted purely by CSS
`:hover` and records the hovered row in a ref, instead of writing
list-selection state on every `mouseenter` (which re-rendered 100–300
non-memoized rows per hover). Keyboard nav reads the ref so it still
continues from the hovered row; the keyboard band clears on the first
real mouse move so hover and keyboard selection never show two bands at
once. The row's `transition-colors` fade was removed so the highlight
snaps (no comet-tail). Measured on a 100-row scrub: worst frame **333 ms
→ 33 ms**, long frames (>50 ms) **12 → 0**, avg **41 → 60 fps**.
- **Inbox ↔ task-list parity**: keyboard navigation works on every inbox
tab (archive/read keys stay scoped to the archivable tab); group headers
and parent tasks collapse/expand with the arrow keys in both lists; the
task list gains the same j/k / arrows / Enter selection model as the
inbox; hover selection bands match; the `g` then `i` go-to-inbox chord
works app-wide.
- **List nesting & alignment**: the workspace group-header chevron lines
up exactly with the task chevrons below it (both lists); the
parent→child connector line drops from under the parent's **status
icon** rather than its chevron and breaks with a 14px gap around a
nested row's own chevron; and inbox rows line up with the task list
(read rows no longer reserve a mark-read column).
- **Inbox archive affordance**: moved from a bare `x` left of the status
icon to an `Archive` icon + label button on the right (before the
timestamp), revealed on row hover; the left slot now carries only the
unread dot; swipe-to-archive is unchanged.
- **Sidebar**: when no agent has a live run, the AGENTS section shows 3
recent agents (was 5) plus "See all agents"; the working-agents view is
unchanged.
- **Routine detail page**: the layout is bounded to the main scroll area
so the header (Run now + automation toggle) and the sub-nav stay fixed
and only the section content scrolls (was a page-level scroll competing
with a `sticky` sub-nav). The sub-nav items adopt the primary nav's
rhythm — row padding/height, inset rounded pill, type scale, and 16px
icons — and its background matches the main nav.
- **Task detail**: dropped the redundant `🔵` prefix the breadcrumb added
for live/in-progress tasks; the status glyph already conveys that state.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN
- `pnpm typecheck` → green (all packages)
- `cd ui && npx vitest run` → 2255/2255 (assertions updated in lockstep
where behavior changed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` → exit 0
- Storybook visual regression: run locally throughout (the
baseline-manifest archive is still unpublished, so CI cannot run this
suite — pre-existing condition from #9134). Every visible delta was
reviewed against a live instance and, where it was intentional (nesting
alignment, routine sub-nav restyle, unread-row shift), the affected
snapshots were re-baselined locally.
- Manual/measured: inbox + task lists (grouped and nested, light +
dark), hover-scrub frame timing, keyboard navigation, and the routine
detail scroll/alignment were exercised on a running instance.
## Risks
- Behavior-and-alignment changes concentrated in `IssueRow` /
`IssuesList` / `Inbox` (the shared task-row surfaces). The riskiest area
— the hover/keyboard-selection model — is covered by unit tests (updated
in lockstep) and was measured and driven live.
- The routine detail scroll change restructures that page's layout
container; verified the page's own scroll stays fixed while only the
section content scrolls.
- The visual suite cannot yet run in CI (unpublished baseline archive —
pre-existing); snapshot coverage is local-only until that lands.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — agentic
coding with tool use (file editing, test execution, Playwright
measurement/screenshot verification); extended thinking 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Adapter packages are the bridge between the control plane and local
agent harnesses such as Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI.
> - ACP support was concentrated in a separate `acpx_local` adapter,
which made ACP feel like a separate agent choice instead of an execution
capability of the harness adapters.
> - Claude, Codex, and Gemini now have ACP-capable harnesses, so the
native adapter should own ACP selection, fallback, config, transcript
parsing, and environment diagnostics.
> - The standalone ACPX adapter still needs a compatibility path for
existing rows, but it should not be offered as an active adapter for new
agents.
> - This pull request moves the shared ACP runtime into
`@paperclipai/acpx-engine`, wires Claude/Codex/Gemini local adapters to
prefer ACP when prerequisites are available, and retires `acpx_local` to
a tombstone.
> - The benefit is one adapter per harness, richer ACP transcripts by
default where possible, and a migration path for existing Claude/Codex
ACPX agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Closes#5932 — the broken default `acpx_local` Claude path is replaced
by native `claude_local` ACP support, existing Claude/Codex ACPX rows
migrate to native adapters, and new agents no longer choose the
standalone ACPX adapter.
Refs #4893 — original merged ACPX local adapter runtime that this PR
replaces with native per-harness ACP engines.
Refs #6590 — prior ACPX-Claude seamlessness work folded into the new
native Claude ACP path.
Refs #197 — related open generic ACP/Kiro adapter work; this PR does not
close it because Kiro/custom generic ACP remains a separate adapter
decision.
Refs #7018 — related Kimi-specific `acpx_local` shell failure; this PR
retires the built-in standalone adapter but does not add a native Kimi
adapter.
Refs #8864 — related ACPX prompt/API guidance PR; this PR moves runtime
guidance into the shared/native ACP engine path instead of the old
standalone adapter.
Refs #8881 — related `acpx_local` POSIX shell failure from the old
`acpx` pin; this PR updates ACP dependencies but does not claim
custom/OMP ACP support as a first-class native adapter.
Refs #8964 — related open `acpx_local` stderr cleanup PR; this PR makes
the old runtime path obsolete for new agents but keeps it as a
non-closing reference.
Problem description:
- The standalone `acpx_local` adapter duplicates Claude/Codex agent
choices that already have first-class local adapters.
- ACP should be an execution engine capability of each harness adapter
when the underlying harness supports ACP.
- Existing `acpx_local` agents should either migrate to native harness
adapters or fail with an explicit retirement message instead of silently
falling back to the process adapter.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/acpx-engine` as the shared ACP execution,
session-codec, CLI formatter, and UI parser package.
- Wired `claude_local`, `codex_local`, and `gemini_local` to auto-select
ACP by default when prerequisites pass, with `engine=cli` opt-out and
`engine=acp` strict mode.
- Added ACP config schema/UI fields, environment checks, session-codec
preservation, transcript parsing, and adapter capability metadata for
the native adapters.
- Retired `acpx_local` to a server tombstone, removed its
UI/package/runtime image surface, and added a migration for existing
Claude/Codex ACPX agents.
- Updated package manifests, lockfile, release tooling, docs, Kubernetes
sandbox defaults, and tests.
## Verification
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/acpx-engine typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-gemini-local typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/acpx-engine exec vitest run`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local exec vitest
run src/server/acp.test.ts src/server/execute.acp-fallback.test.ts
src/ui/build-config.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local exec vitest
run src/server/acp.test.ts src/ui/build-config.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-gemini-local exec vitest
run src/server/acp.test.ts src/ui/build-config.test.ts
src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps &&
corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/adapter-session-codecs.test.ts
src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/adapters/metadata.test.ts
src/adapters/adapter-display-registry.test.ts
src/components/AgentConfigForm.test.ts
src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx
src/components/transcript/RunTranscriptView.test.tsx`
- `node --test scripts/bootstrap-npm-package.test.mjs
scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs
scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs`
Note: the server typecheck script calls `pnpm` internally; this dev
shell exposes pnpm through Corepack only, so I ran the two script steps
manually with `corepack pnpm`.
## Risks
- Migration changes existing `acpx_local` Claude/Codex agents to native
adapter types and clears old ACPX task sessions/runtime state.
- Custom ACP commands remain on the retired tombstone and will need a
separate future adapter/plugin path.
- ACP auto-selection depends on local Node and ACP server command
prerequisites; remote and unsupported environments fall back to CLI
unless `engine=acp` is explicit.
- `@paperclipai/acpx-engine` is a new public package and needs npm
trusted-publishing bootstrap before release automation can publish it.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex coding agent. Exact hosted model build and
context-window size are not exposed in this runtime. Tool use included
shell execution, repository editing, GitHub CLI operations, and local
test/typecheck execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Its UI is governed by a design system (`DESIGN.md` + the token layer
in `ui/src/index.css`, merged in #9134) whose first principle is "one
way to say each thing" — one Card, one Badge, one nav row
> - After the token extraction landed, ~35 files still hand-rolled card
containers, ~45 files hand-rolled pill spans, the sidebar agents section
duplicated the nav-row chrome, and the inbox and tasks lists rendered
the same task rows two subtly different ways
> - Each divergence is a place where a future design change (radius,
hover language, status vocabulary) silently misses surfaces, defeating
the "edit tokens + run checks" model the design system exists for
> - This pull request converges those surfaces onto the shared
primitives, codifies the radius scale as the modern multiplicative
shadcn ladder, and unifies the row/hover/tree-guide language across the
inbox and tasks lists — every visible delta was human-reviewed
screen-by-screen against a live instance across nine feedback rounds
> - The benefit is that the app's look is now steerable from single
knobs (one `--radius` anchor, one Card, one Badge, one row component),
and the visual regression suite covers the result (514 snapshots
including a new AgentDetail page story)
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work; describing per the feature
template:
- **Problem**: after the design-token foundation (#9134),
component-level drift remained — hand-rolled cards/pills, duplicated
sidebar row chrome, and two different renderings of task rows (inbox vs
tasks list) meant design changes had to be applied per-surface and
frequently missed spots (e.g. status glyphs rendered 16px in the inbox
but 20px in the tasks list because a slot override silently beat the
component default).
- **Proposed behavior**: all card-shaped containers render via `Card`,
all label pills via `Badge`, sidebar rows via `SidebarNavItem`, and both
task-list surfaces via one `IssueRow` configuration; the radius scale is
a single multiplicative ladder anchored at `--radius: 0.5rem`.
- **Alternatives considered**: converting interactive
`<button>`/`<Link>` cards to `Card` divs (rejected — breaks semantics;
documented inline with `design-allow` comments instead); keeping the
legacy additive radius ladder (rejected in favor of the standard shadcn
multiplicative mapping).
## What Changed
- `Card` adoption across ~35 files (settings pages, auth/board flows,
dashboards, list containers, KPI tiles); non-adoptable sites
(interactive cards, `<li>` rows, class-string props, chart tooltip)
carry documented `design-allow(card-pattern)` comments
- `Card` gains an `interactive` prop — one quiet hover affordance for
clickable cards (cursor, border darken, shadow lift, focus ring),
applied to skills tiles, artifact cards, and the company selector; cards
carry no resting shadow
- `Badge` adoption for 113 hand-rolled pill spans across ~45 files;
`PropertyChip` wraps `Badge` internally; `StatusBadge`, external-object
chips, and match chips stay bespoke by documented decision (WCAG-tuned
status mechanics)
- Radius ladder becomes the multiplicative shadcn mapping
(`sm/md/lg/xl/2xl/3xl/4xl = 0.6/0.8/1.0/1.4/1.8/2.2/2.6 × --radius`,
anchor `0.5rem`); every card surface unifies on `rounded-lg`; the
orphaned 8px literal token is deleted
- Sidebar: agent rows render via `SidebarNavItem` (new additive props:
`iconNode`, `active`, `trailing`, `liveAccessory`); live dots use
`--status-agent-running`; one row rhythm and inset rounded pill
highlight; right-aligned trailing badges; every labeled section is
collapsible
- Inbox + tasks lists unified: md status glyphs, `accent/50` rounded row
hovers, vertical tree guides under parent rows (opaque underlay so
dark-mode translucent borders don't stack), no horizontal dividers under
expanded parents; the swipe-to-archive reveal layer shows only
mid-swipe; board toggle uses the `SquareKanban` glyph
- Kanban: every column carries a status-hued tint; lanes default
expanded (including empty); compact mode collapses empty lanes to
labeled rails (fixes a clipped, label-less empty-column state)
- Storybook: new AgentDetail page story (realistic fixtures, light+dark)
joins the visual suite; suite captures with `reducedMotion: 'reduce'`
and the ux-lab reasoning ticker honors `prefers-reduced-motion`; a stale
lexical alias in `storybook/main.ts` is fixed (build was broken since
the lexical 0.46 bump)
- Keyboard navigation, from live review of the unified lists: inbox
navigation keys work on every tab (archive keys stay scoped to the
archivable tab); keyboard-driven scrolling no longer hands the selection
to whatever row lands under the stationary cursor (hover selects only
after real pointer movement); the tasks list view gains the same j/k /
arrows / Enter selection model as the inbox; and the `g` then `i`
go-to-inbox chord works app-wide instead of only on the issue detail
page
- Token gates restored to 3/3 CLEAN (tokenized a post-#9134 regression
in the recovery card); decisions recorded in
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` and `doc/design/COMPONENT-INVENTORY.md`
(investigation verdicts: FileTree vs WorkspaceFileBrowser and the four
entity pickers stay separate — evidence included)
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN
- `pnpm typecheck` → green (all packages)
- `cd ui && npx vitest run` → 2106/2106 (assertions updated in lockstep
where they documented superseded decisions; new tests for the global
go-to-inbox chord)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` → exit 0
- `pnpm build-storybook` → succeeds (also fixes the lexical-alias break
on master)
- Visual regression: 514-snapshot Playwright suite green against the
updated baseline (zero diffs from the keyboard-navigation round — those
changes are purely behavioral). Note: baselines live outside git per the
suite design and the baseline-manifest archive is not yet published, so
CI cannot run this suite — it was run locally throughout; every visible
delta was reviewed screen-by-screen in a live instance across nine
review rounds. Review evidence (before/after triplets) intentionally
kept out of the repo for size; available on request.
- Manual: exercised dashboard, tasks (list + board), inbox, agents,
skills, costs, settings, and artifact surfaces in light and dark themes
## Risks
- Wide but shallow visual surface: most changes are class-string
substitutions with behavior preserved (props, handlers, roles, test
ids). The riskiest areas — dnd-kit card refs (React 19 ref-as-prop),
inbox swipe-to-archive, and sidebar overlays — are covered by existing
unit tests (all green) and were manually exercised.
- Intentional visual deltas (rounded cards, tinted kanban columns, md
status glyphs, unified hovers) are design decisions recorded in
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`; each maps to a re-baselined snapshot set
locally.
- The visual suite cannot yet run in CI (unpublished baseline archive —
pre-existing condition from #9134); until that lands, snapshot coverage
is local-only.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — agentic
coding with tool use (file editing, test execution, Playwright
screenshot verification); extended thinking 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (will confirm once CI runs)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending first review)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Storybook visual baselines protect UI surfaces from unintended
visual drift.
> - Pixel-perfect screenshot baselines are sensitive to OS, font
rasterization, and browser environment.
> - The suite already stores external baseline artifacts and has an
opt-in CI path.
> - Local runs on non-matching platforms can report false-positive diffs
unless the platform lock is explicit.
> - This pull request documents the Linux/Ubuntu baseline constraint and
makes the local static server port explicit.
> - The benefit is clearer visual-review guidance and more predictable
Playwright web server startup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists.
### What happened?
The Storybook visual baseline suite requires a matching Linux capture
environment for pixel-exact comparisons, but the docs did not clearly
warn local users that non-Linux environments can produce false-positive
diffs. The Playwright web server command also relied on the static
server's default port instead of passing the configured port explicitly.
### Expected behavior
Developers should see clear Linux/Ubuntu baseline guidance before
running the visual suite locally, and Playwright should start the
Storybook static server on the same explicit port that the test config
expects.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Review the Storybook visual docs before this PR.
2. Run or inspect the Storybook visual Playwright config.
3. Notice the missing platform guidance and implicit static server port
coupling.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproducible on `master` before this branch.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (pnpm dev) / built from source.
## What Changed
- Documents the Linux/Ubuntu-only baseline limitation in the developer
docs and visual-suite README.
- Adds `--port` parsing and validation to the Storybook static server
helper.
- Adds regression coverage for `--port` followed by another flag.
- Passes the Playwright web server port explicitly from the Storybook
visual config.
## Verification
- Passed: `node --check scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs`
- Passed: `node --test
scripts/__tests__/serve-storybook-static.test.mjs`
- Passed: `node --test
scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs`
- Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads after commit
`94a649755a2ae7c4a34a3e8a1f16ec4d26d738fd`.
- Not run: full `pnpm test:storybook-visual`, because it builds
Storybook and runs the browser visual suite; this PR only changes docs
plus server port plumbing.
## Risks
Low risk. The server still defaults to port 6106 when no explicit port
is provided, and invalid port values now fail fast with a clear error
before the Playwright server waits for an unreachable URL.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with local command execution and
repository editing tools.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets,
agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind
> - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at
~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending
on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two
toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no
visual regression coverage
> - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a
hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration
> - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer
in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed
by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate
retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs
> - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface:
retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked
by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed
visually without committing hundreds of PNGs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens",
"visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in
spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of
the same problem class this PR addresses systematically).
**Problem (feature-request form):** UI visual values are hardcoded per
call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage;
consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file
edits.
**Proposed solution (this PR):** a single token layer + enforcement gate
+ externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle
on top of that foundation.
## What Changed
- **Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during
development):** committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-*.mjs`) moved
~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named
tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`.
- **Visual regression suite:** `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255
stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`,
plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes.
- **External visual baselines:** committed PNG snapshots were removed.
`tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable
archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs`
handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload`
flows.
- **Opt-in visual CI artifacts:** added a `Storybook Visual` workflow
that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`,
downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright
report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate
baseline objects.
- **Token gate:** `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero
arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/**`
and `ui/src/pages/**`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate
opt-outs.
- **Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed):** new base theme
values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type
cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` +
Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps.
- **One status-color vocabulary:** charts, quota/budget bar fills,
RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical
`--status-*` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces
that used dark-tuned text classes.
- **One switch:** `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form,
second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified.
- **Docs:** `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds
audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline
review/update workflows.
- Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical
contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames
(`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`).
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system
run
- `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green
during the design-system run
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` —
pass after external-baseline rework
- `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext
--moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types
node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts
tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after
external-baseline rework
- `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline
rework
- `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '*.png' -print | wc -l` —
`0`
- `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally
fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline
archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json`
## Risks
- **Large but shallow:** the PR still touches many UI files due to
mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot
churn has been removed from the branch.
- **Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in
clean clones:** the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata.
A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then
update `baseline-manifest.json`.
- **Rendering platform variance:** the external baseline should be
captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs
verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count
mismatch.
- **Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing:** add the `storybook-visual`
label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable
Playwright report/test-result artifacts.
- **Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope:** Tailwind palette
classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component
consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with
extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical
phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline
rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository,
terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via
deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional
visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run targeted local verification and documented the
intentional baseline-publication failure above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green *(pending new CI run after this
rework)*
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
*(pending review)*
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and
OpenAI Codex
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators depend on `/api/health` and OpenAPI status surfaces to
know whether the local control plane is healthy.
> - Database backups are a safety-critical background process, but
backup failures were not represented in health responses.
> - That gap means an instance can look healthy while backup state is
stale, failing, or unavailable.
> - This pull request adds backup-health evaluation and exposes it
through the health route, server startup wiring, and OpenAPI contract.
> - The benefit is earlier operator visibility when automatic backups
stop protecting instance data.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report:
**Pre-submission checklist**
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip (or can reproduce
on `master`).
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself — not in
my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration.
**What happened?**
Automatic database backup health was not included in the app health
response, so backup failures or stale backups could be missed while
`/api/health` still looked otherwise usable.
**Expected behavior**
The health endpoint should include backup-health details that let
operators identify disabled, stale, failing, or healthy backup states.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Configure a Paperclip instance with automatic database backups.
2. Force backup status into a stale or failing state.
3. Call `/api/health` and inspect whether backup state is represented.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at the PR base.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and self-hosted server deployments.
**Installation method**
Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`).
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
- [x] Not adapter-specific (core bug)
**Database mode**
Embedded development Postgres and external Postgres backup paths.
**Access context**
Board/operator health checks.
**Relevant logs or output**
Covered by the added `server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` cases.
**Relevant config (if applicable)**
Not applicable.
**Additional context**
This surfaces backup status only; it does not change backup execution
scheduling.
**Privacy checklist**
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII (usernames, file paths,
API keys, tokens, company names) and redacted where necessary.
## What Changed
- Added a database backup health service that classifies backup recency,
status, and failure conditions.
- Wired backup health into app/server startup and the health route
response.
- Documented the backup-health behavior in development docs and OpenAPI
output.
- Added focused health route tests for healthy, stale, disabled, and
failing backup states.
## Verification
- `/srv/paperclip/home/paperclipai/paperclip/node_modules/.bin/vitest
run server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
## Risks
Low-to-medium risk. This changes health response content and may affect
external health consumers that parse fields strictly. It should not
alter backup execution itself.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5 coding agent with repository tool use and local
shell execution. Context window was not surfaced 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip stores agent work in a PostgreSQL database that evolves
via numbered sequential migrations
> - Migrations that run large unbounded table scans can block the
server's `listen()` call during upgrades, causing multi-minute startup
stalls on large databases
> - Migration 0126 ran a full sequential scan backfill over
`issue_comments` for derived attribution columns — O(n²) due to
unindexed `LIMIT`/`OFFSET` batching, pegging CPU for ~5 minutes on a 3–4
M row table
> - The safe fix (landed in #9108) replaced 0126 with a new forward-only
migration using a partial index + keyset pagination backfill
> - But the root cause is the absence of author-time guidance:
contributors have no documented rules for writing bounded, indexed
migration backfills before they land
> - This PR adds a migration authoring checklist to `doc/DATABASE.md` so
future contributors have those rules at hand before opening a PR
> - The benefit is a durable, discoverable guide that prevents the same
class of startup-blocking slowness before it reaches production
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This PR is a documentation follow-on to #9108, which landed the fast
0132 migration fix. It adds author-time guidance that captures the
root-cause lesson from that incident.
No separate public issue exists for the doc addition; the motivation is
described above.
