Final batch of the design-token extraction: mints tokens for every
remaining value-bearing arbitrary Tailwind bracket in
ui/src/components/** and ui/src/pages/**, then adds a gate script so
the "zero hardcoded value" rule is enforced going forward instead of
re-audited by hand each time.
Codemod: scripts/codemod-extract-misc.mjs (198 sites, 84 files, 96 new
tokens: 58 --gtc-*/3 --gtr-* grid track lists, 19 --tp-*
transition-property lists, 6 --z-* z-index values, --s-*/--e-*/--va-*/
--sw-* scale/ease/vertical-align/stroke-width, 2 --blur-*, 1
--drop-shadow-extract-*, 4 *-resolved wrapper tokens resolving
FileViewerSheet.tsx's half-migrated var(x, fallback) sites Batch 1
deferred, and 2 --gradient-extract-* continuing Batch 1's counter for
2 hsl(var())/color-mix() gradient sites its color-literal audit didn't
catch). Mandatory Step 0 syntax spike confirmed every paren form
byte-equivalent via scratch stories + built-CSS grep, and confirmed
the tw-animate-css plugin utilities (zoom-in-[0.97] etc.) are
currently dead/no-op classes (plugin not installed) — allowlisted,
not rewritten, since there's no visual behavior to preserve or change.
Gate script: scripts/check-token-gates.mjs (new, wired as
`pnpm check:token-gates`) implements the three DONE-WHEN gates
(hex/color-literal, arbitrary-bracket-value, raw-font-size) over
ui/src/components/** and ui/src/pages/**, parsing a new
machine-readable ALLOWLIST block appended to ui/src/index.css that
consolidates Batches 1-3's free-form allowlist prose into
`* allow <path> — <reason>` lines. Resolved TOKEN-AUDIT.md's open
"test file policy" question by allowlisting 43 test-fixture hex-literal
sites across 18 *.test.tsx files (mock prop/API-response data, not
rendered CSS). Gate exits 0 clean.
AGENTS.md's existing Design system section now names the gate command.
TOKEN-AUDIT.md gets a Batch 4 log appendix with counts, allowlist
rationale, and the remaining out-of-scope debt (36 hex sites in
ui/src/lib|context|plugins; the ~3,115-site Tailwind-palette-class
scope question is still unresolved and flagged for a human decision).
Verify: node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs exit 0 (all 3 gates clean);
pnpm build-storybook exit 0; Storybook visual suite 510/510 (Playwright,
tests/storybook-visual); pnpm typecheck (ui/) exit 0; codemod idempotent
on re-run.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Batch 3/4 of the design-token extraction (design/token-extraction). Replaces
hardcoded Tailwind arbitrary-bracket values for width/height/min/max,
padding/margin/gap/inset/translate, radius (incl. directional), ring/outline
width, and box-shadow in ui/src/components/** and ui/src/pages/** (including
*.test.tsx companions) with references to new CSS custom-property tokens in
ui/src/index.css. Zero visual change, proven by the Phase 0 Storybook
snapshot baseline.
Counts:
- 407 sites rewritten across 140 files (127 component/page + 13 test files
updated in lockstep with the components they assert against).
- 163 new tokens minted: 127 --sz-* (one shared family across
width/height/spacing/gap/inset/translate lengths, including 42
--sz-calc-N compound calc()/min()/max()/clamp() expressions and 2
--sz-safe-* env(safe-area-inset-*) wrappers), 8 --rad-* (shared across
radius/ring-width/outline-width), 5 --pct-* (incl. --pct-neg-50 kept
distinct per the source bracket's own negative sign), 23
--shadow-extract-* (38 sites, deduped by exact value).
- 11 var()-only passthrough sites (--radix-*-trigger-width/height,
--new-issue-dialog-height) rewritten to the bare paren form with no new
token minted, per DESIGN.md's runtime-library-variable special case.
- 3 sites resolved Tailwind's build-time calc(theme(spacing.N)-Mpx) into a
byte-equivalent runtime calc() (components/IssueRow.tsx), verified via
headless-browser computed-style comparison against the pre-change built
CSS.
- 2 sites skipped/allowlisted: rounded-[inherit] (CSS keyword, not a
literal) and drop-shadow-[...] (different utility than this batch's
shadow-[...] mandate) — logged as a Needs-human-decision item.
Three gotchas found and fixed during verification (all documented in the
codemod header and TOKEN-AUDIT.md's Batch 3 log): a boundary regex bug that
false-positived inside Tailwind's own slide-out-to-top-[1%] compound
utility, a calc()-operator-spacing bug that could corrupt
env(safe-area-inset-*) identifiers, and a generated-CSS-comment bug where a
literal "*/" substring in prose silently dropped the entire token block
from the compiled CSS (root cause of an initial 222-test snapshot failure,
fully resolved to 510/510 passing).
Verify: rg gates clean, pnpm build-storybook exit 0, Storybook visual
snapshot suite 510/510 (509 clean + 1 known-benign flaky retry), pnpm
typecheck exit 0, codemod re-run confirmed idempotent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Replaces hardcoded TYPE values in ui/src/components/** and ui/src/pages/**
with references to new verbatim CSS custom-property tokens in
ui/src/index.css, via a new committed codemod (scripts/codemod-extract-type.mjs).
- 932 sites rewritten across 143 files:
- 728 arbitrary font-size Tailwind classes (text-[Npx])
- 202 arbitrary letter-spacing classes (tracking-[N em])
- 2 inline-style fontSize string literals
- 0 leading-[...] sites found (none existed)
- 17 new tokens minted, no normalizing: 8 --fs-* (9/10/11/12/13/14/15px +
0.7rem, kept in its own unit) and 9 --ls-* (0.08-0.24em, 9 distinct
values) — the micro type-size and letter-spacing clusters TOKEN-AUDIT.md
flagged are now materialized as tokens, still un-collapsed pending a
human scale decision.
- 2 sites allowlisted (both already-documented functional/third-party
fontSize forms: CompanyEnvironments.tsx xterm.js config, CompanySkills.tsx
computed Math.round() value) — no new allowlist entries needed since
neither is a class-string or literal-fontSize site the codemod targets.
- Verified: rg gates clean, pnpm build-storybook exit 0, Storybook visual
suite 510/510 passed (first attempt), pnpm typecheck exit 0, codemod
re-run confirmed idempotent (0 sites on second pass).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Mechanical, codemod-driven extraction of hardcoded hex/rgb/rgba color
literals in ui/src/components/** and ui/src/pages/** (including their
*.test.tsx companions) into CSS custom-property tokens in
ui/src/index.css, per DESIGN.md's Phase 2 extraction contract. Zero
visual change: verified against the Phase 0 Storybook snapshot
baseline.
- 69 sites rewritten across 31 files (Tailwind bracket hex classes,
inline style={{ backgroundColor/color: ... }} literals, and
bg-[gradient(...)] arbitrary values).
- 41 new tokens minted verbatim in a new non-@theme :root block
(17 --hex-*, 24 --gradient-extract-*), 2 existing-token reuses
(--status-task-in_progress, --status-task-done — exact
case-insensitive match, mode-independent, no .dark override).
- 8 files allowlisted with inline `token-extraction: allowlisted`
comments for functional/third-party literals that must stay
hardcoded (xterm.js theme config, <input type="color"> value,
color-picker seed state persisted to a create payload, a
persisted/compared skill.color palette, a contrast-math fallback,
a runtime-computed canvas fillStyle, and a half-migrated
var(--x, fallback) pattern left for a human decision).
- Codemod script (scripts/codemod-extract-colors.mjs) uses a fixed,
hand-audited site table rather than a blind hex regex, since a
naive regex false-positives on strings like "acme/web#241".
- Bug caught by the visual suite and fixed before commit: gradient
token values initially kept Tailwind's bracket-arbitrary-value
underscore-for-space escaping (e.g. circle_at_top), which is
invalid inside a real CSS custom property; converted back to
literal spaces.
Verify: rg gate clean outside the allowlist; pnpm build-storybook
exit 0; Storybook visual snapshot suite 510/510 passed; pnpm
typecheck exit 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Playwright-based screenshot suite over the built Storybook: one test per
story per theme (dark/light), byte-identical comparison (maxDiffPixels 0),
Date frozen via init-script shim (page.clock broke React rendering in
several stories), animations disabled, per-story settle map for delayed
state flips and a mask for one bimodal ::highlight race.
Run with pnpm test:storybook-visual (or :update to re-baseline).
No new dependencies: reuses the repo's @playwright/test and a
dependency-free static server script.
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.
> - The board UI is the main daily navigation surface for agents,
projects, and their related resources.
> - Operators need a lightweight way to keep frequently used agents and
projects close without changing company-wide ordering or ownership.
> - Resource memberships already model per-user relationships to
projects and agents, so they are the right place to store user-specific
starred state.
> - This pull request extends that membership contract with a starred
timestamp and exposes star controls in list/detail views.
> - The sidebar then uses those starred memberships to show compact,
user-specific shortcuts.
> - The benefit is faster navigation without introducing a separate
favorites system or leaking preferences across users.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists.
Feature request:
## Problem or motivation
Users cannot pin frequently used agents or projects into the main
sidebar. Returning to important resources requires scanning full
project/agent lists or navigating through detail pages, which adds
friction to repeated daily workflows.
## Proposed solution
Store a per-user `starred_at` timestamp on agent and project
memberships, expose API actions to set or clear that state, add star
toggle controls to list/detail pages, and render starred projects and
agents as compact sidebar shortcuts.
## Alternatives considered
A separate favorites table would work, but it would duplicate membership
scoping and require another resource relationship model. Keeping starred
state on memberships preserves existing company/user boundaries and
avoids a second source of truth.
## Roadmap alignment
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; no overlapping planned core work for starred
resource/sidebar navigation was found.
## Additional context
The affected subsystems are `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`,
and `ui/`. The migration is idempotent with `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so
environments that saw an earlier local migration name can still apply
the final ordered migration safely.