Refs #9108
## What Changed
- `doc/DATABASE.md`: Added a **Migration authoring checklist** section
with rules for indexed, bounded backfill batches — keyset pagination
over `LIMIT`/`OFFSET`, mandatory partial index, idempotent guards, and
split-phase schema-vs-data changes. The `check:migrations` CI gate is
referenced as the enforcement backstop.
## Verification
- `git diff --check -- doc/DATABASE.md` passes (no whitespace errors).
- No executable code changed; the checklist is an additive documentation
section.
## Risks
Low. The change is additive text in `doc/DATABASE.md`. No schema,
migration, or code changes. No behavioral diff.
## Model Used
Claude claude-sonnet-4-6 (Anthropic, 200 K context, tool use) — used to
author the migration authoring checklist and coordinate the PR workflow.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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
> - `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` §5.2 (Out of Scope V1) conflates two
distinct concerns into a single bullet: _"Multi-board governance or
role-based human permission granularity"_.
> - Role-based human permission granularity has been V1 for a while —
the `humans-and-permissions` plan and the `principal_permission_grants`
table shipped, the `PERMISSION_KEYS` set covers `users:invite`,
`users:manage_permissions`, `tasks:assign`, `tasks:assign_scope`,
`tasks:manage_active_checkouts`, `tasks:view_all`, `agents:view_all`,
`joins:approve`, `agents:create`, `environments:manage`.
> - The remaining OOS item from that bullet is _multi-board governance_
— running multiple board UIs against one company. That's a
deployment-topology concern, separate from permission granularity, and
stays V1 OOS.
> - This PR splits the bullet so the OOS list reflects reality and
contributors don't read the SPEC and conclude that per-user permission
scoping is unplanned.
## What Changed
Single-file docs edit in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` §5.2:
- Drop the conflated "Multi-board governance or role-based human
permission granularity" bullet.
- Keep "Multi-board governance (multiple board UIs for a single
company)" as OOS — that part is still out of scope.
- Add a short paragraph below the OOS list pointing readers to the
`humans-and-permissions` plan, `principal_permission_grants`, and the
existing `tasks:view_all` + `agents:view_all` opt-out scoping primitives
so anyone reading §5.2 finds the V1 surface immediately.
## Verification
- N/A — docs-only change, no code/schema/test impact.
## Risks
- None. Single bullet rewording.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic). Model ID: `claude-opus-4-7`.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work — it documents already-shipped V1 work that the SPEC
was lagging on
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass — N/A docs-only
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — N/A
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A docs-only
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — this
PR IS the doc update
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Mike <ms@moar.tools>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The browser UI depends on the Inter font family for its intended
visual baseline
> - The app previously referenced remote Google Fonts stylesheets at
runtime
> - That meant self-hosted, offline, or privacy-sensitive deployments
could lose the intended typography or depend on an external request
> - This pull request bundles the required Inter variable font files
with the UI and serves them from the app
> - A normal UI test now covers the static assets and CSS wiring without
adding a package script or build step
> - The benefit is a more reliable, self-contained UI that does not rely
on third-party webfont hosting
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this exact gap.
**Subsystem affected**
ui/ — React + Vite board UI
**Problem or motivation**
Paperclip's UI should ship the webfont assets it references so
production and self-hosted deployments render consistently without
reaching out to Google Fonts at runtime.
**Proposed solution**
Bundle the Inter variable font files under the UI public assets, load
them with local `@font-face` declarations, document the bundled assets,
and cover the source assets/CSS wiring with a normal UI Vitest test.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping the remote stylesheet dependency is simpler, but leaves
deployments dependent on external font hosting. Using system fonts only
would avoid the asset footprint, but changes the intended UI typography.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is a focused UI reliability/polish fix, not a roadmap-level core
feature.
**Additional context**
Searched public GitHub issues and PRs for `webfonts
repo:paperclipai/paperclip`; no duplicates or closely related open items
were found.
## What Changed
- Added bundled Inter variable font assets and their notice under
`ui/public/fonts/`.
- Replaced remote Google Fonts imports with local `@font-face`
declarations using relative public-asset URLs that remain subpath-safe
from built CSS.
- Documented the local font asset expectation in development and UI spec
docs.
- Removed the follow-up font asset checker scripts and package/build
wiring after review feedback clarified they are not required for
building the UI.
- Added `ui/src/lib/ui-font-assets.test.ts` to verify the shipped WOFF2
files, notice text, and CSS font references through the normal UI test
suite.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/ui-font-assets.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts`
- Passed.
- Confirms the bundled font files exist, are WOFF2 files, have notice
coverage, and are referenced by `ui/src/index.css`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`
- Passed.
- Confirmed the UI still builds after removing the checker from
`ui/package.json`.
- Confirmed `ui/dist/fonts/` contains `InterVariable.woff2`,
`InterVariable-Italic.woff2`, and `NOTICE.md` after the build.
- The UI build emitted existing warnings about `::highlight(...)`, a
dynamic/static import overlap for `MarkdownEditor.tsx`, unresolved
relative public font URLs left for runtime resolution, and large chunks,
but completed successfully.
## Risks
Low risk. This adds static font assets and swaps the font source from a
remote stylesheet to same-origin files. The main tradeoff is a larger
repository/UI asset footprint from the bundled `.woff2` files.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub
workflow with reasoning 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] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other
environment-bound secrets.
> - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not
model values that should differ by human operator.
> - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing
whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value.
> - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped
runtime checks deterministic and auditable.
> - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user
values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime
resolution gates.
> - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user
provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required
user secrets or active definitions are unavailable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #224
Refs #6057
This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core
secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It
is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime
secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the
responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time.
Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as
#1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full
user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here.
## What Changed
- Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values,
keeping stored values out of access metadata.
- Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to
pick them alongside existing secret refs.
- Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve
against the human responsible for the run.
- Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter
dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are
inactive.
- Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access.
- Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user
attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be
resolved.
- Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures
surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures.
- Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes.
- Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered
incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`,
`0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127`
migrations.
- Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR
contains code/docs/tests only.
## Verification
- PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`.
- PASS: `git diff --check`
- PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg
'^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true`
produced no files.
- PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130`
with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`,
`0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`,
`0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`.
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests)
- PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final
Greptile cleanup fixes)
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests
after the final rebase CI fix)
- PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery,
project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors,
watchdog, and stale queue paths.
- PASS: GitHub checks are green on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck +
Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e,
Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review.
- PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5,
and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated
threads.
## Risks
- Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible
user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs
before adapter dispatch.
- `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without
values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind
explicitly.
- External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically
provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side
access for non-local vaults.
- The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release
validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge.
- The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream
migrations; the branch migrations use guarded
column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older
draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter
with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal
reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs can execute inside reusable, runtime-created git worktree
execution workspaces.
> - Those managed worktrees record the expected branch so later
dispatches do not accidentally run an agent in the wrong checkout.
> - Successful run finalization already checked branch coherence, but it
treated every unrecorded branch switch as fatal.
> - A common publishing flow can briefly switch a clean worktree to a
PR/publish branch that points at the same commit as the recorded issue
branch, leaving no divergent work to protect.
> - This pull request keeps the strict finalization guard for unsafe
drift, but lets finalization restore the recorded branch when
same-commit repair is provably safe.
> - The benefit is fewer false failed runs after harmless branch
switches while preserving hard failures for divergent or dirty
worktrees.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this exact finalization failure. Related
public worktree-recovery context: #3087 and #3056, but those address
different worktree realization/reuse recovery paths rather than
successful-run finalization branch repair.
Bug report details:
**What happened?**
When an adapter run succeeded after switching a managed git worktree
from its recorded issue branch to a publish/PR branch, finalization
failed with a managed worktree branch mismatch even when the publish
branch and recorded branch pointed at the same commit and the worktree
was clean.
**Expected behavior**
Finalization should restore the recorded branch only when it can prove
the worktree is clean, registered, and the recorded branch points at the
current `HEAD`. If the actual branch has different commits or unsafe
state, finalization should continue to fail with bounded validation
evidence.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a runtime-managed `git_worktree` execution workspace for an
issue run.
2. During the adapter run, create and check out a new publish branch
without committing new changes.
3. Return adapter success and let heartbeat finalization run.
4. Before this change, finalization records a failed branch check and
fails the run even though the branches point at the same commit.
5. With this change, finalization records the repair operation, restores
the recorded branch, and records a successful finalize row.
6. Repeat with a commit on the publish branch; finalization still fails
because the branch heads differ.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced against `master` at `bac7307ec`; fixed by this PR at
`64ec605cf`.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev / built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is core heartbeat/workspace finalization
behavior.
**Database mode**
Embedded test Postgres in the focused server test.
**Access context**
Agent run finalization.
**Node.js version**
`v25.6.1`
**Operating system**
`Darwin 24.6.0 arm64`
**Relevant logs or output**
The new focused test intentionally exercises both outcomes:
```text
Test Files 1 passed (1)
Tests 3 passed (3)
```
**Relevant config**
Runtime-created `git_worktree` execution workspace.
**Additional context**
The unsafe divergent branch case still fails with
`workspace_validation_failed` and `git_worktree_branch_incoherence`
evidence.
**Privacy checklist**
Reviewed; this description avoids internal task links, local workspace
paths, credentials, and instance-specific URLs.
## What Changed
- Reused the existing guarded branch-coherence repair helper during
heartbeat finalization when the final branch inspection finds clean
same-commit branch drift.
- Recorded repair metadata in the `workspace_finalize` operation so
reviewers/operators can audit whether finalization repaired branch
drift.
- Preserved failure behavior for divergent branch heads and surfaced the
bounded workspace validation evidence from the repair helper.
- Added focused server coverage for safe finalization repair and unsafe
divergent branch failure.
- Updated execution semantics docs to describe the narrower finalization
rule.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
Low to medium risk. The change affects successful-run finalization for
runtime-created git worktree execution workspaces. The repair path is
constrained to clean, registered, same-commit branch drift, and the
focused test confirms divergent branch heads still fail instead of being
restored silently.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent. Exact hosted model ID was not
exposed in the runtime; tool use and local shell 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 local adapter and heartbeat recovery systems decide whether an
agent has a real control-plane mutation path.
> - Sandboxed local adapters split execution between the trusted host
process and the sandbox shell/tool surface.
> - A host-side adapter can still reach Paperclip while the sandbox
shell surface cannot, which leaves agents thinking no endpoint or
credentials are configured even though the host can still post comments.
> - Execution-policy review stages can also remain pending after a
reviewer run finishes without recording a decision.
> - This pull request makes the sandbox bridge available to the actual
shell mutation surface and adds bounded recovery for
terminal-but-still-pending review participants.
> - The benefit is that agents get a real reachable Paperclip API path
where they need it, and stalled review stages become visible recovery
work instead of silently drifting.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No exact public GitHub issue matched this combined failure. I searched
for exact and related terms including `cannot reach the Paperclip
control plane`, `execution_review_participant_recovery`, `sandbox
callback bridge`, `review participant in_review`, and `control plane
sandbox`.
Related public issues:
- Refs #8482 for `in_review` liveness invariant recovery.
- Refs #863 for prior agent API-key reachability confusion.
- Refs #248 for the broader sandboxed agent execution model.
Bug summary:
- What happened: a sandboxed local-adapter run could have host-side
Paperclip access while the sandbox Bash/tool surface lacked a reachable
API endpoint or usable run credentials. Separately, a reviewer run could
finish while its execution-review stage remained pending, leaving the
source issue in `in_review` with no decision and no live participant
run.
- Expected behavior: the mutation surface that agents actually use
should receive a run-scoped Paperclip bridge, and pending review
participants should get one bounded normal-model recovery wake before
moving to explicit blocked/source-scoped recovery.
- Steps to reproduce: run a sandbox-backed local adapter that needs
Bash/curl/tooling to call Paperclip from inside the sandbox, or finish
an execution-policy reviewer run without submitting the pending review
decision.
- Deployment mode: local/authenticated private development instance with
sandbox-backed local adapters.
## What Changed
- Changed sandbox callback bridge startup so bridge credentials are
passed through the sandbox runner environment instead of embedded in the
visible `nohup env ...` command string.
- Added adapter-utils coverage proving the sandbox shell can call
Paperclip through the bridge, forwards the host run JWT with
`X-Paperclip-Run-Id`, and does not leak host or bridge tokens into
stdout/stderr, runner command text, or runtime files.
- Added one bounded execution-review participant recovery path for
terminal reviewer runs whose `executionState` remains pending.
- Escalated exhausted or non-invokable review participant recovery to
blocked/source-scoped recovery with dedicated evidence, activity, and
next-action text.
- Documented the mutation-surface reachability contract in
`doc/execution-semantics.md` and updated the Paperclip skill
authentication guidance for sandbox bridge env vars.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
--no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
- `curl -fsS $PAPERCLIP_API_URL/api/health` returned `status: ok` on the
local instance.
## Risks
- Medium behavioral risk: more `in_review` issues with
terminal-but-pending reviewer runs will now be retried once and then
blocked explicitly instead of remaining quiet.
- Low sandbox bridge risk: credential delivery moved from command text
to the runner environment, which is less leaky but depends on sandbox
providers honoring the env payload for startup commands.
- No database migration is included.
- Full repo build and CI were not run locally before opening the PR;
targeted server/adapter tests and typechecks passed.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via the Codex local agent, with repository tool use and
shell-based code execution. The runtime did not expose a precise
context-window value to the agent.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Managed issue workspaces are part of the control-plane runtime
boundary: the server records which git worktree and branch an agent run
is allowed to use.
> - Existing reuse checks validated the worktree path and cleanliness,
but did not fully validate that the actual checked-out branch still
matched the recorded execution workspace branch.
> - That gap let an agent run switch a managed worktree onto a
publishing branch without updating the execution workspace record, then
later reuse or finalize the workspace as though it were coherent.
> - The runtime needs a bounded repair path for provably safe mismatches
and a hard validation failure for dirty, divergent, or unrecorded branch
transitions.
> - This pull request adds branch coherence to managed git worktree
validation, records explicit recovery evidence, and prevents finalize
success when a run silently changes branches.
> - The benefit is that branch drift becomes either safely repaired or
visibly recoverable instead of silently corrupting managed workspace
state.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug.
Bug report:
- What happened: a managed agent workspace could be recorded for one
branch while the underlying git worktree was actually checked out on
another branch. Reuse and finalization could still treat the workspace
as healthy.
- Expected behavior: managed git worktrees should verify the actual
branch against the recorded execution workspace branch. Safe same-HEAD
clean mismatches may be repaired, while dirty, divergent, or unrecorded
branch transitions should fail into explicit workspace validation
recovery.
- Reproduction outline: create a runtime-managed issue worktree, switch
its checkout to another branch without updating the execution workspace
record, then attempt reuse or run finalization.
- Deployment mode: local/self-hosted Paperclip server using managed git
workspaces.
- Related public work: Refs #7644 and #7579. Related but not duplicate:
#8275 and #5851.
## What Changed
- Added managed git worktree branch inspection, formatted validation
evidence, and safe same-HEAD repair logic to the workspace runtime
service.
- Validated recorded managed workspace branch state before reuse and
during heartbeat setup.
- Added finalization-time branch guards so runs that silently switch
branches fail with `workspace_validation_failed` instead of recording a
successful finalize.
- Added recovery fingerprints and evidence for
`git_worktree_branch_incoherence`, including manual-repair next actions
for unsafe branch drift.
- Documented branch coherence as part of runtime-created git worktree
workspace coherence.
- Added focused tests for safe branch repair, dirty/divergent recovery
evidence, heartbeat setup validation, and finalize failure/success
paths.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
Notes:
- An initial full `pnpm test:run` attempt hit a transient `socket hang
up` in one `plugin-routes-authz` case. The exact case passed when rerun
directly, the full `plugin-routes-authz` file passed, and the subsequent
full `pnpm test:run` passed.
- `pnpm build` still emits existing Vite CSS pseudo-element and
chunk-size warnings unrelated to this change.
## Risks
- This intentionally changes behavior for managed runs that switch
branches without recording the transition: they now fail during
workspace validation/finalization instead of silently proceeding.
- The automatic repair path is intentionally narrow. It only repairs
clean branch mismatches when both branches point at the same commit;
dirty or divergent worktrees require manual recovery.
- Recovery fingerprints now include workspace-validation evidence, so
duplicate recovery-action grouping is more precise for
branch-incoherence failures.
> 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 Codex CLI/API coding agent, with shell/git/test
execution and reasoning mode 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
- [ ] 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: Cody <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Cody <cody@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs are assembled by the heartbeat service from agent config,
project workspaces, environment config, secret bindings, skills, and
runtime session state.
> - The heartbeat service intentionally reuses adapter sessions,
execution workspaces, and sandbox leases when that preserves useful
state.
> - Reuse becomes incorrect when the effective next-run config changes
after a saved session, workspace, or lease was created.
> - Stale reuse can make a later run appear pinned to old agent,
environment, secret, instruction, or workspace settings.
> - This pull request records non-sensitive fingerprints for the
effective session, workspace, and lease config at run boundaries.
> - When those fingerprints drift, Paperclip refreshes persisted runtime
config or starts fresh execution instead of reusing stale state.
> - The benefit is predictable next-run config freshness without storing
raw secret values, full env maps, provider credentials, or private path
details.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8058
- Related PRs checked during dedup search: #4968, #4155, #84, #8480.
These cover nearby workspace/session routing or model-config freshness
areas, but do not duplicate this effective run config fingerprinting
path.
## What Changed
- Added effective run config fingerprinting for session, workspace, and
lease reuse decisions, with canonicalization that ignores generated
runtime noise and redacts sensitive values.
- Updated heartbeat reuse logic to compare stored and next-run
fingerprints, reset stale saved sessions, refresh persisted workspace
config snapshots, replace stale reused workspaces when required, and
avoid stale sandbox lease reuse.
- Included plain environment value drift via value hashes, without
storing the raw env values.
- Root-bound instruction content hashing so legacy direct absolute
instruction paths are represented but not read for config fingerprints.
- Batched secret/version metadata lookups for environment lease
fingerprinting.
- Added workspace operation/run result freshness metadata so operators
can inspect non-sensitive decision categories.
- Surfaced config freshness labels and next-run copy in the UI and docs.
- Added focused coverage for fingerprint redaction, session reset
decisions, workspace refresh/replace behavior, environment lease drift,
and persisted workspace restoration.
## Verification
- `git diff --check`
- Sensitive-data scan before push:
- `git diff --unified=0 origin/master...HEAD | rg -n --pcre2
"(AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID|AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY|ghp_[A-Za-z0-9_]{20,}|github_pat_[A-Za-z0-9_]{20,}|sk-[A-Za-z0-9]{20,}|-----BEGIN
(RSA |OPENSSH |EC |DSA )?PRIVATE KEY-----|AKIA[0-9A-Z]{16})"`
- `git diff --unified=0 origin/master...HEAD | rg -n --pcre2
"[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Za-z0-9.-]+\\.[A-Za-z]{2,}"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/effective-run-config-fingerprints.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db clean`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- UI screenshots from Cutter:
-
https://artifacts.cutter.sh/8797/run-2f4827c-2026-06-30T18-57-25/preview/change-01.png
-
https://artifacts.cutter.sh/8797/run-2f4827c-2026-06-30T18-57-25/preview/change-02.png
-
https://artifacts.cutter.sh/8797/run-2f4827c-2026-06-30T18-57-25/preview/change-03.png
## Risks
- Medium: overly broad fingerprints could start fresh sessions,
workspaces, or sandbox leases more often than necessary.
- Medium: missing a config category would allow stale reuse to persist
for that category.
- Medium: legacy direct absolute instruction paths are no longer
content-hashed unless they are paired with an absolute managed
instructions root.
- Low data risk: fingerprint metadata stores hashes and category names,
not raw secrets, raw env values, provider credentials, or private path
details.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex CLI / Codex coding agent, tool-enabled with
shell, Git, GitHub CLI, local test execution, and code editing. The
exact deployed model variant and context window are not exposed by this
environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Cody <cody@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent adapters are the boundary between the control plane and the
runtimes that actually do work.
> - Hermes support needs to be available as first-class local and
gateway adapters while still preserving the adapter-manager override
path for external packages.
> - The adapter work touches runtime execution, UI adapter metadata,
onboarding prompts, scoped credentials, release packaging, and smoke
coverage, so the handoff needs concrete verification rather than only
unit tests.
> - This pull request adds built-in Hermes local and Hermes gateway
support, keeps external adapter overrides compatible, and
documents/tests the gateway flow end to end.
> - The benefit is that operators can hire Hermes-backed agents without
a manual plugin install, while self-hosted installs can still
override/shadow the built-ins through Adapter manager packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this exact Hermes built-in adapter,
gateway onboarding, and release-source work.
Problem description:
- Hermes local and gateway adapters need a public, reviewable source
path in the monorepo so package artifacts and built-in adapter behavior
match the application source.
- Operators need built-in `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` adapter
choices without losing the ability to install external Hermes packages
as overrides.
- Gateway onboarding needs secure defaults for API server URLs, API
keys, and generated agent setup text.
- Hermes-originated task bridge credentials need narrower API-key scope
configuration.
- Related public PRs found during duplicate search include #3027, #2363,
#7544, #7950, #8095, and #8543.
## What Changed
- Added the unified Hermes adapter package with local and gateway
server/UI/CLI exports, config schemas, transcript parsing, model
detection, and package metadata.
- Registered `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` as built-in adapters
across shared constants, server registries, CLI packaging, and UI
adapter registries.
- Kept the external adapter override path compatible so installed Hermes
packages can shadow built-ins and restore the built-in parser when
disabled.
- Added Hermes gateway onboarding docs, board-operator docs, Docker
smoke assets, and shell smoke harnesses for join/e2e validation.
- Added scoped task-bridge API-key support, authorization checks,
issue-origin handling, and tests for Hermes-created Paperclip tasks.
- Hardened gateway transport and redaction behavior for API keys,
headers, session data, and smoke diagnostics.
- Updated release packaging/bootstrap checks for the Hermes packages
while leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of the PR per repository policy.
## Verification
Targeted local verification recorded before PR handoff:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter exec vitest run
src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` — 14/14 passed.
- `pnpm test:hermes-gateway-smoke` — 6/6 passed.
- Hermes package typecheck/build checks passed.
- Focused server/UI adapter tests passed — 31/31.
- Release helper Node tests passed — 18/18.
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed.
Fresh Docker E2E smoke evidence:
- Ran `pnpm smoke:hermes-gateway-e2e` on 2026-06-26 with a fresh state
directory and fresh Docker container against a live Paperclip dev
server.
- Hermes direct execution reached `completed`.
- Hermes stop/cancel path reached `cancelled`.
- Hermes gateway created a Paperclip task, Paperclip ran the Hermes
agent, and the task reached `done` with the expected marker response.
- Temporary board auth keys, token files, smoke state, and Docker
containers were cleaned up after the run.
PR checks on head `b5eae40ce`:
- GitHub Actions passed: `policy`, `review`, `Typecheck + Release
Registry`, all general test shards, all serialized server shards,
`Build`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, and aggregate `verify`.
- External checks passed: Snyk and Socket Project Report.
- External Socket Pull Request Alerts remained pending after the
first-party CI matrix completed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this spans adapter registration, package publishing,
gateway execution, onboarding docs, API-key scoping, and UI adapter
metadata.
- Migration risk is low: the scope-config migration adds a nullable
column and does not rewrite existing keys.
- Gateway execution depends on operator-provided Hermes API
configuration; the smoke covers the Docker gateway path but real
deployments may differ by network/auth setup.
- Direct Greptile review on the latest expanded diff is file-count
limited, although the commitperclip review gate passed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled in a local repository
workspace. Context window size is not exposed in this environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Commitperclip review gate is green; direct Greptile review is
file-count limited on the latest expanded diff
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents and board users operate inside a company-scoped control plane
where permissions decide which mutating actions they can perform
> - Company skills are part of the reusable agent-company setup surface,
but skill mutation had been coupled to broader agent-creation authority
> - That coupling meant importing or managing skills required a
permission that also implies hiring power, which is broader than the
operation needs
> - Paperclip already has a grant-based permission vocabulary, so skill
mutation should be authorized through a dedicated `skills:create`
capability while preserving existing default behavior for trusted agents
> - This pull request adds the skill creation permission contract,
enforces it on company skill mutations, exposes it in agent permission
management, and documents the changed CLI/API expectations
> - The benefit is a narrower, auditable permission path for skill
import/create/update/delete flows without forcing agents to receive
broader agent-creation authority
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue is linked.
Problem: company skill mutation APIs were effectively tied to broader
agent creation authority. This PR splits skill mutation authorization
onto the public `skills:create` permission while keeping existing
default skill creation behavior for agents unless explicitly disabled.
Related public PR found during duplicate search: #5330. That PR uses an
older `canManageSkills` shape; this PR implements the `skills:create`
grant path instead.
## What Changed
- Added `skills:create` to shared permission constants and agent
permission types/validators as `canCreateSkills`.
- Backfilled default human/member role grants for `skills:create`.
- Updated company skill mutation routes to require board/user or agent
access to `skills:create`, while preserving legacy/default agent
behavior through `canCreateSkills` unless explicitly disabled.
- Updated agent permission update handling, UI permission controls,
duplicate-agent payloads, plugin SDK fixtures, and agent detail API
surfaces for `canCreateSkills`.
- Added regression coverage for skill route authorization, permission
schema/default behavior, invite grants, omitted permission updates, and
duplicate-agent payloads.
- Updated CLI and Paperclip skill documentation for the new skill
creation permission.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-join-grants.test.ts
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts` — 5 files, 90 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run ...changed files...` was attempted first, but the
stable wrapper rejects explicit file arguments; direct Vitest was used
for the same targeted files.
## Risks
- Moderate authorization risk: this changes the gate for company skill
mutations, so the tests cover board grant checks, agent explicit grant
checks, legacy default allowance, and explicit denial.
- Migration/backfill risk is low: the migration only grants
`skills:create` to existing human roles that already need broad
management capability.
- UI/API compatibility risk is low: `canCreateSkills` remains default-on
for full agent permissions, and the update validator preserves omitted
values so unrelated permission edits do not re-enable disabled skill
creation.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with terminal/tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [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 CLI (`paperclipai plugin ...`) installs and manages plugins
against a Paperclip server resolved from `--api-base` /
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL` / the active profile / an inferred default
> - During local plugin development you can have more than one Paperclip
running (a released host plus a branch build on another port), and
nothing told you *which* instance a command actually talked to
> - So a plugin that depends on a route or response field only present
on a feature branch could be silently installed/tested against a stale
host, returning `API route not found`, and look broken when the real
problem was the test target
> - This pull request makes the install target explicit: it probes `GET
/api/health` and prints the resolved API URL + server
status/version/mode/exposure before installing, and adds a `plugin
target` command plus docs for running and verifying against a branch
service
> - The benefit is that local plugin authors can confirm they are
exercising the runtime they intend to, instead of debugging phantom
plugin bugs caused by hitting the wrong server
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists, so the underlying problem is described
inline following the feature-request template.
**Problem or motivation**
Local plugin development assumes a single Paperclip on
`http://127.0.0.1:3100`. When a plugin depends on server code that only
exists on a feature branch (a new scoped route, a new response field, a
new managed-resource capability), installing it into a long-lived host
still on older code makes the route/field missing there. The plugin
falls back or errors and *looks* broken, when the real cause is that it
was tested against the wrong runtime. The CLI already let you point at
any server, but it never surfaced which server you ended up on — so the
mistake was invisible.
**Proposed solution**
Make the install target explicit. Before `plugin install` runs, probe
`GET /api/health` and print the resolved API URL plus server
status/version/deploymentMode/exposure, so the developer can confirm
which Paperclip they are installing into. Add a standalone `plugin
target` command to inspect the target without installing, a
`--no-verify-target` escape hatch, and docs covering how to run a branch
service on its own port and verify a branch route end-to-end.
**Alternatives considered**
- Do nothing and rely on the existing `--api-base` / `PAPERCLIP_API_URL`
resolution — rejected because the gap was never the inability to point
at a branch server, it was the lack of feedback about which server was
actually hit.
- Fail the install when the target looks stale — rejected as too
aggressive; the probe is advisory and degrades gracefully when health
details are not exposed or the server is unreachable.
## Dedup Search
- [x] I searched the open and recently closed GitHub PRs for similar or
duplicate PRs — this is not a duplicate
## What Changed
- Add `probeTargetDiagnostics` / `formatTargetDiagnostics` helpers
(`cli/src/commands/client/plugin.ts`) that read `GET /api/health` and
report the resolved API URL plus server `status` / `version` /
`deploymentMode` / `deploymentExposure`.
- `plugin install` now prints these target diagnostics before
installing, so you can confirm which instance you are installing into.
Skippable with `--no-verify-target`.
- `plugin install --json` keeps its original flat `PluginRecord` shape
(top-level `id` / `pluginKey` / `version` / `status` are unchanged);
when the target was probed it gains an additional top-level `target`
field. Existing automation that reads the plugin fields keeps working.
- Add a standalone `paperclipai plugin target` command to inspect the
install target without installing anything.
- Update `doc/plugins/LOCAL_PLUGIN_DEVELOPMENT.md`: how the CLI resolves
its target, how to run a branch service on its own port and point the
CLI at it explicitly, an end-to-end check that the branch route is
actually served, and a troubleshooting entry for the stale-target
symptom.
- Unit tests for the diagnostics helpers (reachable + unreachable probe,
and both render paths).
## Verification
- `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts` — 10/10 pass
(covers `probeTargetDiagnostics` success/failure and
`formatTargetDiagnostics` rendering).
- CLI typecheck (`tsc --noEmit` in `cli/`) — clean.
- Manual: with a server running, `paperclipai plugin target` prints
`Target Paperclip: <url>` and the health line; `plugin install` prints
the same block before installing and `--no-verify-target` skips it.
## Risks
Low risk. The probe is read-only (`GET /api/health`) and runs before
install; if the server does not expose details it degrades to `ok (no
details exposed)`, and an unreachable target prints a remediation hint
rather than failing the command. The `--json` output keeps its original
flat shape, so existing scripts are unaffected. No server or schema
changes.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended thinking + tool use, via
Claude Code.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products.
> - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue
properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and
plugin-provided external context.
> - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly
plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand
status, identity, and liveness.
> - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and
pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company.
> - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts,
storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can
contribute detection and status resolution.
> - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation,
GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters,
sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage.
> - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable
Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the
UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work.
Feature request:
- Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related
surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline.
- Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist
normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise
status-aware links across issue surfaces.
- Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues
containing external work links.
- Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped,
provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where
relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests.
Related PR search:
- No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`.
- Closed related prior attempt: #4556.
## What Changed
- Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness
helpers, and plugin protocol declarations.
- Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects,
source mentions, and display metadata.
- Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing,
refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents,
comments, projects, and plugins.
- Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring
docs.
- Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat,
documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar
badges, and Storybook stories.
- Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired
stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive
tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR
branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56
tests.
- Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm
test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not
claim those were rerun after the final rebase.
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on
issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync
wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core
mutations.
- Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are
additive and company-scoped.
- Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge
cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current
GitHub shapes.
- Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy
issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended
surfaces.
> Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the
current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature.
Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products,
preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped
external-object reference foundation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool
use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context
window were not exposed in the environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The productivity-recovery subsystem watches for "stranded" assigned
issues — claims whose live run disappeared — and repairs, resumes, or
visibly blocks them
> - When an executor decomposes an umbrella issue into sub-tasks, it
parks its own continuation as "waiting on review/approval" (error code
`issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`) — a deliberate pause, not a lost
run
> - Recovery's staleness gate mistook that deliberate park for a
disappeared run: it retried once, then escalated the issue to `blocked`
with a recovery action and an operator-facing failure notice — even
though nothing had failed and there was nothing for a human to do
> - The user is left staring at an inscrutable, over-technical
"stranded" error on a task they did nothing wrong with, with no idea
what action to take
> - This pull request teaches recovery to recognize a review-parked
continuation and, when the issue has a real waiting target (open
sub-tasks or unresolved blockers), convert it into a first-class
dependency wait: `blocked`-by-children, original assignee kept, plus a
plain-language comment saying it will resume automatically
> - The benefit is that post-decomposition umbrellas sit on a real
waiting path and self-resume through the normal blockers-resolved flow,
while genuine strands (no waiting target) still escalate exactly as
before
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #6503
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: add
`resolveContinuationWaitingOnReview`. When a continuation was cancelled
with `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review` and the issue has a real
waiting target — open (non-terminal) sub-tasks or existing unresolved
blockers — recovery sets the issue `blocked` by those issues, keeps the
original assignee, posts a plain-language `system` comment, and logs the
activity. Wired into `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues` ahead of the
escalation path, with a new `waitingOnReviewResolved` counter on the
result.
- With no waiting target, the code falls through to the existing
escalation, preserving genuine stranded-run detection.
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`: two new
tests — (1) a review-parked continuation converts into a dependency wait
on its open sub-tasks (done children excluded, no recovery issue opened,
plain-language comment, raw error code never leaks), and (2) it still
escalates when no open dependency remains.
- `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document the "Deliberate wait is not a
lost run" recovery rule and the requirement that a post-decomposition
umbrella hold a first-class waiting path rather than relying on
`parentId` rollup.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — passes against current `master`.
- New tests in `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`
(describe: "heartbeat orphaned process recovery"):
- "converts a continuation parked for review into a dependency wait on
its open sub-tasks"
- "still escalates a continuation parked for review when no open
dependency remains"
- Run with the repo's vitest setup, e.g. `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` (requires the
embedded-postgres test harness).
## Risks
Low. The change adds a single guarded pre-check ahead of the existing
escalation path; behavior is unchanged when the cancellation error code
is not `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review` or when the issue has no
open sub-task / unresolved blocker to wait on. No schema or migration
changes.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), Opus-class model, via the Claude Code agent harness
— extended thinking and tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — server-only)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending CI)
- [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 task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is
still productive, stalled, or ready for review.
> - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but
there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review
permissions.
> - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so
recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable
work.
> - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service
layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration
surfaces, and docs.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip`
`master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest
migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`.
> - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves
Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making
stalled work easier to route.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task:
[PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275).
## Problem or motivation
Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped
work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task
ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and
see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain
limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link
approvals, or submit approval comments.
## Proposed solution
Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation
guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and
documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under
explicit boundaries.
## Alternatives considered
Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep
stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment
harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable
scoped-review issue for stalled task trees.
## Roadmap alignment
This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task
execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not
duplicate an existing planned core item.
## What Changed
- Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators,
CRUD API, and service support.
- Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation
enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate
guidance.
- Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks,
viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting.
- Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and
implementation semantics.
- Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked
cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog
migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to
`0104_issue_watchdogs`.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with
a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind
constant.
- Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes,
scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility,
settings, and new issue dialog behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
- Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB
schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task
configuration.
- Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting
and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and
production agents.
- The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` /
duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local
migration number should not get duplicate-object failures.
- CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest
review-fix push.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact
runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool
use and local command 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add
screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the
work.
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation
composer frames the operator's intent.
> - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning
mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without
immediately implying execution or plan drafting.
> - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like
normal task execution.
> - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through
shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI.
> - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a
question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning
flows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request
follows the repository feature request template.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`.
### Problem or motivation
Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from
planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear
public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an
agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply
normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather
than an answer.
### Proposed solution
Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from
issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning
from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling,
and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly
instead of executing or drafting a plan.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not
communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI.
- Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks
for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question.
- Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be
represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be
reliable.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked
and no duplicate planned core work was found.
### Additional context
Related public searches performed before opening this PR:
- GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
No duplicate PR was found.
## What Changed
- Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation
coverage.
- Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can
see standard, planning, and ask state.
- Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and
selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI.
- Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and
affected UI work-mode flows.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests.
Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states:
https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8
It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture
about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment
metadata.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared,
server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are
preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work
modes may need to handle `ask`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with
shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context
window and exact hosted model snapshot are 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`,
`feat/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or
instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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 people use to create, configure, and
run AI agents for work.
> - This change sits in the server-side agent lifecycle and
secret-binding subsystem, where adapter config `env` entries can
reference company secrets.
> - An incident (while trying to configure a Novita sandbox) showed that
an agent can reach a broken runtime state if `adapterConfig.env`
contains `secret_ref` entries but the matching `company_secret_bindings`
rows are missing.
> - The immediate run-path guard and error-surfacing work made the
failure diagnosable, but they did not fully prevent new broken agents
from being created.
> - The risk came from create and approval flows being responsible for
remembering to sync bindings at each call site, which is easy to miss as
new flows are added.
> - This pull request moves the invariant into `agentService`
create/update/activate paths, keeps the existing hire-flow fix, and adds
regression coverage for create, update, and legacy pending-approval
recovery.
> - The benefit is that agent secret binding integrity is enforced
closer to the data mutation point, so future callers inherit the
protection automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8309
### What happened?
A Paperclip agent could persist `adapterConfig.env` `secret_ref` entries
without matching agent-scoped `company_secret_bindings` rows. When that
happened, the config UI could still look configured, but the real run
path failed pre-dispatch because the secret was not actually bound to
that agent.
### Expected behavior
Every normal agent create, config-update, and pending-approval
activation flow should leave the agent with secret bindings that match
its persisted secret-ref env config.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create or activate an agent through a flow that persists
`adapterConfig.env` secret refs without synchronizing
`company_secret_bindings`.
2. Observe that the config state can still appear populated.
3. Start a run for that agent.
4. Observe that pre-dispatch binding validation fails because the secret
reference exists but the agent binding does not.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`)
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`)
### Agent adapter(s) involved
- Claude Code
- Not adapter-specific (core bug)
### Database mode
Embedded PGlite / embedded local dev database flow
### Access context
Board (human operator) created or approved the agent; agent runtime
later consumed the config.
### Additional context
This PR focuses on preventing new broken states from normal service
flows and on backfilling the covered legacy pending-approval activation
path.
## What Changed
- Kept the existing branch-local hire-flow fix that synchronized
bindings for route and approval paths.
- Moved the binding integrity invariant into `agentService.create()`,
`agentService.update()` when `adapterConfig` changes, and
`agentService.activatePendingApproval()`.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts`
covering create-time sync, update-time resync, and backfill for legacy
pending-approval agents.
- Removed now-redundant route-layer and approval-layer binding sync
calls once the service layer became authoritative.
- Simplified the affected unit tests so route/approval tests no longer
assert service-owned binding writes directly.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approvals-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low to medium risk.
- This changes where secret-binding synchronization is enforced, so any
unexpected caller that relied on upper-layer manual sync behavior could
behave differently.
- Agent create/update/activation flows now perform binding
synchronization consistently, which adds binding-table writes at those
mutation points.
- This PR does not retroactively scan and heal every already-broken
historical agent row; it prevents and backfills through the covered
service flows.
> 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 Codex class model via `codex_local`
- Session model family: GPT-5 Codex
- Tool-assisted coding with shell, git, HTTP, and local test execution
- Reasoning mode: medium interactive tool-use workflow
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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 orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The `codex_local` adapter runs local Codex CLI processes and builds
their environment from persisted agent config plus host process env.
> - A host-level `OPENAI_API_KEY` or shared Codex auth home can silently
make new agents spend through shared credentials.
> - Existing agents can be repaired manually, but new and updated agents
need a persistent guard at the agent configuration boundary.
> - This pull request isolates new and updated `codex_local` agents with
per-agent `CODEX_HOME` and an empty `OPENAI_API_KEY` override.
> - The benefit is that future agent creation or adapter updates cannot
silently fall back to shared OpenAI credentials.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Paperclip work item: [ZOL-5477](/ZOL/issues/ZOL-5477).
No matching GitHub issue exists, so the bug is described inline
following `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`.
**Pre-submission checklist**
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am on the latest `master` commit for this PR branch.
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip's `codex_local`
adapter configuration boundary, not in a provider outage.
**What happened?**
New or updated `codex_local` agents could inherit a host-level
`OPENAI_API_KEY` or use a shared Codex home when their adapter config
did not explicitly isolate those values. That made it possible for
future agents or manual adapter edits to silently fall back to shared
OpenAI credentials.
**Expected behavior**
Creating, hiring, or updating a `codex_local` agent should either
persist isolated per-agent configuration or reject unsafe shared Codex
home configuration with a clear 422 response. The guard must not print
secret values.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create or update a `codex_local` agent without an explicit
`adapterConfig.env.OPENAI_API_KEY` override.
2. Run it on a host where the Paperclip server process has
`OPENAI_API_KEY` set.
3. Observe that the adapter process can inherit the host key unless
Paperclip persists a blocking empty override.
4. Set `adapterConfig.env.CODEX_HOME` to a shared path such as
`~/.codex` or the company-level `codex-home`.
5. Observe that the old code allowed the shared auth home instead of
returning a validation error.
**Paperclip version or commit**
- Reproduced by inspection against `master` before this PR.
**Deployment mode**
- Local dev / self-hosted server with `codex_local` agents.
**Installation method**
- Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
- Codex.
**Database mode**
- Not database-related.
**Access context**
- Board and agent configuration paths.
**Relevant logs or output**
- No secret-bearing logs included.
**Relevant config**
- Unsafe shape: missing `adapterConfig.env.OPENAI_API_KEY`, or shared
`adapterConfig.env.CODEX_HOME`.
- Fixed shape: per-agent `CODEX_HOME` plus empty `OPENAI_API_KEY`
override.
**Additional context**
Related PR search for `codex_local OPENAI_API_KEY CODEX_HOME` found:
- #3681 `fix: preserve managed Codex auth and repo-root env loading`
- #5621 `fix: copy worktree codex auth locally`
Those are adjacent auth-handling changes, but they do not add the agent
create/update guard implemented here.
**Privacy checklist**
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths,
API keys, tokens, company names, and redacted where necessary.
## What Changed
- Added a `codex_local` config guard in agent create, hire, and update
routes.
- The guard assigns `adapterConfig.env.CODEX_HOME` to
`companies/<companyId>/agents/<agentId>/codex-home` when missing.
- The guard persists `adapterConfig.env.OPENAI_API_KEY = ""` when
missing, preventing host env inheritance.
- Shared `CODEX_HOME` values for the company codex-home, host
`$CODEX_HOME`, or `~/.codex` now fail with a 422 error.
- Added route tests for create, hire, update, and rejected shared host
Codex home.
- Updated `codex_local` and development docs to describe the per-agent
home contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-adapter-validation-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `git diff --check upstream/master...HEAD`
- `gh pr list --repo paperclipai/paperclip --state all --search
"codex_local OPENAI_API_KEY CODEX_HOME" --limit 20 --json
number,title,state,url`
- `rg -n "codex|OPENAI_API_KEY|CODEX_HOME|adapter" ROADMAP.md` returned
no roadmap overlap.
## Risks
- Existing legacy `codex_local` agents with shared `CODEX_HOME` will get
a clear 422 when their adapter config is updated until the shared path
is replaced. This is intentional because silent fallback is the bug
being guarded.