## What Changed
- Added idempotent migration `0133_resource_membership_stars` for
`starred_at` columns and lookup indexes on agent/project memberships.
- Extended shared resource membership types and validators with starred
metadata and actions.
- Updated server resource membership services/routes to read and mutate
starred resource state.
- Added reusable star toggle UI and resource membership hook support for
starred state.
- Added starred projects and agents sidebar rendering, plus star
controls on list and detail pages.
- Added focused shared, server, and UI coverage for starred membership
behavior and sidebar rendering.
## Verification
- Rebased and force-with-lease pushed current PR head
`a086fc965391c9e50a51b5b83b5b44a797b2a6f4` onto current
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`; `gh pr view` reports `MERGEABLE` with no
merge conflicts. GitHub checks are green for this fresh head.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` passed after the
rebase: 8 files, 143 tests.
- Greptile re-review is 5/5; the remaining screenshot thread was
resolved as non-blocking because this task explicitly requested no
screenshots/images in the PR.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx` passed after the
mobile pending-spinner fix.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` passed: 7 files, 68
tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed
db/shared/server, then failed in pre-existing UI code outside this PR:
`src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.tsx` missing `@xterm/*` type declarations
and `previous` possibly null.
- Checked that the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md` and found no overlapping planned core work for
starred resource/sidebar navigation.
- Searched existing GitHub PRs for duplicate starred-resource/sidebar
work and found none.
## Risks
- Migration touches membership tables. The SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` for
columns and indexes so environments that saw an earlier local migration
name can still apply this safely.
- Sidebar ordering and visibility changes could affect users who rely on
the previous flat sidebar layout.
- Starred state is per-user membership metadata; code paths must
continue preserving company/user scoping around memberships.
> 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, tool-enabled coding agent with shell/GitHub access.
Context window not disclosed 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.
> - 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.
> - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving
through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift
notices, and linked work.
> - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface,
not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments.
> - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes,
CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation
controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the
primitive reviewable end to end.
> - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline
workflow primitive stack.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator
experience and server contract together against `master`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature
request is described inline.
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company
workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request
review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation,
and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified
pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues,
routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate.
### Proposed solution
Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and
migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes,
aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the
React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail,
review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over
fields, and retry/recovery flows.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because
operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated
workflow patterns.
- Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch
because the operator experience is the main way to validate the
primitive.
- Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same
primitives are useful across future company processes.
## What Changed
- Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts,
server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke
support.
- Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment,
blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and
permission recovery behavior.
- Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item
detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets,
automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets,
liveness banners, and source automation metadata.
- Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared
`DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent
with the pipeline document surfaces.
- Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current
pipeline branch.
## Verification
Current branch refresh:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31
passed
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19
passed
- `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed
- Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`:
sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline
routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental
settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle.
- GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket,
Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review
- Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
Confidence Score 5/5
- GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads
Previously recorded during branch development:
- Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests
- Shared validator tests
- UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests
- Pipeline tutorial smoke path
## Risks
- High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database,
shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI.
- Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention
because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master`
syncs.
- GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting
normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status
checks are green.
- Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing
requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming
rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references.
> 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, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification
commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip
agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [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
> - CI runs a Canary Dry Run job that exercises `release.sh`, which
builds the standalone sandbox-provider packages for publish
> - That step (`scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`) built the
7 provider plugins serially — each doing `rm -rf dist && tsc` — making
it the dominant cost (~49s) inside the slowest PR check (~4.9m wall)
after the general-server lane was already sharded
> - The packages are independent (their own `node_modules` via
`--ignore-workspace`, their own `dist`), so the serial build is pure
latency with no correctness benefit
> - This pull request builds them with a bounded-concurrency pool sized
to the runner CPU count (overridable via
`STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`), buffering each package's output and
flushing it as one block so parallel logs stay readable, and aggregating
failures by original index
> - The benefit is a faster Canary Dry Run / PR feedback loop without
changing what gets built or published
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Inline feature/perf description:
### Problem or motivation
`build-standalone-public-packages.mjs` builds standalone provider
packages serially, making it the largest single cost inside the slowest
PR check.
### Proposed solution
Run independent per-package builds through a bounded-concurrency worker
pool sized to runner CPU count, with an env override and readable
buffered logs.
### Alternatives considered
Keep the serial build for simpler logs, but that preserves the avoidable
CI latency.
### Roadmap alignment
This is CI maintenance and does not overlap planned core roadmap work.
## What Changed
- `scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`: replaced the serial
per-package build loop with a bounded-concurrency pool (default = runner
CPU count, override via `STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`); per-package
stdout/stderr is buffered and flushed as a single block; failures are
aggregated by original package index so one failure neither aborts the
others mid-flight nor obscures which package broke.
- `scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs`: new
`node:test` unit suite covering the pool (limit respected, all items
run, ordered failure aggregation, env-override resolution).
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: wired the new unit test into the policy
job.
## Verification
- `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs` → 6/6 pass
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` → OK (29 enabled for CI
publish)
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` → clean
## Risks
- Low risk. Build inputs/outputs are unchanged; only scheduling differs.
The concurrency is bounded by CPU count and overridable; output is
buffered per package so logs remain attributable. If a package fails,
all failures are still reported with their package index.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking with 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 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
- [ ] 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 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 open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Every PR runs the `PR` GitHub Actions workflow, whose `verify` gate
fans out into parallel test lanes (general tests, serialized server
route suites, build, typecheck)
> - The `General tests (server)` lane had grown into the run's critical
path: it executed all ~213 non-route server suites serially in a single
job (~7.2m of test time), more than 2x any other job
> - It runs serially because `server/vitest.config.ts` pins `maxWorkers:
1`, so server suites cannot parallelize within a single runner — the
only lever is spreading them across runners
> - This pull request shards that lane into 3 even partitions that run
on separate runners, mirroring the 4-way sharding already used for the
serialized route suites
> - The benefit is the lane drops from ~7.7m to ~2.4m/shard, cutting
overall PR wall time roughly in half (~8.5m → ~4.2m)
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the underlying issue is
described inline following the feature-request template.
### Problem or motivation
PR CI wall time had crept back up to ~8.5m. On a recent fully-green run,
the `General tests (server)` job took 7.72m — more than double any other
job and the clear critical path. Of that, 7.23m was pure test execution
(dependency install was a cached 0.27m). The job ran all server suites
that are not route/authz tests (213 files) one after another, because
the server vitest project pins `maxWorkers: 1`, making these suites
inherently serial within a single runner.
### Proposed solution
Shard the general-server lane across 3 parallel runners — the same
technique the route/authz suites already use — so the suite set is split
into even, deterministic partitions that run concurrently. Add a
regression test that proves the shards always cover the full suite set
with no gaps or overlap.
### Alternatives considered
- **Raise `maxWorkers` for the server project** to parallelize within
one runner — rejected: the server suites share process-level state
(DB/port), which is exactly why `maxWorkers: 1` is pinned.
- **Two shards instead of three** — would leave the lane at ~3.6m, still
above the next bottleneck (Canary Dry Run, ~4.1m wouldn't be the gate).
Three lands the lane comfortably below it.
- **Do nothing / accept the slow lane** — rejected: it gates every PR.
### Roadmap alignment
Developer-experience / CI tooling. Not core product roadmap work; does
not overlap with planned features in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: the `general-server` general-test
group now accepts `--shard-index` / `--shard-count`. It enumerates the
full server test set (the whole `server/src` tree, minus the route/authz
suites that already run in their own serialized shards) and splits it
deterministically by modulo. The non-sharded local invocation (`pnpm
test:run:general --group general-server`) is unchanged.
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: the `general_tests` matrix runs
`general-server` as 3 parallel shards (1/3, 2/3, 3/3). Workspace groups
are unchanged. The `verify` gate already aggregates the whole matrix
result, so the required check name is unaffected.
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: a `node:test`
suite asserting the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition
of the general-server set, that no route/authz suite leaks into it, and
that shard flags are rejected for the parallel workspace groups. Wired
into the `policy` job.
## Verification
- New partition test passes locally: `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` (3/3).
- Confirmed the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition of
all 213 files (71/71/71).
- Ran a live thin shard (3 real server suites, including one outside
`__tests__`) — 23 tests passed, confirming positional-include execution
works end to end.
- This PR's own CI is the authoritative check: all three `General tests
(server (n/3))` jobs went green on the prior run, collectively covering
every suite the old single job ran.
## Risks
- Low risk. No product code changes — only test orchestration and CI
matrix. Shard partitioning is deterministic and is now covered by an
automated test that fails if the partition ever develops a gap or
overlap. Modulo-on-sorted-filenames balances duration reasonably,
matching the approach already proven by the serialized route shards.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking + tool use
(agentic coding 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 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 (N/A — no UI change)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(inline comments explain the sharding rationale)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending this PR's run)
- [ ] 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
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work, distributed primarily via the `paperclipai` npm package and its
`@paperclipai/*` workspace packages.
> - The release subsystem (`scripts/release-package-*`) decides which
workspace packages CI republishes at the unified calver version each
release, and `replaceWorkspaceDeps()` rewrites every internal
`workspace:` dependency to that calver version at publish time.
> - The gap: a package that publishes from CI can declare a `workspace:`
dependency on a package that is NOT enrolled for CI publish. The
dependency spec gets rewritten to a calver version that is never
actually published, so the dependent becomes uninstallable.
> - This shipped for real: a recent change made `@paperclipai/server`
depend on `@paperclipai/skills-catalog`, but skills-catalog was not on
the calver release train — so canary builds after that merge failed to
resolve `@paperclipai/skills-catalog@<calver>` and `npx
paperclipai@canary run` broke.
> - This PR addresses it durably by (a) putting every remaining internal
package on the CI release train so no internal dependency can dangle,
and (b) adding a fail-fast guard so this class of break can never ship
again.
> - The benefit is that canary and stable installs resolve all internal
dependencies, and any future unpublishable workspace edge fails the
release build with a clear, named error instead of producing a broken
package.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8327 (introduced the `server -> skills-catalog` runtime dependency
that surfaced the gap).