- Low migration risk: no database migration and no secret values are
printed or persisted beyond the empty override.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 Codex, Codex coding-agent session with repository tool
use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Paperclip
- Issue: [ZOL-5477](/ZOL/issues/ZOL-5477)
- Owner: Разработчик (`6625498c-66c9-429f-b578-4463ddc3ba16`)
- Status: waiting reviewer
- Next action: merge after approval and green CI
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Plugins extend the server with worker/UI surfaces, and bundled local
plugins under `packages/plugins/**` ship as TS source — their compiled
`dist/` is not checked in
> - On a fresh checkout, installing a bundled local plugin via the
in-app **Install** button failed because `paperclipPlugin.manifest`
points at `./dist/manifest.js`, which does not exist until the package
is built
> - The error surfaces as `Package … does not appear to be a Paperclip
plugin (no manifest found)`, which is misleading — the manifest is real,
the dist is just missing — and forces every contributor to run `pnpm
--filter … build` by hand before the bundled-plugin installer works at
all
> - This pull request teaches the install path to detect that case and
run the package's build (plus standalone runtime bootstrap for plugins
outside the root workspace) before manifest resolution, gated by a kill
switch and a bounded timeout
> - The benefit is bundled plugins like
`@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff` install in one click on a fresh
checkout, with a clear error message and manual fallback when the
autobuild itself fails
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing GitHub issue. Underlying bug, following the bug-report
template:
**What happened?**
Installing a bundled local plugin from a fresh checkout fails with
`Package @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff at
packages/plugins/plugin-workspace-diff does not appear to be a Paperclip
plugin (no manifest found)`. The manifest is declared in `package.json`
(`paperclipPlugin.manifest = ./dist/manifest.js`) but `dist/` is not
built/committed, so the loader cannot find it.
**Expected behavior**
Clicking **Install** on a bundled plugin builds it if needed and
registers it, without a manual build step.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Fresh checkout of `master`
2. Start the server, open Plugin Manager
3. Click **Install** next to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`
4. Observe the "no manifest found" failure
**Scope**
Same failure mode affects every bundled plugin without a checked-in
`dist/` (`plugin-llm-wiki`, examples, sandbox-provider plugins, etc.).
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/plugin-loader.ts`: added
`ensureLocalPluginBuilt(packageRoot, pkgJson)` — when the package lives
under `packages/plugins/**` and its declared paperclipPlugin entrypoints
(`manifest`, `worker`, `ui`) are missing, run `pnpm --filter <name>
build` (and a standalone runtime-deps bootstrap for plugins outside the
root pnpm workspace) before manifest resolution
- `server/src/routes/plugins.ts`: invoke the autobuild from the
local-path install path; surface a `hasBuiltEntrypoints` boolean on the
`AvailableBundledPlugin` listing; invalidate the bundled-plugins cache
after a successful install so a freshly built plugin no longer reports
`hasBuiltEntrypoints: false`
- `ui/src/api/plugins.ts` + `ui/src/pages/PluginManager.tsx`: type and
consume `hasBuiltEntrypoints` so the installer can show that an
autobuild will run on install
- `server/src/__tests__/plugin-install-autobuild.test.ts`: new suite — 9
tests covering success, kill-switch, build failure, timeout, manifest
still missing after build, standalone variant, and the existing
`plugin-routes-authz` listing assertion
- `doc/plugins/LOCAL_PLUGIN_DEVELOPMENT.md`: documents the autobuild,
the `PAPERCLIP_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOBUILD=1` kill switch, and the manual
fallback command
- Detect the autobuild timeout via the child-process `killed` flag
rather than string-matching the error message, so the "after timing out"
context is actually emitted
Knobs:
- `PAPERCLIP_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOBUILD=1` — skip autobuild entirely;
restore prior behavior
- Build timeout: 120s, with a clear error that points at the manual
`pnpm --filter <name> build` recovery command
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/plugin-install-autobuild.test.ts
src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` → 44/44 pass
- End-to-end on a clean checkout: `rm -rf
packages/plugins/plugin-workspace-diff/dist`, invoke
`ensureLocalPluginBuilt()` against the real package, all declared
entrypoints (`dist/manifest.js`, `dist/worker.js`, `dist/ui/index.js`)
regenerated. The original `no manifest found` symptom no longer
reproduces.
## Risks
Low. The autobuild only fires when (a) the package sits under
`packages/plugins/**`, (b) at least one declared entrypoint is missing,
and (c) the kill switch is not set. In a packaged production server the
`packages/plugins/**` path does not exist on disk, so the helper
short-circuits and never shells out to `pnpm`. Failures from the spawned
build are surfaced as an install error with the exact manual command to
retry, so the worst-case is the same UX as before plus a clearer
message.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7), extended thinking enabled, tool use
(filesystem + bash).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Production self-hosters increasingly expect telemetry out of the box
— Jaeger, Tempo, Honeycomb, Datadog, Grafana Cloud, Dynatrace all speak
OTLP
> - Today there is no OpenTelemetry bootstrap in the server, so
operators who want traces have to patch their fork or run a sidecar that
captures only HTTP-level info
> - An opt-in bootstrap that costs nothing when disabled is the
minimum-viable surface for this audience
> - The OpenTelemetry packages are heavyweight enough that we don't want
them in the default dependency graph — they should load only when the
operator configures an OTLP endpoint
> - This pull request adds a self-contained
`server/src/instrumentation.ts` that dynamically imports the OTel SDK
and starts it when `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT` is set, and is a
complete no-op otherwise
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue covers this directly — feature-gap description
following the feature-request template:
**Problem or motivation**
Production self-hosters increasingly expect telemetry out of the box —
Jaeger, Tempo, Honeycomb, Datadog, Grafana Cloud, Dynatrace all speak
OTLP — but the server has no OpenTelemetry bootstrap. Operators who want
traces today must patch their fork or run a sidecar that captures only
HTTP-level information.
**Proposed solution**
An opt-in OTel bootstrap gated on `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT`, loaded
via dynamic `import()` only when configured, so the heavyweight OTel
packages stay out of the default dependency graph.
**Alternatives considered**
Related open PRs found during the duplicate-PR search approach
observability differently: #4894 adds OTLP instrumentation to Paperclip
core unconditionally, and #3752 proposes an observability plugin. Not
duplicates — different layering: this PR keeps the default install
dependency-free via opt-in dynamic import.
## What Changed
- New `server/src/instrumentation.ts` — opt-in OpenTelemetry
auto-instrumentation. Gated on `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT`. Respects
the standard OTel env vars (`OTEL_SERVICE_NAME`, `OTEL_SERVICE_VERSION`,
`OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT`). Skips the fs/dns/net
auto-instrumentations (too chatty). `sdk.start()` is wrapped in
try/catch so a bad endpoint or missing native bindings doesn't crash the
server. `process.once("SIGTERM" / "SIGINT", …)` for clean shutdown on
the first signal only. OTel packages are loaded via dynamic `import()`
so they are true optional runtime dependencies — no entries in
`package.json`, no lockfile churn.
- `server/src/index.ts` — import `./instrumentation.js` as the very
first statement so auto-instrumentation can patch `http` / `express` /
`pg` before they are evaluated by downstream modules.
## Verification
- `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT=http://localhost:4317 pnpm start` after
`pnpm install
@opentelemetry/{sdk-node,auto-instrumentations-node,exporter-trace-otlp-grpc,resources,semantic-conventions}`
in `server/` — traces show up in the configured collector; HTTP,
Express, and Postgres spans are populated.
- `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT` unset — server starts with no
OTel-shaped output in logs, no behavior change.
- `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT=…` set but packages not installed —
single `console.warn` at startup telling the operator which packages to
install.
## Risks
Low. No behavior change unless the env var is set. The bootstrap never
throws into the caller; every failure path ends in `console.warn` /
`console.error` and falls through to non-traced operation.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context), extended thinking mode.
## Checklist
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] Thinking path traces from project context to this change
- [x] Model used specified
- [x] Tests run locally and pass
- [x] CI green
- [x] Greptile review addressed
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies.
> - Issue checkout ownership is part of the execution-control layer that
prevents two runs from mutating the same task at the same time.
> - The current lock model should preserve `409` conflicts for live
competing owners, but it should not strand the rightful assignee behind
a stale terminal run.
> - A same-agent follow-up run can encounter an existing `checkoutRunId`
from a failed, timed-out, succeeded, or missing heartbeat run.
> - In that case, the new run should safely adopt ownership instead of
failing with an ownership conflict.
> - This pull request makes stale checkout adoption transactional and
keeps live checkout owners protected.
> - The benefit is safer run recovery without weakening single-owner
checkout semantics.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Fixes#5350
- Closes#1508
- Closes#1970
- Closes#2083
- Closes#3158
- Closes#3190
- Related stale-lock PRs reviewed during dedup search: #7536, #6658,
#5660, #5442, #6223, #7048, #6824, #6799
## What Changed
- Updated issue checkout ownership recovery so the current assignee can
adopt a stale terminal or missing checkout run.
- Added row locking around stale checkout adoption to avoid races while
replacing `checkoutRunId` / `executionRunId`.
- Preserved `409` behavior when a different live checkout owner is still
active.
- Prevented terminal actor runs from reclaiming an unowned checkout lock
after the newer eager stale-checkout clear path.
- Fixed the stale checkout test fixture so same-assignee cases do not
insert duplicate agent rows.
- Added/kept focused coverage for stale checkout adoption and live-owner
conflict behavior.
- Fixes#5350.
## Verification
- Focused tests:
```sh
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts
```
Result:
```text
2 passed, 84 tests passed
```
- Server typecheck:
```sh
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
```
Result:
```text
passed
```
- Live curl smoke confirmed same-agent stale checkout adoption returns
`200` instead of `409`.
```text
old_run_status=succeeded
checkout_http=200
patch_http=200
```
The PATCH response showed `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId` updated
to the new run id.
### Live curl smoke result
<img width="1498" height="570" alt="Live curl smoke showing stale
checkout adoption returned 200"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4bf834de-e3cd-4495-ac5a-74767b439eeb"
/>
### Server request log
<img width="631" height="131" alt="Server logs showing heartbeat,
checkout, and patch requests succeeded"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ceaaa403-110e-44e8-bac8-5d8506e79cc3"
/>
## Risks
- Low to medium risk: this touches issue execution lock ownership.
- The behavioral shift is intentionally narrow: only the current
assignee can adopt stale terminal or missing checkout ownership.
- Live checkout owners remain protected with `409`.
- No database migration or API contract change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use, shell
execution, code review, and local verification.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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
## Cross-references and status (maintainer)
- Closes#1508
- Closes#1970
- Closes#2083
- Closes#3158
- Closes#3190
- Status: rebased onto current master; focused tests and server
typecheck pass locally; all required CI is green; Greptile is 5/5;
master drift verified.
---------
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The issue subsystem holds per-row lock columns (`checkoutRunId`,
`executionRunId`, `executionAgentNameKey`, `executionLockedAt`) that
gate checkout, ownership, and release
> - When a heartbeat run terminates, `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote`
clears the execution-lock columns but stale checkout locks could remain
attached to dead runs in edge paths
> - The original fix closed the finalization, checkout, release, and
sweeper paths, but PR CI exposed one more process-loss retry path where
a queued retry advanced `executionRunId` while leaving `checkoutRunId`
pinned to the failed run
> - This pull request closes the asymmetry: terminal-run cleanup and
process-loss retry recovery release dead checkout locks while preserving
live execution ownership
> - The benefit is permanent, automatic self-heal of stale lock columns
and fewer false checkout 409s requiring board intervention
> - Related upstream issue: #6007
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #6007.
Duplicate/related PR search performed on 2026-06-10 with query
`checkoutRunId process loss retry stale checkout lock
repo:paperclipai/paperclip`.
Related PRs found and reviewed for overlap:
- #7727 `fix(heartbeat): atomically advance checkoutRunId on
process-loss retry`
- #7707 `test: cover same-agent stale checkout adoption`
- #3068 `fix: clear checkoutRunId when releasing issue execution lock`
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote`:
extend the per-issue update to also null `checkoutRunId` when it matches
the terminating run id. WHERE clause scoped to `executionRunId = run.id
OR checkoutRunId = run.id` for idempotence.
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` process-loss retry: when queuing
the retry run, move `executionRunId` to the retry and clear the failed
run's `checkoutRunId` so the dead run no longer owns checkout.
- `server/src/services/issues.ts`: add `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal`
helper, symmetric to `clearExecutionRunIfTerminal`. No assignee/status
precondition. Wired into `checkout`, `assertCheckoutOwner`, and
`release`. Exported on the issue service.
- `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: add `sweepStaleIssueLocks`.
Scans `issues` where `checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT
NULL`, joins each referenced run, and clears all lock columns on issues
whose referenced runs are all terminal or missing. Emits one
`issue.stale_lock_cleared` activity log row per cleared issue.
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: re-export the sweeper on the
heartbeat facade.
- `server/src/index.ts`: invoke `sweepStaleIssueLocks` in both the
startup recovery sequence and the periodic heartbeat timer chain.
- Tests: route-level coverage of the new self-heal path on the next
checkout attempt, service-level sweeper coverage, and heartbeat recovery
assertions that terminal process-loss cleanup releases `checkoutRunId`.
## Verification
```bash
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run \
src/__tests__/recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts
NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues exactly one retry when the recorded local pid is dead|does not block paused-tree work when immediate continuation recovery is suppressed by the hold"
NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
```
All listed local checks pass. The new and updated tests cover:
- Run termination clears `checkoutRunId` when it points at the
terminating run.
- Process-loss retry clears the failed run's `checkoutRunId` while
assigning `executionRunId` to the queued retry.
- A different agent calling `POST /api/issues/:id/checkout` on an issue
whose prior owner died self-heals via `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal` and
succeeds.
- Sweeper clears stale lock columns for issues whose run row is
terminal.
- Sweeper leaves issues alone while the referenced run is still running.
- Sweeper leaves issues alone when `executionRunId` is still running
even if `checkoutRunId` is terminal.
- Sweeper is idempotent; second pass clears nothing.
Manual reproduction of the original bug shape:
1. Create an issue assigned to agent A, set `status='in_progress'`,
`checkoutRunId=R1`, `executionRunId=null`, where `heartbeat_runs.status
= 'failed'` for `R1`.
2. Reassign to agent B and move to `status='todo'`.
3. Before this PR: agent B `POST /checkout` returns `409 Issue checkout
conflict` indefinitely. After this PR: succeeds, lock columns rewritten
to agent B's current run id.
## Risks
- Low. All clears are scoped by run id, so they only fire when the lock
column unambiguously points at the terminating or terminal run. No
schema change. No migration. No API surface change.
- Behavioral shift: an issue that previously stayed `in_progress` with a
dead `checkoutRunId` after run termination now self-heals. Downstream
code that reads stale `checkoutRunId` as a proxy for recent run history
should already be reading `executionRunId` or the `heartbeat_runs`
table.
- Sweeper cost: one indexed scan per recovery tick over rows where
`checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT NULL` plus a single
batched `heartbeatRuns` lookup per candidate. Negligible at expected
cardinality; further bounded by the existing recovery cadence.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
This is a bug fix, not a feature. No roadmap overlap.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-4-7`, extended-thinking off,
tool use enabled.
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool use enabled, used for the
follow-up process-loss retry fix and PR body update.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue thread is the operator surface where comments, assignee
changes, pauses, resumes, and wakeups turn human intent into agent
execution.
> - Interrupting a live run and handing work to another assignee needs
clear semantics so the product does not accidentally keep work alive,
wake the wrong participant, or hide why an agent stopped.
> - Comment-driven wakes also need strict boundaries so closed, blocked,
and dependency-driven work only resumes when there is real actionable
input.
> - This pull request codifies the interrupt handoff contract,
implements backend scheduling behavior, and gives the UI clearer
handoff/pause language.
> - The benefit is a more inspectable and predictable task lifecycle for
both operators and agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Paperclip issue: `PAP-10664` / `PAP-10751`.
Problem: interrupting or reassigning live agent work could be ambiguous
in the UI and backend. Operators needed clearer feedback about whether a
handoff wakes an agent, what pause/cancel affects, and when comments
should revive execution. The backend also needed stronger tests around
comment wake boundaries, retry supersession, and structured agent
mention dispatch.
Related GitHub PR search found broad workflow-adjacent PRs #5082, #6359,
and #4083, but no exact duplicate for this head branch or
interrupt-handoff scope.
## What Changed
- Added an interrupt handoff semantics document covering destination
behavior, wake expectations, and live-run interruption states.
- Implemented backend interrupt handoff behavior and comment wake/reopen
handling in issue routes/services and heartbeat scheduling.
- Hardened structured agent mention dispatch so mentions resolve through
the intended dispatch path.
- Added UI helpers and components for handoff chips, wake rows,
interrupt banners, pause-affects summaries, and composer guidance.
- Updated the issue properties assignee picker and issue chat/composer
surfaces to make interrupt/reassign behavior clearer.
- Added backend, UI utility, component, and Storybook coverage for the
new behavior.
- Stabilized the new UI component tests with a local `flushSync`-backed
act helper matching existing repo practice in this dependency set.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by threading historical run `errorCode`
through issue-run data and operator-interrupted chat labels.
- Addressed Greptile's cancel ordering concern by terminating/deleting
in-memory heartbeat processes before cancellation status persistence,
with regression coverage for DB update failure.
## Verification
- `git diff --check $(git merge-base HEAD origin/master)..HEAD`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/interrupt-handoff.test.ts src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
src/components/interrupt-handoff/InterruptHandoffViews.test.tsx
--no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 4 files / 91 tests passed before
the Greptile follow-ups.
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism
--maxWorkers=1` — 6 files / 191 tests passed before the Greptile
follow-ups.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts --no-file-parallelism
--maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 24 tests passed after the historical
`errorCode` follow-up.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism
--maxWorkers=1` — 2 files / 11 tests passed after the historical
`errorCode` follow-up.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
--no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 52 tests passed after
the cancel ordering follow-up.
- Greptile is green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`;
the old inline P2 is resolved/outdated.
- GitHub Actions, Socket, security-review, and Greptile checks are green
for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`. The external
`security/snyk (cryppadotta)` status was still pending at
`https://app.snyk.io/org/cryppadotta/pr-checks/85b3e8f4-04e1-4f8e-9362-899c8148c23c`
after a bounded wait.
## Risks
- Medium: changes touch issue comments, wake scheduling, and live-run
interruption semantics, so regressions could affect when agents resume
or stay stopped.
- Medium: UI copy and state grouping for assignee changes may need
reviewer tuning after product review.
- Low migration risk: no database schema migration is included.
- The branch was created before the latest `origin/master` commits;
reviewers should confirm CI merge-base behavior and resolve any merge
conflicts if GitHub reports them.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool use and local command
execution enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window were not
exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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
Screenshot note: this PR includes Storybook coverage for the new
interrupt handoff UI states rather than captured before/after browser
screenshots in this PR-creation heartbeat.
---------
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.
> - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect
files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work.
> - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file
references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI.
> - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side
workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing
arbitrary host paths.
> - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and
be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review.
> - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page
file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact
file chips.
> - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from
issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip
issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`.
Problem / motivation:
- Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents
or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal.
- The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace
browsing/searching from an issue page.
- The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size
limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging.
Related PR:
- Prior closed attempt: #4442
- Single active PR for this branch: #7681
## What Changed
- Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and
workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products.
- Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing
workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific
limits, and audit logging.
- Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser,
command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact
file chips.
- Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and
workspace file opening.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
updated the existing single PR branch.
- Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset`
consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring
stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and
stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test.
## Verification
Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`:
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts
ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts
ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx`
- 1 file passed, 25 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed.
- Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current
`public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer
PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single
active PR for the branch.
- No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add
design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work.
Current remote verification on head
`a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`:
- Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no
unresolved Greptile review threads.
- PR workflow `verify` - success.
- Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards,
serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk -
success.
- `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was
filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block.
- `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate
detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I
reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test
failure was exposed in the job logs.
## Risks
- This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention
to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown
autolink false positives.
- Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth;
very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms.
- Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access
support is implemented.
- The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer
review, but the check output says it is not a merge block.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use
environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch
inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI
inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI
agents, work, and company context.
> - The board UI sidebar is the main way operators keep orientation
across companies, projects, agents, issues, and settings.
> - The existing fixed expanded sidebar competes with route-specific
navigation, especially company settings and plugin routes that bring
their own contextual sidebar.
> - A collapsible primary rail preserves global navigation while giving
contextual pages more horizontal room.
> - This pull request adds a persisted collapsed rail, hover/focus peek,
keyboard toggle, and a secondary sidebar takeover model for settings and
plugin `routeSidebar` surfaces.
> - The benefit is a denser board shell that keeps the app rail
available without replacing it when a route needs its own navigation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Paperclip issue: PAP-10638 Create collapsible sidebar branch.
Related GitHub PR found during duplicate search: #3838
(`feat/collapsible-sidebar`) covers a similar sidebar area but is a
different head branch and implementation. This PR intentionally packages
the work from `PAP-10638-collapsable-sidebar` into one reviewable
branch.
Problem description:
The board shell needs a first-class collapsed sidebar mode. Contextual
surfaces such as company settings and plugin route sidebars should not
replace the global app sidebar; they should collapse the app sidebar to
a rail and render their contextual navigation beside it.
## What Changed
- Added desktop collapsed/sidebar-peek state to `SidebarContext`,
including persisted user pins, route collapse requests, and forced
collapse for secondary-sidebar routes.
- Replaced the old resizable sidebar pane with `SidebarShell`, which
supports a fixed 64px rail, persisted expanded width, keyboard/pointer
resizing, and hover/focus peek overlay behavior.
- Updated `Sidebar`, sidebar nav items, project/agent sections, badges,
and account/company menu presentation for expanded, collapsed, and
peeking states.
- Added `RequestCollapsedSidebar` and `SecondarySidebar` so routes and
plugin `routeSidebar` slots can request contextual sidebar layouts
without replacing the primary app sidebar.
- Wired company settings and plugin route sidebars into the
secondary-pane takeover model.
- Added focused Vitest coverage for sidebar state precedence, shell
sizing, nav item rail rendering, keyboard shortcuts, layout takeover
behavior, and route collapse requests.
- Updated plugin authoring docs/spec references for route sidebar
behavior.
## Verification
Targeted local verification passed:
```sh
NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/context/SidebarContext.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarShell.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/components/RequestCollapsedSidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarNavItem.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/KeyboardShortcutsCheatsheet.test.tsx ui/src/hooks/useKeyboardShortcuts.test.tsx
```
Result: 10 test files passed, 88 tests passed.
Additional follow-up verification passed after review fixes:
```sh
NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/context/SidebarContext.test.tsx && pnpm --filter /ui typecheck
```
Result: 2 test files passed, 28 tests passed, and UI typecheck passed.
Latest PR-head remote checks: Paperclip PR workflow, Snyk, Socket, and
Greptile are green; commitperclip `review` is cancelled in its
security-gate step after filing a non-blocking neutral `security-review`
check.
Notes:
- A direct run without `NODE_ENV=test` loads React's production build in
this workspace, where `act` is unavailable; the command above matches
the repo stable runner's test environment.
- I did not run Playwright/browser e2e or full workspace build/typecheck
in this PR-creation heartbeat.
- QA screenshots are attached in
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7824#issuecomment-4661968387
for expanded, collapsed rail, hover peek, and settings secondary-sidebar
states.
## Risks
- Medium UI layout risk: this changes the board shell and primary
sidebar composition across many routes.
- Local storage migration risk is low: new collapsed state uses a new
key and existing width storage remains scoped to the sidebar width.
- Plugin route risk: plugin `routeSidebar` slots now render as secondary
panes on desktop, so plugin authors should confirm their route sidebar
content fits a 240px contextual pane.
- Mobile risk appears low because mobile keeps the drawer model and
gates collapsed/peek behavior to desktop.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with local shell/git/GitHub
CLI tool use. Exact service-side model identifier and context window
were not exposed in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The execution control plane uses issue comments, assignments,
monitors, blockers, and interactions to decide when agent-owned work
should wake and run.
> - Top-level issue comments are actionable issue-thread feedback for
the assignee, but document-scoped comments are review context unless
they are converted into an explicit routing primitive.
> - Document annotation comments were still wired into the same
`issue_commented` wake path as top-level issue comments.
> - That made document activity capable of waking an assignee and
looking like an execution path even when no issue-level handoff
happened.
> - This pull request narrows the wake boundary so document annotation
activity stays document-scoped while normal issue comments continue
waking the assignee.
> - The benefit is fewer spurious wakeups and clearer non-terminal issue
liveness semantics.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Internal Paperclip work: [PAP-10613](/PAP/issues/PAP-10613),
[PAP-10640](/PAP/issues/PAP-10640)
Problem description:
- Document annotation thread creation and annotation comments were
treated as assignee wake sources.
- Document-scoped activity should remain visible as document/review
context, but should not by itself act as a queued issue wake, monitor,
approval, interaction response, blocker, or terminal disposition.
- Top-level issue comments should still wake the assignee on
agent-assigned, non-terminal issues.
Related PR search performed:
- Found related prior document annotation work: #6733.
- Found related prior issue-comment wake work and revert context: #7678,
#7765.
- No existing PR for `PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`.
## What Changed
- Removed the document annotation comment assignee wake helper from
issue routes.
- Kept document annotation reference sync and activity logging intact.
- Documented the distinction between top-level issue comments and
document-scoped comments in `doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Added route tests proving document/document annotation activity does
not wake the assignee.
- Added route coverage proving top-level board issue comments still wake
the assignee.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts` — 2
files passed, 9 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git status -sb` — clean branch tracking
`origin/PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`.
## Risks
- Low to moderate behavior change: document annotation comments no
longer wake the issue assignee automatically.
- Operators who want document feedback to route work must use an
explicit primitive such as assignment, issue-thread comment, agent
mention, issue-thread interaction, approval, blocker, or delegated
follow-up.
- No database migration or public API shape change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with shell/tool use enabled.
Exact hosted runtime model identifier beyond GPT-5 was 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] 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 affected subsystem is the heartbeat execution path that turns
issue assignment into adapter-backed work in a selected workspace.
> - PAP-10409 and sibling follow-ups failed before useful adapter output
because project/workspace identity became incoherent.
> - A project-workspace-linked child issue could keep
`projectWorkspaceId` / execution workspace state while losing
`projectId`, then a git-sensitive local adapter could fall through
toward an invalid fallback cwd.
> - Paperclip needs to treat coherent workspace identity as part of the
live-path contract, not only as post-failure cleanup.
> - This pull request documents that rule, repairs issue inheritance,
and blocks git-sensitive adapter launch before it can run from the wrong
cwd.
> - The benefit is a bounded recovery path: affected issues are repaired
explicitly, future malformed workspaces fail fast with a clear recovery
action, and the UI surfaces that reason.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7646
Bug report fields:
- Summary: adapter-backed follow-up issues can fail before doing work
when issue creation/inheritance preserves workspace ids but drops
project identity.
- Affected issues: internal Paperclip issues PAP-10408 through
PAP-10412, especially PAP-10409.
- Steps to reproduce: create a project-scoped parent/follow-up tree
where a child issue keeps `projectWorkspaceId` or an inherited execution
workspace but has `projectId: null`, then launch a git-sensitive local
adapter such as `codex_local`.
- Expected behavior: Paperclip derives or preserves coherent project
identity during issue creation, and heartbeat refuses malformed
git-sensitive workspace launches with one clear recovery action.
- Actual behavior before this PR: the run could reach adapter bootstrap
with an incoherent workspace context and fail with git errors such as
`fatal: not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /srv)`.
- Root cause: child/follow-up issue inheritance preserved workspace
execution context without coherent project context. That let heartbeat
workspace resolution/adapter launch reach a fallback cwd instead of
refusing the malformed workspace state up front.
## What Changed
- Documented the adapter workspace-coherence live-path precondition in
`doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Updated issue creation/inheritance so workspace-inheriting issues
preserve or derive project identity, while existing mismatch validation
still rejects incoherent project/workspace combinations.
- Added a heartbeat preflight guard for git-sensitive local adapters
that validates effective cwd, persisted workspace identity, project
workspace identity, and required git metadata before launch.
- Added `workspace_validation` recovery actions for this failure class
and ensured the source issue gets a visible, idempotent recovery
comment.
- Surfaced workspace-validation recovery state in issue rows, blocked
notices, and recovery action cards, including the manual-repair wake
policy label.
- Added focused regression coverage for issue inheritance, all heartbeat
workspace-validation guard branches, recovery display helpers, and UI
recovery components.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- Result: 1 test file passed, 68 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`
- Result: 1 test file passed, 12 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`
- Result: 2 test files passed, 18 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Result: passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/recovery-display.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 200 tests passed before the final
guard-branch additions; the changed server file was re-run above.
- UI coverage: `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`
contains rendered scenarios for the generic recovery chip,
workspace-validation recovery chip, blocked notice indicator, recovery
action card, and issue-row chip.
- Screenshot capture attempt: Storybook started successfully on
`http://127.0.0.1:6016/`, but screenshots could not be captured in this
runner because `agent-browser` launched an unusable Chrome binary and
Playwright Chromium failed on missing system library `libatk-1.0.so.0`;
the runner is non-root and lacks passwordless sudo for installing
browser dependencies.
- Hosted CI on final commit `969594e7` is green, including `verify`,
`Build`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, `General tests (server)`,
workspace suites, serialized server suites, `Canary Dry Run`, and `e2e`.
- Roadmap checked: no duplicate roadmap item; this is a tightly scoped
reliability fix for existing heartbeat/workspace behavior.
- Duplicate PR search checked: no open PR matched `workspace coherence
adapter cwd`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: heartbeat launch is stricter for git-sensitive local
adapters and can now block malformed workspace states before adapter
execution.
- Mitigation: the guard is limited to local git-sensitive adapters and
records a source-scoped recovery action with structured evidence instead
of retrying indefinitely.
- Compatibility: valid project/workspace execution paths continue
normally; explicit project/workspace mismatches remain rejected.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based `codex_local` coding agent with terminal/tool
use. Work was produced through Paperclip issue execution with focused
local test runs.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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 a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution
policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract.
> - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal
same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and
generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads.
> - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context,
which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer
assigned to hostile content.
> - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging,
route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output
does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the
low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations.
> - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection,
preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind
promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion,
documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks,
enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor
authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic.
> - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review
containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot
surfaces.
Fixes#7531.
## What Changed
- Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus
database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work
products.
- Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent
self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion
checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context.
- Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source
trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime
containment, and quarantine redaction.
- Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust
preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views.
- Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review
contract plan under `doc/plans/`.
- Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses
`ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered
migration are not broken by the renumbered migration.
## Verification
- Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with
lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment
tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata.
- Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to
`0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT
EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not
broken.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts
ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `git diff --check`
- GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release
registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify,
policy/review, Socket, and Snyk.
- Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved
Greptile review threads.
- No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly
says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server
authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata,
and UI preset controls.
- Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate
future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions.
- Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover
the current known routes but future integrations must route through the
same containment layer.
- The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is
5/5.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI
workflow.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added
per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically
required
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Fixes#7551
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable
company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch.
> - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that
can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company.
> - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package
contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI
workflows, and the board UI.
> - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped
company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent
creation, and preserved catalog provenance.
> - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into
one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`.
> - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI,
package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync.
## What Changed
- Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional
team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests,
and migration notes.
- Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and
services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams.
- Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source
policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager
reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection.
- Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior,
including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden
agent-run installs.
- Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures,
and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary
navigation.
- Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed
generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai
typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and
`public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`.
- Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`,
generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts.
## Risks
- Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared
contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code.
- Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must
keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks
strict.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy;
CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh.
- The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so
future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
>
> ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and
plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed
on the Paperclip task branch for review.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session;
exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and
local test/typecheck tooling.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, with the CLI
acting as a scriptable operator and agent interface to that control
plane.
> - The REST API surface has grown across companies, agents, issues,
routines, plugins, auth, workspaces, secrets, and operational inspection
commands.
> - The CLI had drifted from that API surface: some commands were
missing, some command shapes differed from docs/reference material, and
several edge cases only failed during end-to-end local-source testing.
> - The local development runbook requires these tests to be disposable
and isolated from a real `~/.paperclip`, `~/.codex`, or `~/.claude`
installation.
> - This pull request adds broad CLI/API parity coverage, fixes the
actionable bugs found during that pass, and records the reproducible
test log under `doc/logs`.
> - The benefit is a more complete, scriptable CLI surface with
regression coverage for the command families exercised by the parity
run.
## What Changed
- Added or expanded CLI command coverage for access/auth, companies,
agents, projects, goals, issues and subresources, routines, plugins,
workspaces, activity/run/cost/dashboard inspection, assets, skills,
secrets, tokens, prompt/wake flows, and local setup helpers.
- Fixed CLI/API parity bugs found during the run, including context
profile patching, issue interaction optional payloads, malformed
tree-hold errors, environment duplicate handling, configure
invalid-section exit codes, worktree pnpm invocation, token agent ID
resolution, plugin tool worker lookup, and routine webhook secret
cleanup.
- Added missing CLI wrappers and route coverage for health/access,
invite resolution URL forwarding, join status normalization, secret
lifecycle commands, LLM docs routes, available-skill isolation, positive
board-claim coverage, and interactive `connect` prompt-flow tests.
- Added a schema-backed `/api/openapi.json` route sufficient for CLI
parity and `paperclipai openapi --json` smoke coverage.
- Added `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` with the
detailed living test/bug log and renamed the log directory from
`doc/bugs` to `doc/logs`.
- Added `doc/plans/2026-05-23-cli-api-parity.md` and the OpenAPI parity
reference used during the pass.
OpenAPI note: this PR intentionally does not try to subsume
`feature/openapi-spec`. The OpenAPI implementation here is schema-backed
and better than the earlier route-inventory stub, but
`feature/openapi-spec` is the fuller/better OpenAPI branch because it
includes exact mounted-route coverage tests and additional current route
coverage. That branch should stay as its own PR and can supersede this
OpenAPI route implementation.
## Verification
Targeted automated checks run:
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/board-claim.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/connect.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/agent-lifecycle.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --dir cli typecheck`
- `pnpm --dir server typecheck`
Manual/local E2E verification:
- Ran the full disposable local-source CLI/API parity pass with isolated
`PAPERCLIP_HOME`, `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT`,
`PAPERCLIP_AUTH_STORE`, `CODEX_HOME`, and `CLAUDE_HOME` under
`tmp/cli-api-parity`.
- Verified `DATABASE_URL` and `DATABASE_MIGRATION_URL` stayed unset for
the scratch server.
- Verified live health and schema-backed OpenAPI responses on
non-default port `3197`.
- Revoked created board/agent tokens and cleaned up temporary plugins,
secrets, non-default environments, and project workspaces.
- See `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` for the full
command-by-command reproduction log.
Not run:
- Full `pnpm test`, `pnpm test:run`, or `pnpm build` were not run after
the entire branch because the branch is broad and the parity pass used
focused test/typecheck verification plus live isolated CLI reruns.
## Risks
- This is a broad PR and touches many CLI command modules, so review
surface is high. The changes are grouped around one theme, but a split
may be easier if maintainers prefer narrower PRs.
- The OpenAPI route in this PR is not the final/best OpenAPI
implementation. `feature/openapi-spec` has stronger exact-route coverage
and should remain the source for the dedicated OpenAPI PR.
- The living log is intentionally detailed and large. It is useful for
reproducibility but adds documentation weight.
- No UI changes are intended; screenshots are not applicable.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Codex desktop. Exact served
model/context-window identifier was not exposed in the local app. Work
used shell/Git/GitHub CLI tooling, local source inspection, targeted
test execution, and live isolated Paperclip CLI/API smoke testing.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so
planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core
control-plane loop.
> - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into
execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse
isolated workspaces.
> - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision
could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke
the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition.
> - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first:
accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable
claim state, and retry-safe child creation.
> - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed
visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a
dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to
reconstruct child creation from raw activity.
> - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive,
hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces
decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and
easier to inspect.
## What Changed
- Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to
`doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint,
durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior.
- Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend,
including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue
routes for creating and listing decomposition state.
- Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays
scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically
re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee.
- Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent
same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial
child recreation under the same fingerprint.
- Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting
API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision
status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the
UI.
- Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still
renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"accepted plan decomposition"
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts`
- Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution
workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let
Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page
and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted
revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links.
- Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a
plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked
in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope.
## Risks
- This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update;
reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match
the intended decomposition table.
- The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so
regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle
retries if the claim state machine is wrong.
- The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers
should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting
existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section
automatically.
- `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize`
accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can
interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does
not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature
itself.
> Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening
change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap
feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent;
exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context),
with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing
capabilities.
<img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05
48 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28"
/>
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through
company-scoped control-plane workflows.
> - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed,
reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup.
> - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills,
optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills
have clear provenance.
> - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and
managing company skills.
> - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog,
company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI.
> - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills
are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog
listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills.
- Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled
and optional skill content plus validation/build tests.
- Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI,
server, and UI contracts.
- Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog
operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance.
- Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains
explicit across local adapters.
- Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed
company skills.
- Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills
Paperclip skill reference.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no
`pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included
in the final PR diff.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`.
- Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default
branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`.
- Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four
provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database
from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump
contains a duplicate-column foreign key
(`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The
default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the
focused run above.
- Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and
no migration-file changes relative to `master`.
## Risks
- Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server
APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI.
- Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention
because they affect reusable company setup and portability.
- No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no
migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff.
- No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be
handled by the repository lockfile workflow.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the
`codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool
access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata is not exposed
in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run targeted tests locally and documented the local
workspace-runtime seed failure above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally
omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and
reviewer inspection
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Fresh self-hosted deployments need an operator path before any
invite exists.
> - Umbrel installs are private LAN deployments, so a one-time browser
claim is appropriate only when the deployment is private and unclaimed.
> - Public deployments and installs with active invites must keep the
existing invite-only model so admin creation is not exposed broadly.
> - GitHub PR #2927 established the useful direction, but it needed to
be adapted onto current `master` rather than merged as-is.
> - This pull request adds that adapted private-only claim flow across
server, UI, docs, and regression coverage.
> - The benefit is that a fresh private Umbrel-style install can be
claimed from the browser without weakening public deployment access.
## What Changed
- Added a first-admin claim service and access route support for
one-time admin claim eligibility on private unclaimed deployments.
- Updated the bootstrap/access UI so eligible private installs show a
setup claim path, while public and invited deployments keep invite-first
behavior.
- Added a bootstrap-pending setup UX lab covering claim, invite, public,
and signed-in access states.
- Updated deployment and local development docs for authenticated
private/public behavior and the Umbrel-style claim path.
- Added server and UI regression tests for private claim, public
no-claim, active invite fallback, existing board/no-access flows, and
health exposure reporting.
- Stabilized PR handoff verification by serializing the aggregate server
Vitest workspace run, forcing `NODE_ENV=test`, and relaxing the
heartbeat batching test around legitimate recovery follow-up runs.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts`
- `pnpm test:run`
- QA validation: PAP-10115 passed browser validation with screenshots
for private fresh install claim, active invite versus claim conflict,
public invite-only/claim-absent behavior, existing invite fallback, and
normal board/no-access flows.
- GitHub closeout: issue #2579 and PR #2927 were updated with the
accepted direction: adapt the implementation, do not direct-merge #2927
as-is.
## Risks
- The claim endpoint must remain private-only and one-time; a regression
here could expose admin creation on public deployments.
- Existing invite behavior must remain intact for public deployments and
installs that already have an active invite.
- The stable Vitest harness now serializes the aggregate server
workspace group; this is slower, but it avoids DB-backed suite
collisions under root workspace mode.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
>
> ROADMAP.md checked: this is a scoped deployment bootstrap/access fix
and does not duplicate a listed roadmap project.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` for product
engineering, implementation, and verification, with tool-enabled local
code execution. Paperclip QA browser validation was performed in
PAP-10115 by the assigned QA agent; exact adapter model metadata for
that QA run is not exposed in this PR context.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The README is the first impression for developers and operators
landing on the repo, so it has to reflect the current brand voice and
visual identity
> - The existing README leads with an outdated hero ("Open-source
orchestration for zero-human companies"), keeps a board-centric tagline
that no longer matches the positioning, advertises a removed COMING SOON
teaser, and still uses an old header image and an unnecessary footer
image
> - Out-of-date positioning at the top of the README undercuts the rest
of the doc and the brand guidelines refresh at
https://paperclip.ing/brand
> - This pull request swaps the README header image for the new brand
banner, updates the hero copy and tagline, and trims stale callouts so
the README matches the new brand guidelines
> - The benefit is a README that leads with the current positioning
("Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.") and
current visual identity, with no stale teasers or extraneous footer
image
## What Changed
- Added new brand banner at \`doc/assets/banner.jpg\` and pointed the
README header \`<img>\` at it (alt text updated to the new tagline)
- Replaced the \`## What is Paperclip?\` + \`# Open-source orchestration
for zero-human companies\` heading pair with a single H1: \`# Paperclip
is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.\`
- Tightened the opening paragraphs ("Open-source orchestration for teams
of AI agents.", trimmed dashboard sentence, "Under the hood:" line,
period on the OpenClaw/Paperclip tagline)
- Removed the \`COMING SOON: Clipmart\` callout
- Softened the Governance copy by dropping "You're the board." in both
the Features grid and the Systems table
- Fixed typo: "solo-entreprenuer" → "solo entrepreneur"
- Removed the README footer image block entirely
- Updated the closing subline: "Built for people who want to run
companies, not babysit agents." → "Built for people who want to get work
done, not babysit agents."
- Left existing assets untouched on disk: \`doc/assets/header.png\` and
\`doc/assets/footer.jpg\` are unchanged from master (only the README
references changed)
## Verification
- \`git diff master..HEAD --stat\` → only \`README.md\` (10+/18-) and
the new \`doc/assets/banner.jpg\`
- Rendered the README locally and confirmed:
- The header banner shows the new brand image
- The H1 reads "Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for
work."
- No COMING SOON Clipmart callout
- No footer image; closing subline reads "Built for people who want to
get work done, not babysit agents."
- No code paths changed; no test suite applies
## Risks
- Low risk. Docs-only change. \`cli/README.md\` still references the
on-master URL for \`doc/assets/header.png\`, which is intentionally left
in place so that link does not break.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id \`claude-opus-4-7\` ("Opus 4.7"), running
under Claude Code via the Paperclip claude_local adapter.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (n/a — docs-only)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — docs-only)
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (n/a — README-only; rendered review described in
Verification)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Closes PAPA-439
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped
issues, projects, agents, and board-visible workflows.
> - The board sidebar and project list are the daily navigation surface
for that control plane.
> - Users need to keep all projects and agents accessible while hiding
resources they have intentionally left from their own sidebar.
> - That requires user-scoped resource membership state backed by
company-scoped API and database contracts.
> - The branch also needed to preserve HTTP worktree login sessions and
keep the project list easier to scan after membership grouping.
> - This pull request adds resource membership controls, sidebar leave
actions, grouped/sortable project listings, and focused tests.
> - The benefit is a cleaner personal workspace view without weakening
company-scoped access to the underlying project or agent detail pages.
## What Changed
- Added `project_memberships` and `agent_memberships` tables with
API/shared/server contracts for current-user join/leave state.
- Renumbered the membership migration to `0090_resource_memberships`
after rebasing onto current `master`, and made it idempotent for anyone
who had applied the old branch-local `0087` migration.
- Added project and agent sidebar leave actions, plus list filtering
that waits for membership state before hiding resources.
- Added grouped project listing, project sorting controls, and reserved
row subtitle height for cleaner scanning.
- Fixed HTTP auth cookie security handling so HTTP worktree sessions can
persist.
- Updated focused server and UI tests for the new membership, sidebar,
project list, and auth behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MembershipAction.test.tsx
ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx`
- Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Migration safety: low to medium. The migration now uses `IF NOT
EXISTS` / guarded constraints and is numbered after current master
migrations, but it should still get CI coverage against fresh databases.
- UI behavior: low. Left resources are hidden from sidebar only after
membership state loads; direct detail access remains available.