No public issue tracks this; describing it in-PR:
- **Problem:** After #8327, `npx paperclipai@canary run` failed for
builds past the merge because `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` was
rewritten to a calver version that was never published (the package was
not enrolled for CI publish). Versions before the merge still ran.
- **Root cause:** A `publishFromCi:true` package can declare a
`workspace:` dependency on a package that is not `publishFromCi:true`;
the release-time version rewrite then points at a non-existent published
version.
## What Changed
- Enrolled every remaining internal package on the calver release train
by setting `publishFromCi: true` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`: `skills-catalog`,
`teams-catalog`, `plugin-workspace-diff`, `plugin-kubernetes`,
`plugin-novita-sandbox`. There are now zero `publishFromCi:false`
entries.
- `skills-catalog`, `teams-catalog`, `plugin-workspace-diff` already
existed on npm — CI simply republishes them at calver.
- `plugin-kubernetes` and `plugin-novita-sandbox` were not on npm; their
one-time first publish was bootstrapped so the
`check-release-package-bootstrap` gate passes.
- Added `findUnpublishableWorkspaceEdges()` to
`scripts/release-package-map.mjs`, wired into
`buildReleasePackagePlan()`. The release map build now fails fast
(surfaced by the `check` CI already runs) whenever a
`publishFromCi:true` package declares a runtime `workspace:` dependency
(`dependencies`/`optionalDependencies`/`peerDependencies`) on a
non-`publishFromCi:true` `@paperclipai/*` package, naming the offending
edge.
- Added tests covering positive/negative detection, all three dependency
sections, unknown-package edges, off-train edges, and the live manifest.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` → 9/9 pass
(includes a test asserting the live manifest has no unpublishable
edges).
- `node scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs
scripts/release-package-manifest.json` → passes, naming all five
newly-enabled packages (all confirmed present on npm).
- Confirmed via `npm view` that all five packages resolve on the public
registry.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only enrolls already-existing (or
freshly-bootstrapped) packages onto the existing release train and adds
a build-time validation. No runtime code paths change. The new guard can
only *fail* a release that was already going to ship a broken package.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7), extended thinking, with tool use /
code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change 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 (N/A — no UI changes)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A —
no doc-facing behavior change)
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Visual QA and screenshot-based review depend on a working headless
browser in agent sandboxes.
> - Playwright can provide the Chromium binary, but some sandboxes lack
the host shared libraries that Chromium needs to launch.
> - Those sandboxes often do not have sudo, so `playwright install-deps`
cannot install system packages.
> - This pull request adds a user-space provisioning script for the
Chromium runtime dependency closure.
> - The benefit is that QA can bootstrap a render-capable Chromium
environment without requiring root access or changing app runtime code.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this exact QA provisioning gap.
Problem: in no-sudo Linux sandboxes, Playwright's bundled Chromium may
fail to launch because the host is missing required shared libraries
such as libatk, libcups, libgbm, libpango, and libasound.
Expected behavior: QA agents should be able to provision a local prefix
that lets Playwright launch bundled Chromium headlessly and render text
without root access.
Related public PR: #7301 covers broader runtime tooling/dependency
setup, but this PR is a focused userspace script for the no-sudo
Chromium dependency case.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/qa/provision-headless-chromium.sh`.
- The script downloads the dependency closure for Playwright's Ubuntu
24.04 Chromium runtime packages with `apt-get download`, extracts the
`.deb` files into a user-space prefix, and emits an env file that sets
`LD_LIBRARY_PATH` and `FONTCONFIG_FILE`.
- The script also configures extracted fonts and an isolated font cache
so headless rendering paints text.
## Verification
- Ran `bash -n scripts/qa/provision-headless-chromium.sh`.
- The handoff verification states the script was run from a clean prefix
on Ubuntu 24.04 arm64 as a non-root user, then Chromium 145 launched
headless and rendered text at 1440x900 and 390x844 in light and dark
mode.
## Risks
Low risk. This adds a standalone QA utility script and does not modify
application runtime, package manifests, CI configuration, migrations, or
production code.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with shell and GitHub CLI
access. The original script was prepared by an agent workflow; Git
Expert amended public-facing references and prepared the PR.
## 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
- [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
> - Sandbox-provider plugins (cloudflare, daytona, e2b, exe-dev,
kubernetes, modal, novita) and `plugin-workspace-diff` are published as
standalone npm packages, but during local dev they need the in-repo
`@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` symlinked in
> - Each of these plugins shipped a `postinstall` lifecycle script that
traversed *out* of its own package directory (`node
../../../../scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs`) to do that linking
> - The publishable manifest is built by a `prepack` whitelist that
drops the `scripts` field, so npm consumers don't see the postinstall
today — but that safety property depends entirely on `prepack` running
on every publish. A publish that skips lifecycle scripts would ship a
tarball whose postinstall escapes its package directory at consumer
install time
> - This pull request removes the escape-the-package-dir lifecycle
script from every plugin source manifest and moves the dev linking to a
single root-level postinstall that iterates the excluded plugin
directories itself
> - The benefit is that plugin tarballs can no longer carry an
install-time script that reaches outside their own directory, regardless
of whether `prepack` runs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is a follow-up hardening change flagged during review of the Novita
sandbox provider PR (#7595).
**Problem (security):** Excluded plugin packages each carried
`"postinstall": "node ../../../../scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs"`. The
relative path traverses outside the package root. Today the published
manifest is sanitized by a `prepack` whitelist that drops `scripts`, so
consumers are unaffected in the normal publish path. The risk is that
this is a defense-in-depth gap: if a publish ever skips lifecycle
scripts (e.g. `npm publish --ignore-scripts` is *not* used, or a tool
publishes the raw manifest), the tarball would ship a postinstall that
runs out-of-tree code at the consumer's install time.
## What Changed
- Added a single root `package.json` `postinstall`: `node
scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs`.
- Rewrote `scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs` to iterate the excluded
plugin directories itself (`packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/*` + the
orchestration smoke example) instead of relying on each plugin to invoke
it from its own cwd. Preserves both prior behaviors: leave a real
installed SDK dir alone, and skip when already correctly symlinked
(idempotent).
- Removed `scripts.postinstall` from all 7 sandbox-provider plugins
(cloudflare, daytona, e2b, exe-dev, kubernetes, modal, novita).
- Removed `scripts.postinstall` from `plugin-workspace-diff` (a pnpm
workspace member — pnpm already links the SDK, so the script was a no-op
there).
## Verification
- `node scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.mjs` from repo root: links the SDK
into the excluded plugins and reports skipped (already-linked) dirs;
re-running is idempotent.
- `grep -r "link-plugin-dev-sdk" packages/plugins/*/package.json
packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/*/package.json` returns no matches —
no plugin source manifest references the linker any longer.
- All affected `package.json` files re-validated as parseable JSON.
## Risks
Low risk. Dev-only tooling: the linker only runs at the repo root during
local install and only touches `node_modules/@paperclipai/plugin-sdk`
symlinks inside excluded plugin dirs. No change to published plugin
behavior or runtime code. Worst case if the root postinstall failed to
run, local dev of an excluded plugin would not find the SDK symlink —
easily re-run manually.
## Model Used
Claude Opus (claude-opus-4-8), extended reasoning, with tool use / code
execution in an agentic coding 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues 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 (added
`scripts/link-plugin-dev-sdk.test.js`, wired into
`test:release-registry`)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — no UI change)
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip already separates agent adapters from execution
environments, so agents can run locally, over SSH, or through sandbox
providers.
> - Sandbox provider plugins let Paperclip add new cloud runtimes
without changing each agent adapter.
> - Novita Agent Sandbox is a cloud runtime for AI agent workloads with
isolated filesystems, command execution, templates, timeout controls,
and pause/resume behavior.
> - Paperclip currently has sandbox provider examples for Daytona and
Cloudflare, but not Novita.
> - This pull request adds a Novita sandbox provider plugin using the
existing provider-plugin lifecycle.
> - The benefit is that Paperclip users can run existing adapters such
as Codex, Claude, Gemini, OpenCode, Cursor, or ACPX inside Novita Agent
Sandbox environments.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#7596
## What Changed
- Added `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/novita` as a standalone
sandbox provider plugin package.
- Registered provider key `novita` with `kind: "sandbox_provider"` and
`environment.drivers.register` capability.
- Implemented Novita environment lifecycle hooks: validate config,
probe, acquire lease, resume lease, release lease, destroy lease,
realize workspace, and execute commands.
- Added config support for `apiKey`, `domain`, `template`,
`requestedCwd`, `timeoutMs`, `requestTimeoutMs`, `secure`, `autoPause`,
and `reuseLease`.
- Added README documentation for setup, configuration, and lifecycle
behavior.
- Added tests for manifest shape, config parsing, safe shell command
wrapping, stdin delimiter safety, and env-key validation.
## Verification
From `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/novita`:
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm test`
The tests avoid live Novita API calls and cover the provider's static
contract and command-wrapping behavior. Live end-to-end verification
requires a Paperclip instance with the plugin installed and a Novita API
key configured as either a Paperclip secret or `NOVITA_API_KEY` in the
worker environment.
## Risks
- This adds a new direct dependency on the Novita Sandbox JS SDK
(`novita-sandbox`). Socket/Snyk should review the package as part of
normal dependency checks.
- The implementation relies on Novita SDK command execution semantics;
live provider behavior should be verified with a real Novita sandbox
before marking the plugin production-ready.
- `reuseLease` maps Paperclip release behavior to Novita `betaPause()`.
If pause is unavailable for a selected template, the plugin falls back
to best-effort kill during release.
- Low migration risk for existing users because this is a new standalone
provider plugin and does not change existing adapters or built-in
providers.