- Auth behavior: low. Cookie security is relaxed only for HTTP/private
local-style origins where secure cookies would prevent login
persistence.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git workflow,
context window not exposed by runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Screenshot note: no browser screenshots were captured in this heartbeat;
the UI changes are covered by focused component tests above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch accumulated multiple already-tested control-plane,
adapter runtime, invite, workspace, plugin, and UI quality fixes on the
primary Paperclip checkout.
> - `origin/master` advanced while those commits were still local, so
the branch needed to be preserved and reconciled before review.
> - Splitting the branch commit-by-commit against the new base produced
overlapping conflicts with recently merged upstream PRs.
> - This pull request keeps the remaining branch as one standalone PR
because the final diff is 38 files after removing screenshot artifacts,
under Greptile's 100-file cap, and can be merged independently after
review.
> - The benefit is that none of the local work is lost, the branch is
now based on current `origin/master`, and reviewers can evaluate the
reconciled changes in one place.
## What Changed
- Merged the local accumulated branch with current `origin/master` and
resolved the invite-flow overlaps from the newer upstream companies
query helper.
- Preserved the local fixes for invite existing-member behavior, invite
link copy fallback, reusable workspace selection, worktree auth, static
SPA fallback, markdown wrapping, plugin slot registration, cloud
upstream UX/server polish, project sorting, and related tests.
- Removed screenshot artifacts from the PR per review request.
- Kept the PR under the requested file limit: 38 files changed, with no
`pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/pages/CompanyInvites.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InviteLanding.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/slots.test.ts
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/invite-accept-existing-member.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/static-index-html.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Confirmed `git diff --name-only origin/master...HEAD | wc -l` is `38`.
- Confirmed no PR diff entries match `pnpm-lock.yaml`,
`.github/workflows/*`, or `screenshots/*`.
## Risks
- Medium review risk because this is a bundled rescue PR rather than
several narrow feature PRs.
- Invite flow and company cache behavior overlapped with newer upstream
changes; the merge resolution intentionally keeps the shared
`companiesListQueryOptions` helper while preserving local
existing-member invite behavior.
- Visual review evidence is no longer attached in-repo because
screenshots were removed from this PR per review request.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with repository tool access,
terminal execution, and git/GitHub CLI operations.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] UI screenshots were intentionally removed from this PR per review
request
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: CodexCoder <codexcoder@paperclip.local>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Agent creation can happen through local runtimes, managed runtimes,
and external agents that onboard through invites.
> - The old OpenClaw-oriented invite UX lived under company
settings/invites and made a gateway-specific path look like a company
access setting.
> - That hid the broader bring-your-own-agent flow and forced operators
to leave the add-agent modal when adding an external agent.
> - This pull request moves external agent invite generation into the
add-agent modal and makes the copy agent-oriented instead of
OpenClaw-only.
> - The benefit is a clearer agent-first onboarding path while company
invites stay focused on human access.
## What Changed
- Added an external-agent invite branch to the add-agent modal,
including a dedicated prompt result view with Back navigation.
- Added a shared agent onboarding prompt builder and focused modal
coverage for prompt replacement/back navigation.
- Removed the agent invite prompt UI from Company Settings and Company
Invites, leaving Company Invites focused on human access links and
invite history.
- Updated the hidden OpenClaw Gateway runtime hint to direct operators
to the add-agent invite flow instead of presenting it as a blocked
runtime card.
- Updated invite/onboarding docs, storybook coverage, and server-side
onboarding copy toward generic agent language while preserving existing
gateway compatibility.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `FAKE_BIN="$(mktemp -d)/bin"; mkdir -p "$FAKE_BIN"; printf
'#!/bin/sh\nexit 1\n' > "$FAKE_BIN/tailscale"; chmod +x
"$FAKE_BIN/tailscale"; PATH="$FAKE_BIN:$PATH" pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm test:run` without the fake `tailscale` shim was also attempted;
it failed only in two pre-existing CLI tailnet fallback tests because
this host has a real Tailscale address (`100.125.202.3`) where those
tests expect no Tailscale.
- Focused confirmation for that host-env issue: `FAKE_BIN=...
PATH="$FAKE_BIN:$PATH" pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai
cli/src/__tests__/network-bind.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts`
- Manual UI verification: served UI locally in light mode, opened
add-agent modal, generated external agent prompt, verified the generated
prompt replaces the form and Back returns to the form.
### Screenshots
## Risks
- Existing OpenClaw gateway compatibility remains, but operators now
discover external agent onboarding from the add-agent modal instead of
company settings.
- Agent invites still appear in the invite history table, so that page
may show agent-scoped invite rows even though it no longer creates agent
onboarding prompts.
- Low migration risk: no schema changes.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in Codex desktop; tool-enabled
repository, shell, browser, and GitHub workflow. Context window size was
not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies by keeping
task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control
plane.
> - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the
boundary between autonomy and governance.
> - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and
clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries.
> - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host
APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls.
> - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this
core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public
core/plugin infrastructure work.
> - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong
in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental
`plugin-briefs` package.
> - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths
and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved
Greptile threads.
> - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for
richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal
operators.
## What Changed
- Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed
issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service.
- Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots,
authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge
invocation scope propagation.
- Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind
plugin-provided settings surfaces.
- Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices.
- Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted
agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback
behavior.
- Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active
agent memberships and role-default human permission grants.
- Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch
changes.
- Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff.
- Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy
membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and
startup test mocks.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files
passed, 28 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed.
- `git diff --check` -> passed.
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed.
- `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed
with no lockfile update.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed.
- `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0.
- GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`.
- Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0
comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads.
- Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`,
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter
for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies
may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are
configured.
- Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area
available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company
scoping.
- Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill,
but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled workflow with shell,
git, 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents that need scoped, auditable access
to secrets
> - Hosted and external deployments need provider vault configuration
without exposing secret values in Paperclip metadata
> - AWS Secrets Manager vault setup previously required too much manual
operator knowledge
> - Provider vault discovery and removal belong together as an
independent secrets-management improvement
> - This pull request adds AWS provider vault discovery/prefill plus
vault removal flows
> - The benefit is a safer operator path for configuring external secret
storage before higher-level cloud workflows depend on it
## What Changed
- Added shared validators/types for AWS provider vault discovery
payloads and safe provider metadata.
- Implemented AWS provider vault discovery preview on the server.
- Added provider vault removal service/route behavior.
- Added Secrets page UI for discovery prefill, removal messaging, and
related rendering coverage.
- Added Storybook provider-vault fixtures and captured screenshots for
the new UX states.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/secret.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`
- Result: 4 files passed, 1 embedded Postgres-backed file skipped on
this host because local Postgres init was unavailable.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Storybook screenshot capture against `Product/Secrets` on
`http://127.0.0.1:60381/iframe.html?id=product-secrets--secrets-inventory&viewMode=story&globals=theme:dark`
## Screenshots
Provider vaults tab after this change:
AWS discovery candidate flow:
Provider vault removal confirmation:
## Risks
- Secret provider metadata handling must remain non-sensitive;
validators reject credential-bearing Vault URLs and sensitive AWS
discovery keys.
- AWS discovery depends on deployment credentials being configured
correctly outside Paperclip-managed company secrets.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use.
Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the
local Paperclip adapter runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates AI-agent work
through issues, heartbeats, comments, approvals, and auditable recovery
paths.
> - The affected subsystem is heartbeat/recovery orchestration,
especially the optional cheap model profile used for operational
recovery overhead.
> - Cheap recovery should repair status and liveness, but it must not
become the worker lane that writes deliverables, continues source work,
or propagates cheap execution hints into downstream retries.
> - The gap was that cheap-profile hints could follow recovery wake
contexts and assignment overrides farther than intended, making real
work eligible to run on the cheap model.
> - This pull request separates status-only cheap recovery from normal
source-work continuations, adds route guards for deliverable mutations
during cheap status-only runs, and documents the invariant.
> - The benefit is safer retry/recovery behavior: cheap runs can clean
up control-plane state, while any remaining source work resumes through
a normal/original model path.
## What Changed
- Added recovery model-profile work classes so status-only recovery
carries explicit guard context and normal-model continuations scrub
cheap hints.
- Updated heartbeat, productivity review, liveness continuation, and
recovery service wakeups to request cheap only for bounded status-only
recovery work.
- Blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from writing issue documents,
plans, attachments, work products, or assigning downstream work back to
`modelProfile: "cheap"`.
- Added/updated server tests for cheap profile propagation,
artifact/document guards, route authorization, retry scheduling, and
successful-run handoff behavior.
- Documented the recovery model-profile lane in
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md` and `doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- After rebasing onto current `public-gh/master`, stabilized the new
`InstanceSidebar` plugin-filter tests so the PR check lane stays green.
## Verification
- Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
src/services/recovery/model-profile-hint.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-document-restore-routes.test.ts` from `server/` - 3
files, 37 tests passed after final edits.
- Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` from `server/` - 44
tests passed after rerunning the cleanup-sensitive file alone.
- Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/InstanceSidebar.test.tsx` - 4 tests passed.
- Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed.
- Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed.
- PR checks on latest head `6f8c3b1380f5bd872c6f49f6f7188ecf3bb6d263` -
all green, including `verify`, build, typecheck,
server/general/serialized tests, e2e, Snyk, and policy.
- Greptile: pass 3 returned Confidence Score 5/5 with zero unresolved
Greptile review threads.
## Risks
- Medium risk: recovery behavior is intentionally stricter, so any path
that incorrectly relies on cheap recovery to keep doing source work will
now need to hand back to a normal-model run.
- Low migration risk: no schema changes.
- No product UI changes; the UI file touched is a test-only
stabilization after rebasing onto current `master`.
> 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, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool use and
local code execution enabled; context window not exposed in this
environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A: no product UI changes)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
<!--
Required. Trace your reasoning from the top of the project down to this
specific change. Start with what Paperclip is, then narrow through the
subsystem, the problem, and why this PR exists. Use blockquote style.
Aim for 5-8 steps. See CONTRIBUTING.md for full examples.
-->
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is how optional capabilities extend the control
plane without adding hidden core behavior.
> - Plugin authors need accurate guidance for the current managed
capabilities model.
> - The existing docs under-described managed skills and the
routine-first pattern for durable plugin automation.
> - Content-oriented plugins such as LLM Wiki should model recurring
work with visible managed agents, projects, routines, and skills.
> - This pull request aligns the authoring guide, local development
guide, and longer plugin spec with that model.
> - The benefit is clearer plugin guidance that preserves Paperclip
visibility, budgets, pause controls, and audit trails.
## What Changed
<!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. -->
- Documented plugin-managed skills alongside managed agents, projects,
and routines.
- Added guidance for content-oriented plugins to use managed projects,
agents, skills, and routines instead of private daemon-like state.
- Updated the manifest/spec examples and capability lists for current
plugin-managed surfaces.
- Clarified when to use managed routines instead of plugin runtime jobs
for board-visible recurring work.
- Added a short local plugin development note pointing authors toward
routine-first automation.
- Addressed Greptile docs feedback by marking top-level `launchers` as
legacy and removing a redundant `slug` from the managed skill example.
## Verification
<!--
How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual
steps, or both. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots.
-->
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this is docs alignment for the completed plugin
system milestone and does not add roadmap-level core feature work.
- Greptile Review: success on the latest head; `3 files reviewed, 0
comments added` after follow-up fixes.
- GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head, including Build,
Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server suites,
e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`.
## Risks
<!--
What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes,
behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor.
-->
- Low risk: documentation-only changes.
- Main risk is documentation drift if the plugin API changes again
before these docs are reviewed.
> 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
<!--
Required. Specify which AI model was used to produce or assist with
this change. Be as descriptive as possible - include:
• Provider and model name (e.g., Claude, GPT, Gemini, Codex)
• Exact model ID or version (e.g., claude-opus-4-6,
gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09)
• Context window size if relevant (e.g., 1M context)
• Reasoning/thinking mode if applicable (e.g., extended thinking,
chain-of-thought)
• Any other relevant capability details (e.g., tool use, code execution)
If no AI model was used, write "None — human-authored".
-->
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell and GitHub connector tool
use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent
work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls.
> - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane
reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions,
watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing,
plugin launchers, and small UI polish.
> - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current
`origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow
churn.
> - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the
recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and
splitting would create avoidable conflicts.
> - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest
`origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and
adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification.
> - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and
merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile
limit.
## What Changed
- Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a
dedicated worktree.
- Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry
handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores.
- Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo`
when retrying source-scoped recovery.
- Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex
cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits
from the branch.
- Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit
string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility.
- Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`
changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `npm run install` in
`node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the
local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx`
- First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files
failed before sqlite3 native binding was built.
- After rebuilding sqlite3:
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts`
passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host
guard.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
## Risks
- Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics,
server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces.
- Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI
should provide the stronger database-backed signal.
- UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot
was captured in this PR creation pass.
- This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge
this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than
merging duplicate implementations together.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled local repository
and GitHub workflow, medium reasoning effort.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Scheduled routines are the control-plane path for recurring agent
work.
> - Routines already had dispatch/history, but their runtime environment
did not carry routine-owned secret bindings through execution.
> - Operators need routine-specific secrets that can override
project/agent env without exposing secret values in history, logs, or
access events.
> - This pull request adds the routine env runtime contract, wires it
into execution, and makes the routine UI/history surfaces show safe
secret metadata.
> - The benefit is that routine executions can use scoped secret refs
predictably while preserving company boundaries and auditability.
## What Changed
- Added routine env persistence/runtime support, including
`routines.env`, `routine_runs.routine_revision_id`, revision snapshots,
and idempotent migration `0086_routine_env_runtime_contract`.
- Resolved routine env during heartbeat adapter config assembly with
precedence `agent < project < routine` and secret access events recorded
against the routine consumer.
- Added secret binding synchronization for routine create/update/restore
flows and guarded cross-company, missing, disabled, and deleted secret
cases.
- Added a Secrets tab to routine detail, env/secret history diff
rendering, and Storybook coverage for the new UI states.
- Added server/UI regression tests, including an embedded-Postgres QA
path for routine secret execution and restore behavior.
- Updated implementation/database docs for routine env and
secret-binding behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` after rebasing onto
`public-gh/master` to refresh workspace links for the newly-added
upstream Grok adapter package.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/qa-routine-secrets-e2e.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 92 tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed across the workspace.
- `pnpm build` passed. Vite emitted the existing
large-chunk/dynamic-import warnings.
- UI screenshots were captured locally during QA in
`artifacts/pap-9521/` and `artifacts/pap-9522/`; generated screenshots
are not committed to avoid adding binary artifacts to the repo.
## Risks
- Migration risk is limited by `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for the new
columns, FK, and index, and the migration is ordered as `0086`
immediately after upstream `0085`.
- Runtime behavior changes env precedence for routine executions by
adding routine env as the highest-precedence layer; tests cover
agent/project/routine precedence.
- Secret handling is security-sensitive; tests cover value-free
manifests/events/errors, disabled/missing/deleted secrets, and
cross-company rejection.
- UI history now renders routine env/secret diffs; tests and Storybook
stories cover the main rendering paths.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell/tool use and
medium reasoning effort.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies, and
the board UI needs to keep operator visibility clear as company work
scales.
> - The involved subsystem is the Issues page board mode, specifically
the Kanban rendering path for issue status columns.
> - The current board keeps the classic Kanban model, but high-volume
columns can become tall, slow, and hard to scan when hundreds of issues
are loaded.
> - We explored alternatives and chose the conservative Scaled Kanban
direction: preserve status lanes and drag/drop, but bound visible cards
and collapse low-signal lanes.
> - This pull request adds UI-only density controls and high-volume
defaults rather than introducing schema or API changes.
> - The benefit is a board that remains usable with large issue
inventories while keeping active workflow lanes visible.
## What Changed
- Added scaled Kanban behavior with compact cards, collapsed cold-lane
rails, per-column visible-card limits, and per-column "show more" reveal
controls.
- Added persisted board density preferences to the Issues page view
state, scoped through the existing company-specific localStorage path.
- Added board toolbar controls for compact cards, collapsed cold lanes,
cards-per-column page size (`10`, `25`, `50`), and density reset.
- Added a design spec and implementation plan under `doc/plans/`.
- Added focused Vitest coverage for `KanbanBoard` and `IssuesList`
high-volume board behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
ui/src/components/KanbanBoard.test.tsx` — pass, 35 tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — pass.
- `pnpm build` — pass before the upstream merge; not rerun after
docs/assets cleanup.
- `curl -fsS http://127.0.0.1:3100/api/health` — pass against restarted
local dev server after applying pending migration
`0078_white_darwin.sql`.
- `pnpm test:run` — previously failed in unrelated Cursor remote-sandbox
server tests:
- `server/src/__tests__/cursor-local-adapter-environment.test.ts`:
expected probe status `pass`, received `fail`.
- `server/src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts`: two remote
sandbox execution cases exited `127` instead of `0`.
Local dev server for manual UI inspection: `http://127.0.0.1:3100`.
Screenshots were captured for review and attached in the PR thread
rather than committed to source.
## Risks
- Low schema/API risk: this is UI-only and uses the existing issue data
path.
- Board users may need to notice the new density controls if they want
to override high-volume defaults.
- Collapsed cold lanes remain valid drop targets, so status moves can
happen without expanding the destination lane.
- Very large remote columns can still hit the existing 200-item
per-column query cap; this PR improves rendering, not server-side board
pagination.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, local test/build execution, and inline implementation
planning. No subagents 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped
issues, comments, and issue documents.
> - Issue documents are the durable place where plans, handoffs, and
other work artifacts are revised over time.
> - Some documents need to be preserved as operator-approved snapshots
while agents continue working on the same issue.
> - Without document locking, a later board or agent write can overwrite
the document key that reviewers expected to remain stable.
> - This pull request adds board-managed issue document locks and makes
agent writes to locked keys create a derived document instead of
mutating the locked document.
> - The benefit is safer document handoffs: approved or frozen issue
documents stay immutable until the board explicitly unlocks them.
## What Changed
- Added `locked_at`, `locked_by_agent_id`, and `locked_by_user_id`
document fields plus migration `0085_tranquil_the_executioner.sql`.
- Added document lock/unlock service behavior, route endpoints, activity
events, and locked-document write protections.
- Made agent document writes to locked keys create a new derived key
such as `plan-2` rather than overwriting the locked document.
- Surfaced lock state through shared issue document types, UI API
methods, document header lock controls, and activity formatting.
- Added server and UI tests for lock/unlock behavior, locked document
immutability, and UI action visibility.
- Updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` with the V1 document lock
contract and endpoints.
## Verification
- `git rebase public-gh/master` completed cleanly after committing the
branch changes.
- `git diff --check` passed before commit.
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-revisions.test.ts` passed: 5 files, 32 tests.
## Risks
- Medium risk because this changes the document persistence contract and
adds a migration.
- The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and guarded foreign-key
creation so it remains safe for users who may have already applied an
earlier copy of the migration.
- Locked documents intentionally reject board edits/deletes/restores
until unlocked; any existing workflows that expected direct overwrite
need to unlock first.
- Agent writes to locked keys now create derived documents, which may
create extra issue documents when agents retry locked writes.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with tool use and local code
execution in the Paperclip worktree.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies.
> - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without
expanding the core product surface.
> - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin
authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without
reaching into internal package paths.
> - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that
keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers
coherent.
> - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the
server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the
agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs.
> - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local
folders with a documented, repeatable happy path.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local
plugin scaffolding.
- Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution,
dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior.
- Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package
layouts.
- Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher
behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example.
- Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin
authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter
paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck
&& pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai
cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk
packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example
test`
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command
behavior, and the local development watcher.
- Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the
new docs call out that trust boundary.
- No database migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled local shell and git
workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details were not
exposed in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs
and tests, not board UI rendering.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work
must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness.
> - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but
source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues,
blockers, and comments.
> - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns
recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue.
> - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class
active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution
outcome.
> - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend
reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions.
> - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source
issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path.
## What Changed
- Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared
types/constants/validators, and an idempotent
`0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master`
migrations.
- Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped
recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid
locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes.
- Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue
detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked,
cancelled, or false-positive outcomes.
- Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class
blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked
without a blocker selection path.
- Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices,
active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage.
- Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership,
races, stale comments, and UI behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
— 5 files, 72 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering check.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec
vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- UI states are available in
`ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot
capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`.
## Risks
- Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership
toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in
new places.
- Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after
`master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for
anyone who previously applied the old branch-local
`0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration.
- Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for
already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be
watched in CI and Greptile review.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git,
GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system needs host contracts and runtime support before
large plugins can integrate cleanly.
> - The source branch mixed the LLM Wiki package with supporting
host/runtime work, managed plugin skills, root-level storage spaces, and
a bookmarks reference plugin.
> - [PAP-9173](/PAP/issues/PAP-9173) asked for the current branch to be
split by file boundary: plugin package separately from everything else.
> - [PAP-9188](/PAP/issues/PAP-9188) clarified that LLM Wiki may have
plugin-local spaces, but Paperclip core should not reorganize top-level
local storage into spaces.
> - Follow-up review clarified that the bookmarks example should not
ship in this PR either.
> - This pull request contains the
non-`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` host/runtime work, keeps runtime
state under the selected Paperclip instance root, and no longer includes
the bookmarks example.
## What Changed
- Added/updated plugin host contracts, SDK types, worker RPC plumbing,
managed plugin skill support, and related server tests.
- Removed the bookmarks example plugin package and its
bundled-example/workspace references.
- Removed the root-level local spaces CLI/migration surface and restored
instance-root runtime defaults for config, db, logs, storage, secrets,
workspaces, projects, and adapter homes.
- Replaced shared root `space-paths` helpers with `home-paths` helpers
for core runtime storage.
- Tightened stranded recovery unique-conflict detection so concurrent
recovery scans reuse the raced recovery issue when Postgres errors are
wrapped.
- Kept `packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` out of this PR diff;
plugin-local spaces remain in the stacked plugin-only PR.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/data-dir.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/home-paths.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts
packages/shared/src/home-paths.test.ts
packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-instructions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "reuses the
raced stranded recovery issue"` skipped locally because embedded
Postgres did not initialize on this macOS temp host; the code path was
typechecked and is covered by Linux CI.
- Boundary check: no core references remain for `PAPERCLIP_SPACE_ID`,
`spaces migrate-default`, `@paperclipai/shared/space-paths`,
`registerSpacesCommands`, or the removed bookmarks example.
- Previous PR head `4f23e034` had green GitHub checks: `verify`, all
four serialized server shards, `e2e`, `Canary Dry Run`, `policy`, Snyk,
and `Greptile Review`. Current head `582f466d` is re-running checks
after the bookmarks deletion.
## Risks
- Plugin host changes touch shared runtime paths, so regressions would
most likely appear in adapter startup, plugin loading, or local dev path
defaults.
- Removing the bookmarks example also removes one demonstration of
plugin database namespaces plus local-folder persistence; remaining
plugin examples still cover bundled example discovery and plugin host
flows.
- The plugin package itself is intentionally deferred to the stacked
plugin-only PR, where LLM Wiki plugin-local spaces live.
- Existing installs that tested the transient root-level spaces CLI
should stop using it; this PR intentionally removes that unsupported
migration surface before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Codex CLI, tool use and local code execution
enabled; context window not exposed.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, except where noted above
for host-specific embedded Postgres initialization
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Stacked follow-up: PR #5592 contains only
`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` and targets this branch.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling
to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent
execution.
> - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane:
database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets
settings UI.
> - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not
manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without
exposing plaintext.
> - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets
Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding
context, and audit trails.
> - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated
lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current
`public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings.
> - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed
secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import
conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing
behavior.
## What Changed
- Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider
config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage,
access events, and remote import preview/commit.
- Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing,
bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime
credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext
reads.
- Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus
CLI/API documentation for setup and operations.
- Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH
environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification.
- Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift,
monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted
secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults,
soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards,
managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK
credential client churn.
- Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and
force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch.
## Verification
- `git fetch public-gh master`
- `git rebase public-gh/master`
- `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep
'^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR
diff.
- Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`;
this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and
`0083_company_secret_provider_configs`.
- Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT
EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column
additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits.
- `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile
follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under
parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`,
`cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun
(`24/24`).
- `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite
reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings.
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck` passed.
- Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual
review.
- Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites
1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`
pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child
checks.
- Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all
Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review`
check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added.
## Screenshots
Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on
`master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.
## Risks
- Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends
existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering
and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade
behavior carefully.
- Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests
cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace
guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and
service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains
deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than
an unverified merge blocker in this local branch.
- UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces;
screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection.
- Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit
parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed
when rerun directly.
- Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads;
operators must understand that imported external references resolve at
runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the
Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned
work is executable or parked
> - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently
land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake
path
> - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to
agree on that execution semantic
> - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`,
flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board
> - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and
visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls
## What Changed
- Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults.
- Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted
while preserving explicit `backlog` parking.
- Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators.
- Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned
backlog blockers.
- Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for
assigned backlog blockers.
- Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the
assigned-backlog behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped.
- Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo
skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check
the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.`
- Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed
without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary
worktree.
- Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states:
[light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png),
[dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png).
- Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter
/mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest
run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component
tests.
- Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server
shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all
passed.
## Risks
- Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the
caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and
server/shared tests cover both paths.
- Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention
labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog
state.
> 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, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled
Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning
mode are not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board
users and agents coordinate execution.
> - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead
of immediate implementation work.
> - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution
comments from planning-oriented issue work.
> - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI
affordances for standard vs planning mode.
> - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed,
discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing
the normal issue workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB,
shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and
adapter heartbeat payloads.
- Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for
`issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations.
- Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction
behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested
follow-up issues.
- Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail
composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles.
- Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual
verification spec for planning-mode surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable
planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts`
## Screenshots
Desktop planning detail:
Desktop planning row:
Desktop staged standard toggle:
Mobile planning detail:
Mobile planning row:
## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The
migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied
an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final
numbered migration safely.
- Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter
heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by
defaulting missing values to `standard`.
- UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused
component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning
display and toggle 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, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with
shell/tool use. Exact 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents across several adapter
implementations.
> - ACPX is a local adapter path that can proxy Claude and Codex-style
execution.
> - Its configuration needed stronger schema defaults, provider-aware
model handling, and better UI support.
> - Plugin authors also need clear docs for managed resources.
> - This pull request improves ACPX adapter configuration and documents
plugin-managed resources.
> - The benefit is a more predictable adapter setup path without
changing unrelated control-plane behavior.
## What Changed
- Improved ACPX config schema, execution config handling, UI build
config, and route coverage.
- Added ACPX model filtering support and tests.
- Updated the agent config form and storybook coverage for ACPX
model/provider behavior.
- Expanded plugin authoring documentation for managed resources.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/acpx-model-filter.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: adapter configuration behavior changes can affect
ACPX users, but the change is isolated to ACPX/plugin-doc surfaces and
covered by targeted adapter tests.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The plugin system is the extension boundary for optional product
capabilities
> - Rich plugins need more than a worker entrypoint: they need scoped
database storage, local project folders, managed agents/routines, host
navigation, and reusable UI components
> - The LLM Wiki work exposed those missing host surfaces while keeping
plugin code outside the core control plane
> - This pull request expands the core plugin host, SDK, server APIs,
and UI bridge so plugins can declare and use those surfaces
> - The benefit is that future plugins can integrate with Paperclip
through documented, validated contracts instead of bespoke server or UI
imports
## What Changed
- Added plugin-managed database namespaces and migration tracking,
including Drizzle schema/migration files and SQL validation for
namespace isolation.
- Added server support for plugin local folders, managed agents, managed
routines, scoped plugin APIs, and plugin operation visibility.
- Expanded shared plugin manifest/types/validators and SDK
host/testing/UI exports for richer plugin surfaces.
- Added reusable UI pieces for file trees, managed routines, resizable
sidebars, route sidebars, and plugin bridge initialization.
- Updated plugin docs and example plugins to use the expanded host and
SDK surface.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts
ui/src/api/plugins.test.ts ui/src/components/FileTree.test.tsx
ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` passed:
11 files, 67 tests.
- Confirmed this PR changes 89 files and does not include
`pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`.
## Risks
- Medium: this expands plugin host contracts across db/shared/server/ui
and includes a new core migration (`0076_useful_elektra.sql`).
- The plugin database namespace validator is intentionally restrictive;
plugin authors may need follow-up affordances for SQL patterns that
remain blocked.
- Merge this before the LLM Wiki plugin PR so the plugin can resolve the
new SDK and host APIs.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub
workflow. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous agent companies, so its
release automation is part of the core operator trust boundary.
> - The affected subsystem is npm/GitHub Actions release publishing for
the public monorepo packages.
> - The concrete failure was that a newly added package reached
`master`, the canary workflow attempted its first publish, and npm
trusted publishing was not yet bootstrapped for that package.
> - That means the problem is not just one broken run; it is a missing
pre-merge guard that lets release-ineligible packages land and only fail
once `publish_canary` runs.
> - This pull request makes release enrollment explicit, validates that
enrollment in CI, and adds a PR-time bootstrap check against npm for
changed release-enabled package manifests.
> - The result is that we keep trusted publishing, avoid teaching CI to
`npm adduser`, and move this class of failure from post-merge canary
time to pre-merge review time.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` so release-managed
public packages are explicitly enrolled instead of being inferred from
every non-private workspace package.
- Hardened `scripts/release-package-map.mjs` to validate the manifest
before release workflows rewrite versions or assemble publish payloads.
- Added `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` and wired it into
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` so PRs that change a release-enabled package
manifest fail if that package does not already exist on npm.
- Added release-package manifest coverage tests to
`scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` and included them in `pnpm run
test:release-registry`.
- Wired manifest validation into `.github/workflows/release.yml` and
documented the first-publish bootstrap policy in `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and
`doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`.
## Verification
- `pnpm run test:release-registry`
- `./scripts/release.sh canary --skip-verify --dry-run`
- Confirmed the committed diff contains no obvious PII/secrets via
targeted pattern scan before pushing.
## Risks
- Low risk overall: this is CI/release-policy code, not product runtime
logic.
- The new PR bootstrap check depends on npm metadata availability, so a
transient npm outage could block a PR that changes a release-enabled
package manifest.
- The manifest introduces a new source of truth that must stay aligned
with public package additions, but that is intentional and now enforced.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via the `codex_local` Paperclip adapter; GPT-5-based
coding agent with tool use, terminal execution, git, and GitHub CLI.
Exact served model ID/context window are not exposed by the local
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work
must stay observable, governable, and recoverable.
> - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue
state transitions, and visible recovery behavior.
> - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when
the assignee still owns a future check.
> - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state
for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad
hoc comments.
> - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the
owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior.
> - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when
to use monitors versus `blocked`.
> - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits
without weakening single-assignee task ownership.
## What Changed
- Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and
an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state.
- Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds,
activity logging, and external-ref redaction.
- Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child
monitor scheduling.
- Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity
card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces.
- Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in
`doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in
skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy:
"board"`.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts`
- First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because
the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency.
- After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites
successfully.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
&& pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Storybook screenshot captured from
`http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces`
with Playwright.
## Screenshots
## Risks
- Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled
external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or
recovery issue creation.
- Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue
monitor columns and index.
- External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are
intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with repository tool use and terminal
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots or Storybook review surfaces
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Agent heartbeat settings control how much parallel work one employee
can run
> - The previous default of 5 concurrent runs was too restrictive for
active local agent teams
> - The shared default, heartbeat clamp, docs, and route/import/UI
expectations need to agree
> - This pull request raises the default heartbeat concurrency to 20
while keeping explicit headroom up to 50 for power users
> - The benefit is higher throughput for agent teams without each new
agent needing manual runtime config edits
## What Changed
- Raised `AGENT_DEFAULT_MAX_CONCURRENT_RUNS` from 5 to 20.
- Raised the heartbeat service max clamp from 10 to 50, keeping the new
default below the ceiling.
- Updated V1 implementation docs and tests that assert default
imported/exported runtime config.
- Updated the new-agent UI runtime config test to assert the shared
default constant instead of duplicating the numeric value.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium risk: new agents can consume more local execution capacity by
default. The heartbeat scheduler still respects configured max
concurrency and budget/pause controls, and operators can lower or raise
the per-agent cap within the `1..50` clamp.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use and local command
execution. Exact context window was not exposed in the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where
adapters are the boundary between the board, agents, and execution
runtimes.
> - Local adapters currently expose a primary runtime configuration, but
operators often need a cheaper model lane for routine or low-risk work.
> - That cheap lane has to stay adapter-owned: runtime profile settings
should not mutate the primary adapter config or bypass existing
auth/secret mediation.
> - Issue creation also needs an ergonomic way to request primary,
cheap, or custom model behavior for a selected assignee.
> - This pull request adds a first-class `cheap` model profile contract
across adapter capabilities, heartbeat config resolution, agent
configuration, and issue creation.
> - The benefit is cheaper task execution can be configured and
requested explicitly while preserving adapter boundaries, secret
handling, and audit visibility.
## What Changed
- Added adapter model-profile capability metadata and a `cheap` profile
contract for supported local adapters.
- Applied `runtimeConfig.modelProfiles.cheap.adapterConfig` during
heartbeat config resolution, including requested/applied/fallback run
metadata.
- Added agent configuration UI for cheap model profile settings without
writing those settings into primary `adapterConfig`.
- Added New Issue assignee model lane controls for Primary / Cheap /
Custom and request payload handling.
- Added run ledger profile badges and Storybook stories for the new
cheap-lane UI states.
- Added tests for validators, heartbeat model profile application,
permission/secret mediation, UI payload helpers, and run ledger
rendering.
- Added committed UI verification screenshots under
`docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`.
- Addressed Greptile review feedback around cheap-profile defaults,
shared profile types, and fallback test data.
## Verification
Local:
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-registry.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-assignee-overrides.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` — passed, 8 files / 103
tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` — passed after
Greptile/rebase follow-up, 2 files / 17 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after
Greptile/rebase follow-up.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — did not complete successfully in this local
worktree: it stopped in pre-existing `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`
sandbox/SSH fixture suites outside this PR diff. Failures were 5s local
timeouts plus `git init -b` unsupported by this machine's Git 2.21.0.
The branch-specific targeted suites above passed.
- Branch was fetched/rebased onto `public-gh/master`; `git rev-list
--left-right --count public-gh/master...HEAD` reports `0 9`.
Remote PR checks on latest head
`e30bf399146451c86cee98ed528d51d33fa5af5a`:
- `policy` — passed.
- `verify` — passed.
- `e2e` — passed.
- `Greptile Review` — passed, confidence score 5/5; Greptile review
threads resolved.
- `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` — passed.
Screenshots:
- [New issue cheap lane
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-cheap-desktop.png)
- [New issue custom lane
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-custom-desktop.png)
- [New issue unsupported adapter
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-unsupported-desktop.png)
- [Run ledger model profile badges
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/runledger-profile-badges-desktop.png)
- Mobile variants are also in `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`.
## Risks
- Medium: heartbeat config mediation now merges runtime model profiles
into adapter configs, so adapter secret normalization and host-command
restrictions must keep covering nested config paths.
- Medium: the UI adds another issue creation choice; unsupported
adapters must keep hiding the cheap lane and preserve primary behavior.
- Low migration risk: no database migration is 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 coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with repo tool use
and command execution. Exact served model/context window was not exposed
by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Reliable backups are part of operating that control plane safely.
> - The previous backup path was public-schema oriented and did not
clearly cover plugin-owned schemas or migration history.
> - Paperclip now has plugin database namespaces and Drizzle migration
state that must survive backup/restore.
> - This pull request expands logical database backups to non-system
schemas and documents the backup boundary.
> - The benefit is safer restore behavior for core and plugin-owned
database state without implying full filesystem disaster recovery.
## What Changed
- Include non-system database schemas in JavaScript and pg_dump backup
paths.
- Preserve enum, table, sequence, index, constraint, migration, and
plugin-schema objects across backup/restore.
- Add restore coverage for plugin-owned schemas and Drizzle migration
history.
- Clarify docs that DB backups are logical database backups, not full
instance filesystem backups.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts`
- Result: 1 test file passed, 4 tests passed.
- Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows/*` changes.
## Risks
- Medium: backup generation touches schema discovery and restore
ordering, so unusual database objects may need additional coverage
later.
- No migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled, medium reasoning
effort. Exact hosted context-window details are not exposed in this
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Note: no UI changes are included in this PR, so screenshots are not
applicable.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Paperclip is distributed as npm packages, including plugins like
`plugin-e2b`
> - The release process publishes canary and stable builds via npm
dist-tags
> - But there was no automated verification that published packages
actually landed with the correct dist-tags, and broken canary publishes
could silently ship to users
> - This PR adds a registry verification script that checks published
packages match their expected dist-tags, and wires it into PR CI so
regressions are caught before merge
> - The benefit is release integrity is verified automatically, and
broken dist-tag states are caught early
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` — verifies that
published npm packages have correct dist-tag assignments and detects
orphaned or mispointed tags
- Added `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs` — test coverage
for the verification logic
- Updated `scripts/release.sh` to include canary dist-tag safety checks
before publishing
- Updated `.github/workflows/pr.yml` to run registry verification as a
CI step
- Updated `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and `doc/RELEASING.md` with the new
verification workflow
## Verification
- `pnpm test` — all tests pass including new verification script tests
- `node scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` — runs against the
live npm registry and reports current state
- CI: the new PR workflow step runs on every PR push
## Risks
- Low risk. This is additive CI and tooling — no runtime code changes.
The registry verification is read-only (queries npm, does not publish).
The release script changes add safety checks that abort before
publishing if state is unexpected.
## Model Used
Codex GPT 5.4 high via Paperclip.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a company-scoped control
plane
> - Contributors and agents need docs and skills that match the current
V1 behavior
> - The source branch included documentation updates alongside
implementation work
> - Keeping docs and skill guidance separate makes the implementation PR
easier to review
> - This pull request refreshes the V1 docs and agent-operating guidance
without changing runtime behavior
> - The benefit is current contributor guidance that can merge
independently from code changes
## What Changed
- Refreshed V1 product, goal, implementation, database, and development
documentation.
- Updated the Paperclip heartbeat skill guidance and create-agent skill
references.
- Added the Paperclip plan-to-task conversion skill.
- Updated release changelog skill guidance.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` passed in the PR worktree
after the Greptile fix.
- Greptile Review passed on head `673317ed` with zero unresolved review
threads.
- GitHub PR checks passed on head `673317ed`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`,
and `security/snyk (cryppadotta)`.
## Risks
- Low runtime risk because this branch only changes docs and skill
guidance.
- Documentation may need follow-up wording adjustments if reviewers want
a different framing for V1 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub
workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Heartbeat liveness recovery decides when stalled issue trees need
manager-visible follow-up.
> - Automatic recovery issue creation is useful, but operators need
instance-level controls for how aggressive it is.
> - Without controls, recovery behavior is harder to tune for local
development, production operations, and noisy edge cases.
> - This pull request adds configurable liveness auto-recovery settings
across shared contracts, API routes, services, and the instance
experimental settings UI.
> - The benefit is that operators can keep liveness findings advisory or
enable bounded recovery automation with explicit intervals and lookback
windows.
## What Changed
- Added shared types and validators for liveness auto-recovery settings.
- Extended instance settings routes and services to persist and validate
the new controls.
- Wired heartbeat/recovery services to honor enablement, minimum
interval, and lookback settings.
- Added UI controls for liveness recovery under instance experimental
settings.
- Covered the new server behavior with instance settings and liveness
escalation tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
## Risks
- Moderate behavioral risk because recovery automation timing changes
when enabled; defaults keep existing advisory behavior unless the
setting is turned on.
- No database migration in this PR; settings are stored through the
existing instance settings path.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, coding model with tool use and local command
execution; context window not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators use issue detail pages and child issue lists to understand
multi-step execution plans.
> - Ordered sub-issues currently read like a flat table, so dependency
chains and current next steps are harder to scan.
> - The branch work adds a workflow-oriented presentation for child
issues without changing the single-assignee task model.
> - This pull request makes ordered sub-issues read more like a progress
checklist while preserving normal issue list controls.
> - The benefit is that operators can see completed steps, active work,
blocked follow-ups, and dependency order at a glance.
## What Changed
- Added workflow sorting utilities and tests for dependency-aware child
issue ordering.
- Added sub-issue progress summary, checklist numbering, current-step
affordances, blocker context, and done-state de-emphasis in the issue
list UI.
- Wired issue detail sub-issue panels to use the workflow sort/progress
checklist presentation.
- Updated issue service behavior/tests for child issue ordering inputs
used by the UI.
- Added a Storybook visual review fixture and screenshot helper for the
sub-issue workflow checklist surface.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts
ui/src/lib/workflow-sort.test.ts`
- Result: 6 test files passed, 55 tests passed, 34 embedded Postgres
issue-service tests skipped because `@embedded-postgres/darwin-x64` is
unavailable on this host.
- Visual review: generated Storybook screenshots from the existing local
Storybook server on port 6006 with `node
scripts/screenshot-subissues.mjs /tmp/pap-2189-subissues-screens
http://localhost:6006`.
- Screenshot artifacts:
- Desktop dark: 
- Desktop light: 
- Mobile dark: 
- Mobile light: 
- Local Storybook note: starting a second Storybook process selected
port 6008 because 6006 was occupied, then Vite failed with an esbuild
host/binary version mismatch (`0.25.12` host vs `0.27.3` binary). The
already-running Storybook server on 6006 served the fixture successfully
for screenshots.
## Risks
- Medium UI risk: the issue list now has additional sub-issue-specific
visual states, so dense lists should be checked for spacing and
scanability.
- Low ordering risk: workflow sorting is covered by focused unit tests,
but unusual dependency topologies may still need reviewer attention.
- No migration risk: this PR does not add database migrations or touch
`pnpm-lock.yaml`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub
workflow. Context window is runtime-provided and not exposed in this
environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The environments subsystem already models execution environments,
but before this branch there was no end-to-end SSH-backed runtime path
for agents to actually run work against a remote box
> - That meant agents could be configured around environment concepts
without a reliable way to execute adapter sessions remotely, sync
workspace state, and preserve run context across supported adapters
> - We also need environment selection to participate in normal
Paperclip control-plane behavior: agent defaults, project/issue
selection, route validation, and environment probing
> - Because this capability is still experimental, the UI surface should
be easy to hide and easy to remove later without undoing the underlying
implementation
> - This pull request adds SSH environment execution support across the
runtime, adapters, routes, schema, and tests, then puts the visible
environment-management UI behind an experimental flag
> - The benefit is that we can validate real SSH-backed agent execution
now while keeping the user-facing controls safely gated until the
feature is ready to come out of experimentation
## What Changed
- Added SSH-backed execution target support in the shared adapter
runtime, including remote workspace preparation, skill/runtime asset
sync, remote session handling, and workspace restore behavior after
runs.
- Added SSH execution coverage for supported local adapters, plus remote
execution tests across Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, OpenCode, and Pi.
- Added environment selection and environment-management backend support
needed for SSH execution, including route/service work, validation,
probing, and agent default environment persistence.
- Added CLI support for SSH environment lab verification and updated
related docs/tests.
- Added the `enableEnvironments` experimental flag and gated the
environment UI behind it on company settings, agent configuration, and
project configuration surfaces.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-hire-payload.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Manual verification on a branch-local dev server:
- enabled the experimental flag
- created an SSH environment
- created a Linux Claude agent using that environment
- confirmed a run executed on the Linux box and synced workspace changes
back
## Risks
- Medium: this touches runtime execution flow across multiple adapters,
so regressions would likely show up in remote session setup, workspace
sync, or environment selection precedence.