> 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, with repository file access, shell
command execution, GitHub CLI/API usage, and local TypeScript/Vitest
verification. Web and local documentation context were used for Novita
Sandbox SDK/API behavior.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The reference container image must be deployable on both Docker
Compose (where it starts as root and `gosu`'s a `USER_UID`/`USER_GID`
switch) and Kubernetes (where the pod is typically constrained by
PodSecurity)
> - The Kubernetes operator (paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#45) sets
`runAsNonRoot: true`, `runAsUser: 1000`, `allowPrivilegeEscalation:
false`, and `drop: ALL` capabilities by default — the unconditional
`usermod` + `gosu` flow in the entrypoint requires root + `CAP_SETUID` /
`CAP_SETGID`, making the image undeployable on any cluster enforcing
baseline or restricted PodSecurity
> - Without root, neither the user remap nor `gosu` can ever succeed —
so the fix is a runtime branch: non-root starts `exec` the command
directly (warning if the runtime UID/GID differs from the requested
one), while root starts keep the existing `usermod`+`gosu` flow
> - This also covers platforms that assign arbitrary UIDs (OpenShift
restricted SCC), which previously crashed with a cryptic `usermod:
Permission denied`
> - The benefit is one image that works for both deployment shapes with
no operator-side workaround — pure superset, no breaking change
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#45 (cross-repo) — the operator's
default pod security context (`runAsNonRoot: true`, `runAsUser: 1000`,
`allowPrivilegeEscalation: false`, `drop: ALL`) is blocked by this
entrypoint behavior. The operator shipped a stopgap
(paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#46 lets the CRD override the security
context); this PR is the image-side fix that makes the secure defaults
work out of the box. Supersedes #2904 (v1 of this branch).
No in-repo issue covers this directly — problem described in-PR
following the bug-report template:
**What happened**
The entrypoint unconditionally runs `usermod`/`groupmod`/`chown` + `exec
gosu node`, which requires root plus `CAP_SETUID` / `CAP_SETGID` — any
non-root start crashes (`gosu` cannot drop privileges; a mismatched UID
dies earlier at `usermod: Permission denied`), making the reference
image undeployable on clusters enforcing baseline or restricted
PodSecurity.
**Expected behavior**
A non-root container `exec`s the command directly (with a clear warning
if its UID/GID differs from the requested `USER_UID`/`USER_GID`, since a
remap is impossible without root). The existing root + `usermod` +
`gosu` flow is preserved for Docker Compose, where the container starts
as root and switches to the requested UID/GID.
**Deployment mode**
Kubernetes with baseline/restricted PodSecurity and OpenShift-style
arbitrary-UID platforms (failing cases); Docker Compose root-start (must
keep working).
## What Changed
- **`scripts/docker-entrypoint.sh`** — branch on the runtime UID:
- **Non-root start** → `exec "$@"` directly. If the runtime UID/GID
differs from `USER_UID`/`USER_GID`, print a one-line warning to stderr
first (the remap is impossible without root; the warning keeps
volume-permission mismatches diagnosable instead of failing cryptically
inside `usermod`).
- **Root start** → unchanged: `usermod`/`groupmod` remap when requested,
`chown` of `/paperclip` when a remap happened, then `exec gosu node
"$@"`.
## Verification
**Automated:** `server/src/__tests__/docker-entrypoint.test.ts` runs the
real entrypoint with `id`/`usermod`/`groupmod`/`chown`/`gosu` stubbed
via PATH and asserts all five privilege branches (root+defaults,
root+remap, non-root match, arbitrary non-root UID, GID mismatch) — runs
in the regular server suite, no Docker needed.
**Manual (Docker):** ran the entrypoint on `node:lts-trixie-slim` (the
image's actual base) across the full matrix, with `gosu` stubbed to a
marker:
- [x] Root start, defaults → no remap, `gosu node` invoked (Docker
Compose flow unchanged)
- [x] Root start, `USER_UID=1001`/`USER_GID=1001` → `Updating node
UID/GID to 1001` + `gosu node` (remap flow unchanged)
- [x] Non-root `--user 1000:1000` (the operator's `runAsUser: 1000`
shape) → silent direct exec, command runs as 1000:1000
- [x] Non-root `--user 1234:1234` (arbitrary UID) → warning `running
unprivileged as 1234:1234; cannot remap to requested 1000:1000`, then
direct exec (previously: crash)
- [x] Non-root `--user 1000:1001` (GID mismatch) → warning, then direct
exec
- [x] Baseline check: master's entrypoint fails for any non-root start
(gosu/usermod require root)
End-to-end cluster verification under restricted PodSecurity exercises
the same branch as the `--user 1000:1000` case above; the operator
repo's deploy is the natural place for that smoke test once this ships
in an image tag.
## Risks
- **Backward-compatible.** Docker Compose / root-entrypoint path is
byte-for-byte the same flow — `usermod`/`gosu` runs whenever the
container starts as root.
- **Behavior change only for previously-broken starts.** Non-root
containers used to crash; they now run. The only observable difference
for a *working* deployment is none.
- **Mismatched non-root UID/GID warns instead of failing.** Deliberate:
the remap is impossible without root, and arbitrary-UID platforms
(OpenShift) rely on group-writable volumes; a hard fail would keep them
broken. The stderr warning preserves diagnosability.
- **No new env vars, no API surface.** Pure entrypoint behavior change
gated on the runtime UID.
- **Restricted PodSecurity ready.** The non-root branch needs no Linux
capabilities — works under `drop: ALL`.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.6; rebase, non-root generalization, and verification
matrix by Claude Fable 5 (1M context).
## 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] Checked ROADMAP.md — not in conflict with planned core work
(agent-runtime sandbox images use `tini`, no gosu — unaffected)
- [x] Tests run locally and pass (new `docker-entrypoint.test.ts`
covering all five privilege branches, plus a manual Docker matrix on the
real base image; see Verification)
- [x] No UI changes
- [x] Documented risks above
- [x] Will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge
Unblocks the default (non-overridden) security context of
paperclipinc/paperclip-operator#45 / #46.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Sandbox providers are the seam that lets agent runs execute in
isolated environments; today the only first-party remote provider is
Daytona, a hosted third-party service
> - Self-hosters running Paperclip on their own infrastructure (often
Kubernetes already) have no first-party way to run agent sandboxes on a
cluster they control
> - That gap matters for teams with data-residency, sovereignty, or cost
constraints who cannot or will not send workloads to a hosted sandbox
service
> - This pull request adds a Kubernetes sandbox-provider plugin as a
standalone, workspace-excluded package: it implements every
SandboxProvider hook the Daytona provider does, on infrastructure the
operator owns
> - The benefit is that any Paperclip deployment with a Kubernetes
cluster gets multi-tenant, network-isolated, quota-bounded agent
sandboxes with zero new external dependencies
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue. Following the feature template:
- **Problem:** Paperclip's remote sandbox execution requires a hosted
third-party provider. Self-hosters cannot run agent sandboxes on their
own Kubernetes clusters with a first-party provider.
- **Proposed solution:** A `@paperclipai/plugin-kubernetes`
sandbox-provider plugin with two backends: long-lived sandboxes via the
[kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox)
CRD (multi-command exec, adapter-install pattern) and one-shot
`batch/v1` Jobs (stable APIs only, no extra controllers).
- **Alternatives considered:** Driving kubectl from a generic shell
provider (no lifecycle/lease semantics), or requiring a hosted provider
(exactly the constraint this removes).
## What Changed
This is **stage 1 of 3** of a staged contribution (direction agreed with
maintainers): the plugin package alone. Stage 2 (server integration:
lease params, provider registration) and stage 3 (agent runtime images +
CI) are companion PRs that will be cross-linked from a comment here.
- New package `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes`
(workspace-excluded, like the path already carved out in
`pnpm-workspace.yaml`): src, unit + kind integration tests, operator
prerequisite manifests, README, smoke-test guide
- Implements the full SandboxProvider hook surface the Daytona provider
implements: `validateConfig`, `probe`, `acquireLease`, `resumeLease`,
`releaseLease`, `destroyLease`, `realizeWorkspace`, `execute`
- Two backends: `sandbox-cr` (default; long-lived pod via the
agent-sandbox `Sandbox` CR, supports multi-command exec) and `job`
(one-shot `batch/v1` Job; nothing beyond k8s 1.27+ required)
- Per-run adapter resolution: one environment serves mixed harnesses;
the per-run `adapterType` hint is read through a local optional type
extension, so the plugin typechecks and builds against the current
plugin SDK and simply falls back to the environment's configured default
adapter until stage 2 lands
- Exec-env wrapping: the Kubernetes exec API carries no environment, so
commands are wrapped to receive the run's env
- Fast-upload interception for workspace realization, scoped per lease
- Per-tenant isolation: derived namespace per company, RBAC,
ResourceQuota, restricted-PSS pod security (runAsNonRoot, drop ALL,
seccomp RuntimeDefault, no SA token automount)
- Network egress policy in two flavors: native `NetworkPolicy` and
`CiliumNetworkPolicy` (FQDN allowlists)
- Image allowlist with glob matching, registry override, and per-run
image override validation
- Per-run Kubernetes Secrets carrying agent credentials, ownerRef'd to
the Job or Sandbox CR for cascade GC
## Verification
- Standalone build, exactly as the README documents:
```bash
cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes
pnpm install --ignore-workspace
pnpm test # 147 unit tests, 17 files, all green
pnpm typecheck # clean against the in-repo plugin SDK on master
pnpm build # dist/ emitted, manifest + worker entrypoints present
```
- A kind-cluster end-to-end integration test is included
(`RUN_K8S_INTEGRATION_TESTS=1 pnpm test
test/integration/end-to-end-run.test.ts`)
- Beyond CI: this provider has been verified in a production
multi-tenant deployment against five harnesses (opencode, pi, codex,
gemini, claude code) with real billed runs
## Risks
- **Zero behavior change for any existing deployment.** The package is
workspace-excluded; nothing in the server imports or loads it until
stage 2's integration lands. No existing code paths are touched.
- The default `sandbox-cr` backend depends on an alpha CRD
(`agents.x-k8s.io/v1alpha1`); the README flags this and the `job`
backend uses only stable APIs as a fallback.