- The UI flag reduces exposure, but the underlying runtime and route
changes are still substantial and rely on migration correctness.
- The change set is broad across adapters, control-plane services,
migrations, and UI gating, so review should pay close attention to
environment-selection precedence and remote workspace lifecycle
behavior.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip's local Codex adapter, GPT-5-class coding
model with tool use and code execution in the local repo workspace. The
local adapter does not surface a more specific public model version
string in this branch workflow.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so issue
checkout and execution ownership are core safety contracts.
> - The affected subsystem is the issue service and route layer that
gates agent writes by `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId`.
> - PAP-1982 exposed a stale-lock failure mode where a terminal
heartbeat run could leave `executionRunId` pinned after checkout
ownership had moved or been cleared.
> - That stale execution lock could reject legitimate
PATCH/comment/release requests from the rightful assignee after a
harness restart.
> - This pull request centralizes terminal-run cleanup, applies it
before ownership-gated writes, and adds a board-only recovery endpoint
for operator intervention.
> - The benefit is that crashed or terminal runs no longer strand issues
behind stale execution locks, while live execution locks still block
conflicting writes.
## What Changed
- Added `issueService.clearExecutionRunIfTerminal()` to atomically lock
the issue/run rows and clear terminal or missing execution-run locks.
- Reused stale execution-lock cleanup from checkout,
`assertCheckoutOwner()`, and `release()`.
- Allowed the same assigned agent/current run to adopt an unowned
`in_progress` checkout after stale execution-lock cleanup.
- Updated release to clear `executionRunId`, `executionAgentNameKey`,
and `executionLockedAt`.
- Added board-only `POST /api/issues/:id/admin/force-release` with
company access checks, optional `clearAssignee=true`, and
`issue.admin_force_release` audit logging.
- Added embedded Postgres service tests and route integration tests for
stale-lock recovery, release behavior, and admin force-release
authorization/audit behavior.
- Documented the new force-release API in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts` passed.
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- `git diff --check` passed.
- `pnpm lint` could not run because this repo has no `lint` command.
- Full `pnpm test:run` completed with 4 failures in existing route
suites: `approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts` (2),
`issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts` (1), and
`issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` (1). Those same files pass when run
isolated and when run together with the new stale-lock route test, so
this appears to be a whole-suite ordering/mock-isolation issue outside
this patch path.
## Risks
- Medium: this changes ownership-gated write behavior. The new adoption
path is limited to the current run, the current assignee, `in_progress`
issues, and rows with no checkout owner after terminal-lock cleanup.
- Low: the admin force-release endpoint is board-only and
company-scoped, but misuse can intentionally clear a live lock. It
writes an audit event with prior lock IDs.
- No schema or migration changes.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent (`gpt-5`), agentic coding with
terminal/tool use and local test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat
runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state
> - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient
adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without
stranding work
> - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across
heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and
operator-facing run state
> - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts,
migrations, and runtime status semantics
> - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can
merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work
> - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls,
and more predictable recurring execution behavior
## What Changed
- Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and
Codex transient failure recovery handling.
- Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue
comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and
activity/dashboard bounds.
- Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue
workspace runtime management.
- Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and
`0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`.
- Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared
types synchronized.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server`
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch,
which are central execution paths.
- Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge
this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields.
- Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator
smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent runtime, shell/git tool use
enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in
this Paperclip heartbeat environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators and agents coordinate through company-scoped issues,
comments, documents, and task relationships.
> - Issue text can mention other tickets, but those references were
previously plain markdown/text without durable relationship data.
> - That made it harder to understand related work, surface backlinks,
and keep cross-ticket context visible in the board.
> - This pull request adds first-class issue reference extraction,
storage, API responses, and UI surfaces.
> - The benefit is that issue references become queryable, navigable,
and visible without relying on ad hoc text scanning.
## What Changed
- Added shared issue-reference parsing utilities and exported
reference-related types/constants.
- Added an `issue_reference_mentions` table, idempotent migration DDL,
schema exports, and database documentation.
- Added server-side issue reference services, route integration,
activity summaries, and a backfill command for existing issue content.
- Added UI reference pills, related-work panels, markdown/editor mention
handling, and issue detail/property rendering updates.
- Added focused shared, server, and UI tests for parsing, persistence,
display, and related-work behavior.
- Rebased `PAP-735-first-class-task-references` cleanly onto
`public-gh/master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes are included.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-references-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRelatedWorkPanel.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Medium risk because this adds a new issue-reference persistence path
that touches shared parsing, database schema, server routes, and UI
rendering.
- Migration risk is mitigated by `CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS`, guarded
foreign-key creation, and `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` statements so
users who have applied an older local version of the numbered migration
can re-run safely.
- UI risk is limited by focused component coverage, but reviewers should
still manually inspect issue detail pages containing ticket references
before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-using shell workflow with
repository inspection, git rebase/push, typecheck, and focused Vitest
verification.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The board UI is the main operator surface, so its component and
workflow coverage needs to stay reviewable as the product grows.
> - This branch adds Storybook as a dedicated UI reference surface for
core Paperclip screens and interaction patterns.
> - That work spans Storybook infrastructure, app-level provider wiring,
and a large fixture set that can render real control-plane states
without a live backend.
> - The branch also expands coverage across agents, budgets, issues,
chat, dialogs, navigation, projects, and data visualization so future UI
changes have a concrete visual baseline.
> - This pull request packages that Storybook work on top of the latest
`master`, excludes the lockfile from the final diff per repo policy, and
fixes one fixture contract drift caught during verification.
> - The benefit is a single reviewable PR that adds broad UI
documentation and regression-surfacing coverage without losing the
existing branch work.
## What Changed
- Added Storybook 10 wiring for the UI package, including root scripts,
UI package scripts, Storybook config, preview wrappers, Tailwind
entrypoints, and setup docs.
- Added a large fixture-backed data source for Storybook so complex
board states can render without a live server.
- Added story suites covering foundations, status language,
control-plane surfaces, overview, UX labs, agent management, budget and
finance, forms and editors, issue management, navigation and layout,
chat and comments, data visualization, dialogs and modals, and
projects/goals/workspaces.
- Adjusted several UI components for Storybook parity so dialogs, menus,
keyboard shortcuts, budget markers, markdown editing, and related
surfaces render correctly in isolation.
- Rebasing work for PR assembly: replayed the branch onto current
`master`, removed `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the final PR diff, and aligned
the dashboard fixture with the current `DashboardSummary.runActivity`
API contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook`
- Manual diff audit after rebase: verified the PR no longer includes
`pnpm-lock.yaml` and now cleanly targets current `master`.
- Before/after UI note: before this branch there was no dedicated
Storybook surface for these Paperclip views; after this branch the local
Storybook build includes the new overview and domain story suites in
`ui/storybook-static`.
## Risks
- Large static fixture files can drift from shared types as dashboard
and UI contracts evolve; this PR already needed one fixture correction
for `runActivity`.
- Storybook bundle output includes some large chunks, so future growth
may need chunking work if build performance becomes an issue.
- Several component tweaks were made for isolated rendering parity, so
reviewers should spot-check key board surfaces against the live app
behavior.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Paperclip harness; exact
serving model ID is not exposed in-runtime to the agent.
- Tool-assisted workflow with terminal execution, git operations, local
typecheck/build verification, and GitHub CLI PR creation.
- Context window/reasoning mode not surfaced by the harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is the extension path for optional capabilities
that should not require core product changes for every integration.
> - Plugins need scoped host APIs for issue orchestration, documents,
wakeups, summaries, activity attribution, and isolated database state.
> - Without those host APIs, richer plugins either cannot coordinate
Paperclip work safely or need privileged core-side special cases.
> - This pull request adds the plugin orchestration host surface, scoped
route dispatch, a database namespace layer, and a smoke plugin that
exercises the contract.
> - The benefit is a broader plugin API that remains company-scoped,
auditable, and covered by tests.
## What Changed
- Added plugin orchestration host APIs for issue creation, document
access, wakeups, summaries, plugin-origin activity, and scoped API route
dispatch.
- Added plugin database namespace tables, schema exports, migration
checks, and idempotent replay coverage under migration
`0059_plugin_database_namespaces`.
- Added shared plugin route/API types and validators used by server and
SDK boundaries.
- Expanded plugin SDK types, protocol helpers, worker RPC host behavior,
and testing utilities for orchestration flows.
- Added the `plugin-orchestration-smoke-example` package to exercise
scoped routes, restricted database namespaces, issue orchestration,
documents, wakeups, summaries, and UI status surfaces.
- Kept the new orchestration smoke fixture out of the root pnpm
workspace importer so this PR preserves the repository policy of not
committing `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Updated plugin docs and database docs for the new orchestration and
database namespace surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master`, resolved conflicts, and
removed `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the final PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/client.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-scoped-api-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-sdk-orchestration-contract.test.ts`
- From `packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example`:
`pnpm exec vitest run --config ./vitest.config.ts`
- `pnpm --dir
packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example run
typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- PR CI on latest head `293fc67c`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, and
`security/snyk` all passed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this expands plugin host authority, so route auth,
company scoping, and plugin-origin activity attribution need careful
review.
- Medium risk: database namespace migration behavior must remain
idempotent for environments that may have seen earlier branch versions.
- Medium risk: the orchestration smoke fixture is intentionally excluded
from the root workspace importer to avoid a `pnpm-lock.yaml` PR diff;
direct fixture verification remains listed above.
- Low operational risk from the PR setup itself: the branch is rebased
onto current `master`, the migration is ordered after upstream
`0057`/`0058`, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the final diff.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
Roadmap checked: this work aligns with the completed Plugin system
milestone and extends the plugin surface rather than duplicating an
unrelated planned core feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in a tool-enabled CLI
environment. Exact hosted model build and context-window size are not
exposed by the runtime; reasoning/tool use were enabled for repository
inspection, editing, testing, git operations, and PR creation.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A: no core UI screen change; example plugin UI contract
is covered by tests)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The heartbeat runtime, agent import path, and agent configuration
defaults determine whether work is dispatched safely and predictably.
> - Several accumulated fixes all touched agent execution recovery, wake
routing, import behavior, and runtime concurrency defaults.
> - Those changes need to land together so the heartbeat service and
agent creation defaults stay internally consistent.
> - This pull request groups the runtime/governance changes from the
split branch into one standalone branch.
> - The benefit is safer recovery for stranded runs, bounded high-volume
reads, imported-agent approval correctness, skill-template support, and
a clearer default concurrency policy.
## What Changed
- Fixed stranded continuation recovery so successful automatic retries
are requeued instead of incorrectly blocking the issue.
- Bounded high-volume issue/log reads across issue, heartbeat, agent,
project, and workspace paths.
- Fixed imported-agent approval and instruction-path permission
handling.
- Quarantined seeded worktree execution state during worktree
provisioning.
- Queued approval follow-up wakes and hardened SQL_ASCII heartbeat
output handling.
- Added reusable agent instruction templates for hiring flows.
- Set the default max concurrent agent runs to five and updated related
UI/tests/docs.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- Split integration check: merged this branch first, followed by the
other [PAP-1614](/PAP/issues/PAP-1614) branches, with no merge
conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: touches heartbeat recovery, queueing, and issue list
bounds in central runtime paths.
- Imported-agent and concurrency default behavior changes may affect
existing automation that assumes one-at-a-time default runs.
- No database migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a local-first control plane for AI-agent companies.
> - Operators need predictable local dev behavior, recoverable instance
data, and scripts that do not churn the running app.
> - Several accumulated changes improve backup streaming, dev-server
health, static UI caching/logging, diagnostic-file ignores, and instance
isolation.
> - These are operational improvements that can land independently from
product UI work.
> - This pull request groups the dev-infra and backup changes from the
split branch into one standalone branch.
> - The benefit is safer local operation, easier manual backups, less
noisy dev output, and less cross-instance auth leakage.
## What Changed
- Added a manual instance database backup endpoint and route tests.
- Streamed backup/restore handling to avoid materializing large payloads
at once.
- Reduced dev static UI log/cache churn and ignored Node diagnostic
report captures.
- Added guarded dev auto-restart health polling coverage.
- Preserved worktree config during provisioning and scoped auth cookies
by instance.
- Added a Discord daily digest helper script and environment
documentation.
- Hardened adapter-route and startup feedback export tests around the
changed infrastructure.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-database-backups-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/dev-runner-paths.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/vite-html-renderer.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts`
- Split integration check: merged after the runtime/governance branch
and before UI branches with no merge conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: touches server startup, backup streaming, auth cookie
naming, dev health checks, and worktree provisioning.
- Backup endpoint behavior depends on existing board/admin access
controls and database backup helpers.
- No database migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution
window.
> - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still
holding useful next-step state.
> - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path
to be durable and visible.
> - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation
summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers.
> - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with
clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff.
## What Changed
- Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking,
and an idempotent `0058` migration.
- Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation
summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill.
- Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context
through shared adapter utilities.
- Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness
continuation state.
- Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run
ledger, with component tests.
- Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance,
onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation
behavior.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run,
excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence,
importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts,
documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness
backfill off the request path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts
server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a
plan document update"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity
service|treats a plan document update"`
- Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and
Snyk all passed.
- Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after
fetching `public-gh master`.
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff.
- Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after
`0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application.
- Greptile inline review threads are resolved.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery,
activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI.
- Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent
guards.
- Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger
response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the
background backfill completes.
- UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass;
validation is currently through focused component tests.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git,
GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR
packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests
listed above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - V1 needs to stay local-first while also supporting shared,
authenticated deployments.
> - Human operators need real identities, company membership, invite
flows, profile surfaces, and company-scoped access controls.
> - Agents and operators also need the existing issue, inbox, workspace,
approval, and plugin flows to keep working under those authenticated
boundaries.
> - This branch accumulated the multi-user implementation, follow-up QA
fixes, workspace/runtime refinements, invite UX improvements,
release-branch conflict resolution, and review hardening.
> - This pull request consolidates that branch onto the current `master`
branch as a single reviewable PR.
> - The benefit is a complete multi-user implementation path with tests
and docs carried forward without dropping existing branch work.
## What Changed
- Added authenticated human-user access surfaces: auth/session routes,
company user directory, profile settings, company access/member
management, join requests, and invite management.
- Added invite creation, invite landing, onboarding, logo/branding,
invite grants, deduped join requests, and authenticated multi-user E2E
coverage.
- Tightened company-scoped and instance-admin authorization across
board, plugin, adapter, access, issue, and workspace routes.
- Added profile-image URL validation hardening, avatar preservation on
name-only profile updates, and join-request uniqueness migration cleanup
for pending human requests.
- Added an atomic member role/status/grants update path so Company
Access saves no longer leave partially updated permissions.
- Improved issue chat, inbox, assignee identity rendering,
sidebar/account/company navigation, workspace routing, and execution
workspace reuse behavior for multi-user operation.
- Added and updated server/UI tests covering auth, invites, membership,
issue workspace inheritance, plugin authz, inbox/chat behavior, and
multi-user flows.
- Merged current `public-gh/master` into this branch, resolved all
conflicts, and verified no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is included in this
PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-validators.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authz-company-access.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/sidebar-preferences-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openclaw-invite-prompt-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/auth-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanyAccess.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm db:generate`
- `npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list`
- Confirmed branch has no uncommitted changes and is `0` commits behind
`public-gh/master` before PR creation.
- Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` change is staged or present in the PR
diff.
## Risks
- High review surface area: this PR contains the accumulated multi-user
branch plus follow-up fixes, so reviewers should focus especially on
company-boundary enforcement and authenticated-vs-local deployment
behavior.
- UI behavior changed across invites, inbox, issue chat, access
settings, and sidebar navigation; no browser screenshots are included in
this branch-consolidation PR.
- Plugin install, upgrade, and lifecycle/config mutations now require
instance-admin access, which is intentional but may change expectations
for non-admin board users.
- A join-request dedupe migration rejects duplicate pending human
requests before creating unique indexes; deployments with unusual
historical duplicates should review the migration behavior.
- Company member role/status/grant saves now use a new combined
endpoint; older separate endpoints remain for compatibility.
- Full production build was not run locally in this heartbeat; CI should
cover the full matrix.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-based model, CLI/tool-use
environment. Exact deployed model identifier and context window were not
exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Note on screenshots: this is a branch-consolidation PR for an
already-developed multi-user branch, and no browser screenshots were
captured during this heartbeat.
---------
Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - That operator experience depends not just on issue chat, but also on
how workspaces, inbox groups, and navigation state behave over
long-running sessions
> - The current branch included a separate cluster of workspace-runtime
controls, inbox grouping, sidebar ordering, and worktree lifecycle fixes
> - Those changes cross server, shared contracts, database state, and UI
navigation, but they still form one coherent operator workflow area
> - This pull request isolates the workspace/runtime and navigation
ergonomics work into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is better workspace recovery and navigation persistence
without forcing reviewers through the unrelated issue-detail/chat work
## What Changed
- Improved execution workspace and project workspace controls, request
wiring, layout, and JSON editor ergonomics
- Hardened linked worktree reuse/startup behavior and documented the
`worktree repair` flow for recovering linked worktrees safely
- Added inbox workspace grouping, mobile collapse, archive undo,
keyboard navigation, shared group-header styling, and persisted
collapsed-group behavior
- Added persistent sidebar order preferences with the supporting DB
migration, shared/server contracts, routes, services, hooks, and UI
integration
- Scoped issue-list preferences by context and added targeted UI/server
tests for workspace controls, inbox behavior, sidebar preferences, and
worktree validation
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/sidebar-preferences-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx
ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx
ui/src/api/workspace-runtime-control.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` was attempted, but
the embedded Postgres suite self-skipped/hung on this host after
reporting an init-script issue, so it is not counted as a local pass
here
## Risks
- Medium: this branch includes migration-backed preference storage plus
worktree/runtime behavior, so merge review should pay attention to state
persistence and worktree recovery semantics
- The sidebar preference migration is standalone, but it should still be
watched for conflicts if another migration lands first
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
- Add wget, ripgrep, python3, and GitHub CLI (gh) to base image
- Add OPENCODE_ALLOW_ALL_MODELS=true to production ENV
- Move compose files, onboard-smoke Dockerfile to docker/
- Move entrypoint script to scripts/docker-entrypoint.sh
- Add Podman Quadlet unit files (pod, app, db containers)
- Add docker/README.md with build, compose, and quadlet docs
- Add scripts/docker-build-test.sh for local build validation
- Update all doc references for new file locations
- Keep main Dockerfile at project root (no .dockerignore changes needed)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Add a Vitest case that mocks `node:child_process.spawn` so the child
emits `error` (ENOENT) after the constructor attaches listeners.
`getQuotaWindows()` must resolve with `ok: false` instead of leaving an
unhandled `error` event on the process.
Register `packages/adapters/codex-local` in the root Vitest workspace.
Document in DEVELOPING.md that a missing `codex` binary should not take
down the API server during quota polling.
- SPEC: reflect that Paperclip now manages task-linked documents and
attachments (issue documents, file attachments) instead of claiming
it does not manage work artifacts
- agents-runtime: remove bootstrapPromptTemplate from recommended config,
add deprecation notice, update minimal setup checklist
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
* public-gh/master: (51 commits)
Use attachment-size limit for company logos
Address Greptile company logo feedback
Drop lockfile from PR branch
Use asset-backed company logos
fix: use appType "custom" for Vite dev server so worktree branding is applied
docs: fix documentation drift — adapters, plugins, tech stack
docs: update documentation for accuracy after plugin system launch
chore: ignore superset artifacts
Dark theme for CodeMirror code blocks in MDXEditor
Remove duplicate @paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway in server/package.json
Fix code block styles with robust prose overrides
Add Docker setup for untrusted PR review in isolated containers
Fix org chart canvas height to fit viewport without scrolling
Add doc-maintenance skill for periodic documentation accuracy audits
Fix sidebar scrollbar: hide track background when not hovering
Restyle markdown code blocks: dark background, smaller font, compact padding
Add archive project button and filter archived projects from selectors
fix: address review feedback — subscription cleanup, filter nullability, stale diagram
fix: wire plugin event subscriptions from worker to host
fix(ui): hide scrollbar track background when sidebar is not hovered
...
# Conflicts:
# packages/db/src/migrations/meta/0030_snapshot.json
# packages/db/src/migrations/meta/_journal.json
- README: mark plugin system as shipped in roadmap
- SPEC: update adapter table with openclaw_gateway, gemini-local, hermes_local
- SPEC: update plugin architecture section to reflect shipped status
- Add .doc-review-cursor for future maintenance runs
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adds a dedicated Docker environment for reviewing untrusted pull requests
with codex/claude, keeping CLI auth state in volumes and using a separate
scratch workspace for PR checkouts.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* public-gh/master:
Drop lockfile from watcher change
Tighten plugin dev file watching
Fix plugin smoke example typecheck
Fix plugin dev watcher and migration snapshot
Clarify plugin authoring and external dev workflow
Expand kitchen sink plugin demos
fix: set AGENT_HOME env var for agent processes
Add kitchen sink plugin example
Simplify plugin runtime and cleanup lifecycle
Add plugin framework and settings UI
# Conflicts:
# packages/db/src/migrations/meta/0029_snapshot.json
# packages/db/src/migrations/meta/_journal.json
Resolve conflicts by keeping the issue-documents work alongside upstream heartbeat-context, worktree branding, and adapter runtime updates.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Move plans from doc/plan/ into doc/plans/ and add YYYY-MM-DD date
prefixes to all undated plan files based on document headers or
earliest git commit dates.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta
Nicky Leach
scotttong
Devin Foley
Mikes
Svetlana Zolotenkova
Jannes Stubbemann
Vasu Yadav
Nicolás Rodrigues
Aron Prins
Dotta
Emad Ibrahim
dotta
Cody (Radius Red)
Mikhail Batukhtin
gsxdsm