- Risk surface is confined to deployments that explicitly install and
configure the plugin.
- The default runtime images (`ghcr.io/paperclipai/agent-runtime-*`) are
published by the stage 3 companion PR (#7934); until that lands,
deployments must point `runtimeImage` at their own images.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context), extended thinking, with tool use (Claude
Code).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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 (no UI changes)
- [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 this push)
- [ ] 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 (1M context) <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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The release workflow publishes canary npm packages on every push to
`master`
> - The failing canary job built successfully and published several
packages before npm failed on `@paperclipai/mcp-server`
> - The concrete failure was npm trusted-publishing provenance returning
`TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` because an equivalent Sigstore
transparency-log entry already existed
> - The package version was not visible on npm afterward, so the release
script could not safely treat that error as success by itself
> - This pull request adds a narrow recovery path for that npm
provenance failure and keeps the existing registry verification as the
final source of truth
> - The benefit is that transient duplicate transparency-log failures do
not break canary publication when a package can be republished without
provenance or is already visible on npm
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Bug fix, no public GitHub issue found in duplicate search.
- What happened: the Release workflow canary publish failed in
`publish_canary` after npm returned `TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` while
publishing `@paperclipai/mcp-server@2026.609.0-canary.2`.
- Expected behavior: canary publishing should either recover from npm's
duplicate transparency-log failure when the package can still be
published, or fail later in registry verification if the package never
appears.
- Steps to reproduce: inspect
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/27230012891/job/80411422155
from push `05cb18cf28074a6d1074c7575c5a44133146e368`.
- Deployment mode: GitHub Actions Release workflow, npm trusted
publishing.
- Duplicate search: no open PRs or issues found for `canary publish TLOG
provenance release` or the failing run/job IDs.
## What Changed
- Added `publish_package_to_npm` in `scripts/release-lib.sh` to wrap
canary/stable package publishing.
- Detects npm's duplicate Sigstore transparency-log error and checks
whether the package version is already visible on npm.
- Retries that exact package once with `--provenance=false` when npm hit
the duplicate tlog error but the version is not visible yet.
- Keeps unrelated publish failures as hard failures.
- Added shell-helper tests with fake `pnpm` and `npm` commands, and
included them in `pnpm test:release-registry`.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs`
- `pnpm test:release-registry`
- Confirmed `pnpm publish --dry-run --no-git-checks --tag canary
--access public --provenance=false` is accepted by pnpm 9.15.4.
## Risks
- Low risk: the recovery only triggers when npm output contains both
`TLOG_CREATE_ENTRY_ERROR` and the duplicate transparency-log message.
- Publishing without provenance is a fallback for canary continuity; if
npm still does not expose the package, the existing registry
verification step still fails the release.
- The same helper is used by stable publishing too, but only for this
exact npm provenance failure 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`.
This is a release reliability bug fix. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; it does
not duplicate planned core product work.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-class model, tool-enabled local shell
and GitHub CLI workflow, medium 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 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The skills layout separates runtime Paperclip skills in `skills/`
from maintainer/agent workflow skills in `.agents/skills/`.
> - Three maintainer workflow skills still lived under root `skills/`,
making them look like runtime skills shipped through the Paperclip skill
path.
> - Root `skills/` is documented as reserved for Paperclip runtime
skills, so these task-oriented maintainer skills belong with the other
`.agents/skills` entries.
> - This pull request moves the three requested skill packages, updates
the direct smoke path, and adds regression coverage for the
maintainer-only skill boundary.
> - The benefit is a cleaner skills boundary without changing skill
contents or runtime behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10471.
No public GitHub issue exists for this repository-maintenance change.
Inline feature/enhancement issue description follows the feature request
template fields:
### Problem or motivation
Root `skills/` is documented as reserved for Paperclip runtime skills,
but `terminal-bench-loop`, `paperclip-create-plugin`, and
`diagnose-why-work-stopped` lived there even though they are
maintainer/agent workflow skills.
### Proposed solution
Move those three skill packages to `.agents/skills/`, update the
terminal-bench loop smoke script to read the new local path, and cover
the moved skill names in the existing runtime-skill discovery test
fixture.
### Alternatives considered
Leaving the skills in root `skills/` would preserve direct old paths,
but it keeps blurring the runtime-skill boundary. Moving them into the
app-shipped skills catalog would be the wrong fit because these are
maintainer workflow skills, not bundled company skills.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a small maintenance cleanup around the existing Skills
Manager/workflow-skill organization and does not introduce a
roadmap-level core feature.
## What Changed
- Moved `terminal-bench-loop`, `paperclip-create-plugin`, and
`diagnose-why-work-stopped` into `.agents/skills/`.
- Updated the terminal-bench loop smoke script and skill self-check text
to use `.agents/skills/terminal-bench-loop/SKILL.md`.
- Added regression coverage in
`server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` that places these
three skills under `.agents/skills` while asserting runtime discovery
still lists only root runtime skills.
## Verification
- `pnpm smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill --source-issue-id
"$PAPERCLIP_TASK_ID" --run-key PAP-10471-move-skill-path`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts`
- `rg -n
"skills/(terminal-bench-loop|paperclip-create-plugin|diagnose-why-work-stopped)"
. --glob '!node_modules' --glob '!dist' --glob '!ui/dist'` returned no
matches.
## Risks
- Low risk: this is a file-location change plus direct path/test
updates.
- Maintainer agents that referenced the old root paths directly will
need to use `.agents/skills/...` instead.
> 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 shell/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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Test infrastructure across server, ui, packages/* runs on Vitest
> - Dependabot opened a narrow bump (3.2.4 → 3.2.6), but the wider
workspace is on 3.2.4 and the major-version bridge to v4 needs a
coordinated change set across configs and tests
> - Staying on 3.x indefinitely leaves us behind on Vitest 4 (perf,
pool, and config improvements) and forces repeated patch-only dependabot
churn
> - This pull request upgrades Vitest to 4.1.8 across the workspace,
updates `server/vitest.config.ts` and `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`
for the new API, and adjusts two UI tests for the new assertion
semantics
> - The benefit is a single, coherent Vitest 4 upgrade that supersedes
#7570 and gets us on the supported major line
## What Changed
- Bump `vitest` from `3.2.4` to `4.1.8` across root, `server`, `ui`, and
all `packages/*` (including plugin examples and sandbox providers)
- Update `server/vitest.config.ts` for Vitest 4 config surface
- Update `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` to match the new runner
behavior
- Adjust `ui/src/components/CommentThread.test.tsx` and
`ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx` for Vitest 4 matcher/timing
semantics
- Refresh `pnpm-lock.yaml`
## Verification
- `pnpm install` resolves cleanly with the new lockfile
- `pnpm -w -r test` (server, ui, packages) runs under Vitest 4.1.8
## Risks
- Major-version Vitest bump: behavioral changes in pools, fake timers,
and matcher strictness can surface flake. Test config and the two UI
tests were updated to match v4 semantics; broader test runs should be
watched on CI before merge.
- Supersedes dependabot PR #7570 (3.2.4 → 3.2.6); that PR should be
closed.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking, 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
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] 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#7570
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 orchestrates AI agents across isolated execution
workspaces; the local cwd is the only persistence boundary between runs.
> - Workspace lifecycle (worktree_prepare → execute →
workspace_finalize) and the wake/accept flow are what guarantee that
dependent issues see a consistent worktree.
> - PAPA-380 / PAPA-431 / PAPA-432 / PAPA-440 surfaced three holes in
that contract: silent env reuse across assignees, dependent wakes firing
before finalize, and `issue.interaction.accept` advancing before
finalize landed.
> - PAPA-441 / PAPA-442 then needed to document the "no remote git"
contract and prevent future adapter/runtime code from quietly
reintroducing `git push` as a backdoor sync.
> - This pull request lands those server fixes, the static
`check-no-git-push` enforcement, the AUTHORING.md cross-link, and the
Cody-review follow-ups on the PAPA-430 thread.
> - The benefit is that finalize is a real barrier — board accepts,
dependent wakes, and operator-set env all respect it — and adapter code
can't bypass it via raw `git push`.
## What Changed
- **server (PAPA-380, PAPA-431):** `execution-workspace-policy` refuses
silent env reuse when the assignee's resolved env disagrees with the
workspace it would inherit. The inheritance protection is now scoped to
the actual inheritance signal — explicit issue-level `environmentId` is
honored even when the agent's default env is `null`.
- **server (PAPA-432):** `heartbeat.ts` gates dependent wakes on
`listUnfinalizedExecutionWorkspaceIds`, and writes a
`workspace_finalize` row on the succeeded path. Write failures now
surface instead of being swallowed so dependents aren't silently
stranded behind a missing row.
- **server (PAPA-440):** `issue-thread-interactions.acceptInteraction`
adds a workspace_finalize precondition for `request_confirmation` (not
`suggest_tasks`). Accept returns 409 if finalize hasn't succeeded for
the latest workspace operation.
- **ci (PAPA-442):** new `scripts/check-no-git-push.mjs` static check
scans `packages/adapters/`, `packages/adapter-utils/`, `server/src/`,
and `cli/src/` for any `git push` invocation (string or args-array).
Wired into the `policy` PR job and `test:release-registry`. Operators
can opt in per-call with `// paperclip:allow-git-push: <reason>`.
Release scripts are out of scope by design.
- **docs (PAPA-441):** `AUTHORING.md` documents the no-remote-git
contract and cross-links the static check so adapter authors learn the
rule and the enforcement together.
- **review follow-up (PAPA-430, Cody):** three fixes — env resolver bug,
accept-gate scope (request_confirmation only), and finalize record write
on the succeeded path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` → 33/33
pass
- `node scripts/check-no-git-push.test.mjs` → check covers string form,
args-array form, comment exclusions, and per-line allow-comment.
- Manual: server compiles; the policy job runs the check in <1s before
heavier jobs.
## Risks
- **Behavioral shift in accept:** boards accepting
`request_confirmation` while finalize is in-flight now get 409s. This is
intentional — they can retry — but it changes timing on a hot path.
`suggest_tasks` is unaffected.
- **Workspace policy:** the env-reuse refusal is a new error path.
Issues that previously silently reused an env from a different-assignee
workspace will now fail-loud; the resolver still honors explicit
issue-level `executionWorkspaceSettings.environmentId`.
- **CI rule:** any future legitimate `git push` in scoped dirs must be
marked with the allow-comment, which is the intended ergonomic.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking), via Claude
Code in the Paperclip executor 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
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — server/CI/docs only)
- [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 related issues: PAPA-430, PAPA-380, PAPA-431, PAPA-432, PAPA-440,
PAPA-441, PAPA-442
---------
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 operators spend most of their time scanning the board,
inbox, sidebar, and local dev status surfaces
> - Small UI and dev-ops frictions make repeated operator workflows feel
slower than they need to be
> - The working branch contained several independent quality-of-life
improvements mixed with larger cloud work
> - Grouping these smaller UI/dev-ops changes together keeps review
overhead reasonable without merging them into feature PRs
> - This pull request collects the operator-facing QoL polish into one
standalone branch
> - The benefit is a cleaner board navigation and local dev recovery
experience without depending on cloud upstream sync
## What Changed
- Relaxed forced 44px touch targets for small inline widgets.
- Fixed mobile mention menu scrolling and sidebar spacing on
touch/mobile layouts.
- Synced inbox hover state with j/k selection.
- Moved plugin sidebar entries into the Work section.
- Added manual dev-server restart action/banner behavior.
- Logged plugin bridge 502 causes for better diagnosis.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx
ui/src/components/DevRestartBanner.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/dev-server-status.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` initially failed only
because plugin SDK `dist` was not built in the fresh worktree.
- Rerun after build: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` passed.
- The remaining targeted UI/dev-server tests passed on the first
post-install run.
## Visual Evidence
- Sidebar layout and plugin Work section: 
- Inbox/task row selection and hover-state surface: 
- Dev restart banner desktop: 
- Dev restart banner mobile: 
## Risks
- Mostly UI/dev ergonomics with low data risk.
- Sidebar and inbox changes touch frequently used navigation surfaces,
so visual review on desktop/mobile is still useful.
> 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 keeps its core release process declarative through
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`, which decides which packages CI
is allowed to publish.
> - The Modal sandbox provider now exists as a first-party plugin
package under `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal`.
> - The original Modal PR intentionally left `publishFromCi` disabled
until the package had been published and the registry bootstrap concern
was cleared.
> - The latest reviewer comment confirms that bootstrap step is
complete, so the remaining gap is only release automation configuration.
> - This pull request flips the Modal manifest entry to `publishFromCi:
true` so future CI-driven releases can publish
`@paperclipai/plugin-modal` the same way the other releasable packages
do.
> - The benefit is that Modal releases no longer require a manual
exception in the release pipeline.
## What Changed
- Updated the `@paperclipai/plugin-modal` entry in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json` to set `publishFromCi` to
`true`.
## Verification
- Ran `node -e 'const
m=require("./scripts/release-package-manifest.json"); const
e=m.find(x=>x.name==="@paperclipai/plugin-modal");
if(!e||e.publishFromCi!==true){throw new Error("modal publishFromCi not
true")}; console.log(JSON.stringify(e))'`
## Risks
- Low risk. This only changes release-manifest metadata; the main
failure mode is CI attempting to publish the Modal package before
registry credentials or release conditions are ready.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex local agent, GPT-5-based coding model in the Codex
runtime (exact deployment model ID not exposed in this workspace), with
tool use and shell 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
- [ ] 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 company-scoped
control-plane workflows and extensible runtime integrations.
> - Sandbox providers are part of that extension surface because they
let agents execute isolated work without baking each provider into the
core server.
> - Modal already offers managed sandboxes with filesystem, process,
timeout, and networking controls that map onto Paperclip's sandbox
provider contract.
> - The repo did not have a Modal provider plugin, so teams wanting
Modal-backed sandboxes had no first-party integration path.
> - This pull request adds a standalone
`packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal` plugin that implements the
provider contract, worker entrypoint, docs, and tests.
> - The benefit is that Modal can now be installed as a provider plugin
without expanding the core control-plane surface area.
## What Changed
- Added a new `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal` package with
the plugin manifest, worker entrypoint, and exported plugin surface.
- Implemented Modal-backed sandbox lifecycle support for creation,
command execution, file operations, networking options, termination, and
metadata translation.
- Added focused Vitest coverage for config validation, env handling,
lifecycle flows, networking behavior, and error mapping.
- Documented installation, configuration, and usage requirements in the
plugin README.
- Removed misleading `MODAL_TOKEN_*` fallback behavior so authentication
relies on supported Modal credentials only.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- `cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/modal && pnpm test`
## Risks
- Low to medium risk: this is isolated to a new plugin package, but
runtime behavior still depends on live Modal account credentials and
service-side sandbox semantics.
- Modal's current docs target a newer Node baseline than the repo
default, so the first live install should confirm credential loading and
sandbox startup behavior in a real Modal workspace.
- No UI or schema changes are included in this PR.
> 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 via Paperclip `codex_local` agent (GPT-5-class Codex
coding model; exact backend model ID is not exposed by the runtime),
with tool use, shell execution, and code-editing 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)
- [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.
> - Operators need to inspect what agents changed inside execution and
project workspaces.
> - The existing workspace detail views did not provide a first-party
rich diff surface for staged, unstaged, head, renamed, binary,
oversized, and untracked changes.
> - The plugin system is the intended extension point for optional rich
UI surfaces.
> - This pull request adds a workspace diff plugin plus host services
and shared contracts so Changes tabs can render workspace diffs through
plugin slots.
> - The diff-renderer dependency should stay owned by the plugin package
rather than the core UI app.
> - The dependency surface must stay aligned with repository PR policy,
including intentionally omitting `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the PR.
> - The benefit is a more reviewable workspace surface without
hard-coding the renderer into every page.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`, including diff
normalization, plugin manifest/worker/UI entrypoints, and focused plugin
tests.
- Kept `@pierre/diffs` scoped to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`;
removed the core UI lab diff-renderer surface and direct UI package
dependency.
- Added shared workspace diff types and validators, plus plugin SDK
surface for workspace diff host services.
- Added server workspace diff service support and route coverage for
execution/project workspace diff flows.
- Wired Execution Workspace and Project Workspace Changes tabs to load
the diff plugin, including loading/error fallback behavior.
- Added UI tests and fixtures for the Changes tabs and plugin bridge
behavior.
- Added the new plugin package manifest to the Docker deps stage so PR
policy can validate dependency coverage.
- Addressed review hardening around empty untracked patches, workspace
path exposure, project workspace read capability checks, and default
base refs.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff test`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/workspace-diff.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-diff-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/ProjectWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs`
- Browser screenshot captured from the local worktree dev server:
https://files.catbox.moe/ofdpsp.png
- Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master`,
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` is not included in the PR diff,
`ui/package.json` is not included in the PR diff, and `pnpm-lock.yaml`
is not included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium UI integration risk: the Changes tab depends on the plugin slot
and host diff service path.
- Medium dependency risk: this adds `@pierre/diffs` in the plugin
package, but `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally omitted per packaging
instructions because repository automation manages lockfile updates.
- Current CI blocker: downstream frozen installs fail until the
repository policy path for new plugin package dependencies is chosen.
- Diff rendering edge cases are covered for common working-tree and head
diff states, but very large repositories may still expose performance
limits.
- 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 class coding model, tool-enabled local execution
environment. Exact 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
- [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 publishes its CLI, server, UI, and adapter packages
through the shared release workflow.
> - Canary releases are driven by the GitHub release workflow on pushes
to `master`.
> - The release workflow does not publish every public package
automatically; it uses `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` as the CI
enrollment source of truth.
> - The Grok adapter is public and already present in the manifest, but
its `publishFromCi` flag was still disabled.
> - Because of that flag, normal canary publishes skipped
`@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local` even when the main package received a
canary.
> - This pull request enables Grok in the release manifest so future
canary runs include it.
> - The benefit is that Grok adapter canaries stay aligned with the rest
of the package release set.
## What Changed
- Set `packages/adapters/grok-local` / `@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local`
to `publishFromCi: true` in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`.
## Verification
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check`
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs list | grep
'@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local'`
- `pnpm test:release-registry`
## Risks
- Low risk: this is a release manifest-only change.
- Future canary releases will attempt to publish
`@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local`; this assumes the package remains
publishable and trusted publishing/package access are correctly
configured for the existing npm package.
> 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, git, and GitHub
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 through a control-plane repo that
relies on GitHub Actions as part of its release and verification safety
net.
> - The PR workflow in `.github/workflows/pr.yml` is the core CI path
protecting pull requests before merge.
> - Baseline measurement work in [PAPA-335](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-335)
showed the old single `verify` job was the critical-path bottleneck,
with general tests and build serialized together.
> - Follow-up implementation in [PAPA-338](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-338) and
[PAPA-339](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-339) split that work into parallel lanes
and removed redundant clean-runner prebuild work.
> - [PAPA-340](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-340) now needs real post-change PR
workflow evidence, not local inference, to compare against the May 15,
2026 baseline and decide whether phase-2 work is still justified.
> - This pull request publishes the already-implemented CI speedup
branch so GitHub can run the actual `PR` workflow against it.
> - The benefit is that CI timing decisions are based on measured runs
from the exact workflow shape we intend to ship.
## What Changed
- Split the PR workflow so `policy` fans out into separate `Typecheck +
Release Registry`, grouped `General tests`, and `Build` jobs.
- Kept the serialized server matrix, canary dry run, and e2e jobs intact
while removing the old monolithic `verify` bottleneck.
- Reworked grouped general-test execution in
`scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` so the workflow can run balanced
non-serialized lanes.
- Replaced redundant clean-runner prebuild gates with the idempotent
`ensure-build-deps` path used by the relevant CI entrypoints.
## Verification
- `ruby -e "require 'yaml'; YAML.load_file('.github/workflows/pr.yml');
puts 'yaml-ok'"`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-server --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-a --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-b --dry-run`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-workspaces-b`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-workspaces-a`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-server`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-hello-world-example typecheck`
## Risks
- Required-check and branch-protection settings may still reference the
old single `verify` job name.
- Parallel CI lanes can expose hidden ordering assumptions or
clean-runner bootstrap gaps that local grouped dry-runs did not surface.
- Because the branch is behind current `master`, merge conflicts or
unrelated upstream drift could affect the measured runtime until the
branch is rebased.
> Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this work is CI throughput maintenance for the
existing PR verification path, not duplicate feature work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local`, GPT-5-class coding agent
with repository read/write, shell execution, and GitHub CLI/tool use.
The runtime does not expose a more specific backend model ID in-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 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
- [ ] 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, so
adapter quality directly affects what runtimes the control plane can
supervise.
> - Local CLI adapters are one of the core execution surfaces because
they turn real coding tools into Paperclip-managed employees with
heartbeats, transcripts, and reviewability.
> - Grok Build was installed on the Paperclip host, but Paperclip had no
built-in `grok_local` adapter, so the runtime could not be configured
through the normal server/UI/CLI adapter path.
> - That gap needed to be closed with the same built-in registry,
environment diagnostics, transcript parsing, and skill/instructions
behavior that the other local adapters already rely on.
> - After the initial adapter landed, a real follow-up run showed that
Grok streaming text was being rendered one fragment per line, which made
transcripts harder to read even though the runtime itself was working.
> - This pull request adds the built-in `grok_local` adapter end-to-end
and then fixes the transcript parser so streamed Grok output is
coalesced into readable assistant/thinking blocks.
> - The benefit is that Grok Build becomes a first-class Paperclip
runtime with a usable operator experience instead of a partially wired
runtime with noisy transcript output.
## What Changed
- Added a new built-in `@paperclipai/adapter-grok-local` package with
server, UI, and CLI entrypoints.
- Implemented Grok execution, session handling, environment diagnostics,
config building, skill syncing, and parser coverage inside the new
adapter package.
- Registered `grok_local` across the built-in adapter inventories and
capability/display metadata in server, UI, CLI, and shared constants.
- Added adapter route coverage for the new built-in type.
- Fixed Grok transcript readability by emitting streamed `text` and
`thought` fragments as deltas so the shared transcript builder coalesces
them into readable message blocks.
- Added regression tests for the Grok parser and transcript coalescing
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapters/grok-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts
ui/src/adapters/transcript.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-grok-local build`
- Manual runtime verification on the Paperclip host during
implementation and follow-up review:
- confirmed the Grok CLI was installed and authenticated
- confirmed the worktree dev server could be restarted cleanly and
health-checked after the parser follow-up
- No screenshots attached. This change is primarily adapter plumbing
plus transcript formatting behavior; reviewers can verify via the
Grok-backed run surfaces directly.
## Risks
- This adds a new built-in adapter, so any missed registration surface
could create inconsistencies between server, UI, and CLI behavior.
- The adapter depends on Grok Build's current event/output shape; if
upstream Grok streaming JSON changes, transcript parsing or session
extraction may need follow-up updates.
- The transcript readability fix intentionally changes how Grok
fragments are grouped, so any downstream code that implicitly expected
one entry per fragment would behave differently.
> 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 via Paperclip `codex_local` agent runtime.
- GPT-5-class coding model with tool use, shell execution, file editing,
and repo inspection enabled.
- Exact backend model ID/context window were not surfaced to the agent
in this Paperclip 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 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
- [ ] 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 through
company-scoped issues, comments, approvals, and execution workspaces.
> - Operators need the Inbox to show not only active work, but also
blocked work that may need human or agent attention.
> - The existing inbox experience did not have a dedicated blocked-work
surface, so blocked tasks were harder to triage and resume deliberately.
> - Backend consumers also needed a compact attention signal that
distinguishes actionable blockers from covered or waiting blocker
states.
> - This pull request adds a Blocked Inbox tab backed by issue
blocker-attention metadata, shared validators, and UI helpers.
> - The benefit is a clearer triage path for stalled or blocked
Paperclip work without exposing external wait internals in the
operator-facing UI.
## What Changed
- Added shared issue blocker-attention types, validators, and exports
for the API/UI contract.
- Added backend blocker-attention computation and issue route support
for blocked inbox data.
- Added the Blocked Inbox tab, blocked reason chips, filtering/search
UI, responsive layouts, and Storybook stories.
- Updated inbox helpers and page behavior so toolbar controls only
appear where they apply.
- Added coverage for shared validators, server blocker-attention
behavior, blocked inbox UI helpers/components, and the Inbox page.
- Added a screenshot helper script for the blocked inbox Storybook
stories.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by making urgency sorting deterministic
for null stop times, avoiding full blocked-inbox list enrichment for
counts, and hardening the screenshot helper.
## Verification
- Rebased the branch cleanly onto `public-gh/master`.
- Confirmed the diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Confirmed the diff does not include database migration files.
- Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts
ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx
ui/src/components/BlockedReasonChip.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/blockedInbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`.
- Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck`.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is scoped inbox/operator triage work and
does not duplicate a listed roadmap feature.
- Greptile Review is green on the latest head and all four Greptile
review threads are resolved.
- GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head: policy, security/snyk,
e2e, verify, Canary Dry Run, Greptile Review, and serialized server
suites 1/4 through 4/4.
## Risks
- Medium review surface because this touches the shared issue contract,
server issue services, and the Inbox UI together.
- Blocker-attention classification may need product tuning after
operators use it on real blocked queues.
- UI screenshots were not attached in this PR-opening pass; the branch
includes `scripts/screenshot-blocked-inbox.mjs` and Storybook stories
for visual capture.
> 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, git, GitHub CLI,
GitHub connector, and Paperclip API tool use. Reasoning mode: medium.
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 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, and its release flow depends on
explicit package enrollment for automated publishing.
> - The release registry tooling uses
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json` as the source of truth for which
public packages CI is allowed to publish.
> - The cursor cloud adapter plus the Cloudflare and exe.dev sandbox
plugins are public packages that now need to ship through the normal CI
release path.
> - Leaving those entries at `publishFromCi: false` keeps release
automation and registry validation out of sync with the intended package
set.
> - This pull request updates only those three manifest entries and
leaves the release tooling itself unchanged.
> - The benefit is that CI release enrollment now matches the packages
we intend to publish, with the existing manifest checks continuing to
guard correctness.
## What Changed
- Enabled CI publishing for `@paperclipai/adapter-cursor-cloud` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`.
- Enabled CI publishing for `@paperclipai/plugin-cloudflare-sandbox` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`.
- Enabled CI publishing for `@paperclipai/plugin-exe-dev` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json`.
## Verification
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check`
- `pnpm test:release-registry`
## Risks
- Low risk. This is a manifest-only change, but a wrong enrollment flag
would affect release automation, so the release-registry checks are the
main guardrail.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.4 via Paperclip `codex_local` (`adapterConfig.model:
gpt-5.4`), high reasoning effort, with tool use and shell/code
execution. The adapter does not expose a separate context-window value
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
> _Stacked on top of #5685 → #5686 → #5687. Diff against master includes
commits from earlier PRs in the stack — review focuses on the two new
commits (`Add long-secret textarea variant to JsonSchemaForm
SecretField` + `Add exe.dev sandbox provider plugin`)._
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Each agent runs in a sandbox environment, and operators choose the
provider — today E2B, Daytona, and (in this stack) Cloudflare
> - exe.dev offers per-VM sandboxes via a small CLI / HTTP API — useful
for operators who want full Linux VMs (vs container/runtime-only
sandboxes)
> - The plugin shape mirrors the e2b plugin: lifecycle hooks (`new`,
`ls`, `rm`) drive exe.dev's CLI; SSH plumbing handles direct VM access
for adapters that need it
> - exe.dev VMs come up bare — `node` is not preinstalled, so the
Paperclip sandbox callback bridge (a Node script) needs Node 20
installed at VM init via `--setup-script`. The plugin defaults the setup
script to a Nodesource install
> - The auth field accepts long SSH private keys, which need a textarea
variant of the existing `SecretField` in `JsonSchemaForm` — added behind
a `maxLength > THRESHOLD` opt-in so other secret fields are unaffected
> - The benefit is that operators get exe.dev as a fully working sandbox
provider out of the box, with no manual VM provisioning required
## What Changed
**Shared UI support (`Add long-secret textarea variant to JsonSchemaForm
SecretField`):**
- `ui/src/components/JsonSchemaForm.tsx` + new
`JsonSchemaForm.test.tsx`: when a secret-formatted field declares
`maxLength` larger than the existing single-line threshold, render a
monospace textarea instead of the masked input. Short secrets (API keys,
tokens) keep the existing masked-input + show/hide toggle behavior.
**The exe.dev plugin (`Add exe.dev sandbox provider plugin`):**
- `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/exe-dev/`: plugin entry, manifest,
plugin runtime, README, and 19-test Vitest suite.
- Manifest fields: API token (with `secret-ref` + `/exec` permission
notes — needs `new`, `ls`, `rm`), API URL override, optional SSH
username, optional SSH private key (uses the new `JsonSchemaForm`
textarea variant via `maxLength: 4096`), optional SSH identity-file
path, optional setup script.
- Default `--setup-script` is a Nodesource Node 20 install. exe.dev VMs
come up bare and the Paperclip sandbox callback bridge is a Node script,
so without Node preinstalled the bridge can't start. Operators can
override by supplying their own setup script.
- `runLifecycleCommand` redacts env values from the executed command
before surfacing it in error messages, so secrets passed via
`--env=KEY=VALUE` don't leak into operator-visible failures.
- The plugin distinguishes exe.dev's SSH onboarding failures (`Please
complete registration by running: ssh exe.dev`) from general SSH
failures and surfaces a clear remediation message.
- `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`: register the new plugin for
CI publish alongside the existing daytona / e2b providers.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --no-coverage
ui/src/components/JsonSchemaForm.test.tsx`
- `(cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/exe-dev && pnpm test)` — 19
passing
For an operator-side smoke test:
1. Get an exe.dev API token with `/exec` permission for `new`, `ls`,
`rm`.
2. Register the plugin in your Paperclip instance, configure an
environment with the token.
3. Create a sandbox env whose provider is `exe-dev`, then run a Codex or
Claude job against it. The default Node 20 setup script should bring the
VM up automatically.
## Risks
- Adds a new sandbox provider plugin that follows the existing daytona /
e2b shape; behavior on existing providers is unchanged.
- The `JsonSchemaForm` textarea variant only engages for fields that opt
in via `maxLength` larger than the existing threshold. All existing
secret fields (which don't declare a `maxLength`) keep their current
rendering. Test coverage pins both paths.
- The redaction in `runLifecycleCommand` is a defense-in-depth measure;
the test suite exercises the redaction path. If the redaction misses a
future env-arg shape, the worst case is restored behavior (secrets in
error messages), which is what the existing daytona / e2b plugins also
do today.
- Default setup script downloads from `deb.nodesource.com` over HTTPS at
VM init. Operators on air-gapped networks or with a different package
strategy can override the setup script.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context)
- Capabilities used: extended reasoning, tool use (Read/Edit/Bash/Grep)
## 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 — UI change is a textarea variant of an existing secret
field; will attach screenshots before requesting merge
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(plugin README, manifest descriptions)
- [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>
> _Stacked on top of #5685 → #5686. Diff against master includes commits
from earlier PRs in the stack — review focuses on the two new commits
(`Extend sandbox callback bridge for Worker-hosted plugins` + `Add
Cloudflare sandbox provider plugin`)._
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Each agent runs in a sandbox environment, and operators choose which
provider backs that sandbox — today E2B and Daytona are bundled with the
platform
> - Cloudflare Workers + Durable Objects + the Sandbox SDK offer a
credible new option: globally distributed, cheap idle, and
operator-deployable as a single Worker
> - To plug it in, Paperclip needs (a) a provider plugin that speaks the
`PaperclipPluginManifestV1` lifecycle and (b) a small operator-deployed
Worker — the **bridge** — that adapts Paperclip's runtime RPCs to the
Cloudflare Sandbox SDK
> - The plugin extends the existing sandbox-callback-bridge with a
`bridge.transport: "worker"` discriminator so the platform routes
runtime RPCs through the Worker bridge instead of the in-process runner
> - This pull request adds the plugin, the bridge Worker template, and
the supporting adapter-utils + server hooks the new transport needs
> - The benefit is that operators can run sandboxes on Cloudflare's edge
with no new platform code beyond installing the plugin and deploying the
Worker
## What Changed
**Shared support (`Extend sandbox callback bridge for Worker-hosted
plugins`):**
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-callback-bridge.{ts,test.ts}`:
expose `expectedHostHeader` so plugin-side bridge clients can verify the
canonical request envelope before forwarding.
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/command-managed-runtime.{ts,test.ts}`:
relax the always-fresh runner construction so callers can re-use a
runner across exec calls (Worker-hosted bridges hold the runner inside a
Durable Object).
- `server/src/services/environment-runtime.ts` +
`environment-runtime.test.ts`: route Worker-hosted bridges through the
same env-shaping path as E2B and pin the `requestEnv` contract.
- `server/src/services/plugin-environment-driver.ts`: thread an optional
`issueId` through the runtime descriptor so bridges can scope leases to
the originating issue (used by Cloudflare to map a sandbox to the
issue/workflow for billing and audit).
- `packages/plugins/sdk/src/protocol.ts`: add `issueId?` to
`PluginEnvironmentDriverBaseParams` and the new `bridge.transport:
"worker"` discriminator that the new plugin declares.
- `server/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`: pin the
heartbeat path against the new runtime descriptor.
**The Cloudflare plugin itself (`Add Cloudflare sandbox provider
plugin`):**
- `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare/`: plugin entry,
manifest, plugin runtime (lifecycle + bridge client), config parsing,
and Vitest coverage. Manifest declares `bridge.transport: "worker"` so
the platform routes runtime RPCs through the bridge client.
- `bridge-template/`: a Worker template the operator deploys with
`wrangler`. Owns Durable Object-backed sessions (`sessions.ts`),
exec/stream routes (`exec.ts`, `routes.ts`), and an HMAC auth layer
(`auth.ts`) that pins the `Host` header surface. Includes the
SDK-contract-correct exec implementation, lease recovery, and chunked
stdout/stderr streaming.
- Tests cover lease/session handoff (`bridge-template/src/exec.test.ts`,
`routes.test.ts`), bridge client request shaping
(`src/bridge-client.test.ts`), and end-to-end plugin behavior
(`src/plugin.test.ts`) including streamed exec output. 27 tests in
total.
- `README.md` walks the operator through deploying the bridge Worker,
registering the plugin, and configuring the runtime.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --no-coverage
packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-callback-bridge.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/command-managed-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`
- `(cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare && pnpm test)` — 27
passing
For an operator-side smoke test:
1. Deploy the bridge: `cd
packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare/bridge-template &&
wrangler deploy`
2. Register the plugin in your Paperclip instance, point its bridge URL
at the deployed Worker, set the HMAC shared secret.
3. Create a sandbox environment whose provider is `cloudflare`, then run
a Codex or Claude job against it.
## Risks
- Adds a new `bridge.transport: "worker"` code path, but the existing
E2B / Daytona transports go through the same shaped helpers and have
explicit test coverage that pins their behavior unchanged.
- The Worker bridge stores session state in a Durable Object; operator
instances must be aware of the corresponding Cloudflare costs (DO
requests, storage). Documented in the README.
- The `issueId` plumbing is optional throughout — existing plugins that
don't supply it continue to work.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic
- Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context)
- Capabilities used: extended reasoning, tool use (Read/Edit/Bash/Grep)
## 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 — N/A, no UI change
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(plugin README, bridge-template README)
- [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
> - There are many adapter types, one per agent-runtime product (Claude,
Codex, OpenCode, Cursor local CLI, etc.)
> - Cursor shipped a public TypeScript SDK on 2026-04-29 that exposes
Cursor's full hosted-agent platform (cloud VMs, harness, MCP, skills,
hooks)
> - Paperclip had no first-class adapter for this — agents that wanted
to use Cursor's managed cloud runtime had to fall back to the local CLI
adapter, which loses the cloud session, streaming, and durable run model
> - This PR adds a new `cursor_cloud` adapter built directly on
`@cursor/sdk`, with Paperclip's heartbeat mapped to Cursor's
durable-agent + per-run model
> - The benefit is that any Paperclip agent can now drive a Cursor cloud
agent across heartbeats with native session reuse, streaming, and
cancellation, while Paperclip remains the source of truth for issue/task
state
## What Changed
- New built-in adapter package `packages/adapters/cursor-cloud` (15
files, ~1.7k LOC) backed by `@cursor/sdk` ^1.0.12
- `src/server/execute.ts` — SDK-first lifecycle: `Agent.create` /
`Agent.resume` / `Agent.getRun` / `agent.send` / `run.stream` /
`run.wait`, with session reuse keyed on the (runtime env type, env name,
repo set) tuple
- `src/server/session.ts` — codec for `cursorAgentId` + `latestRunId` +
repo metadata, persisted in `runtime.sessionParams`
- `src/server/test.ts` — environment probe via `Cursor.me()` and
optional model validation via `Cursor.models.list()`
- `src/ui/parse-stdout.ts` + `src/cli/format-event.ts` — normalize
Cursor SDK message types (`status`, `thinking`, `assistant`, `user`,
`tool_call`, `tool_result`, `result`) into Paperclip transcript events
for the UI and CLI
- Registrations: `packages/shared/src/constants.ts`,
`packages/adapter-utils/src/session-compaction.ts`,
`server/src/adapters/{registry,builtin-adapter-types}.ts`,
`ui/src/adapters/{registry,adapter-display-registry}.ts` +
`ui/src/adapters/cursor-cloud/index.ts`, `cli/src/adapters/registry.ts`,
plus workspace deps in `cli`/`server`/`ui` `package.json`
- `ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.tsx` — hide local-Cursor
`mode`/thinking-effort field for `cursor_cloud` (different config
surface)
- 11 vitest tests covering execute paths (fresh create, matching-resume,
active-run reattach, non-finished result), session codec round-trip,
transcript parsing, and config building
## Verification
Reviewer steps:
```bash
pnpm install
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-cursor-cloud typecheck # → clean
pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/cursor-cloud # → 11/11 passing
```
End-to-end check against a real Cursor cloud agent (requires
`CURSOR_API_KEY` and Cursor GitHub-app install on the target repo):
1. Create a `cursor_cloud` agent in Paperclip with `repoUrl` set to the
test repo, `repoStartingRef: main`, and `env.CURSOR_API_KEY` set
2. Trigger a heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.create({ cloud: { env: {
type: "cloud" }, repos: [...] } })`, streams events, terminates on
`finished`
3. Trigger a second heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.resume` or
`agent.send` follow-up depending on prior-run state, reusing
`cursorAgentId`
4. The Paperclip UI/CLI transcript reflects Cursor `status` / `thinking`
/ `assistant` events as they stream
5. Cancellation from Paperclip maps to `run.cancel()` or Cloud API v1
`cancelRun` for cross-heartbeat cancellation
A direct-SDK smoke run against a real repo (devinfoley/my_test_project @
main) confirmed: `Cursor.me()` ok → `Agent.create` → `agent.send` →
`run.stream()` (30 events) → terminal status `finished` in ~11s.
## Risks
- **New adapter, additive only.** No existing adapter or registry is
replaced; current `cursor` local-CLI adapter is untouched. Default
behavior of any existing agent is unchanged.
- **External dependency on `@cursor/sdk`.** Cursor's SDK is v1.0.x and
may evolve. Mocked unit tests cover the public surface used here; if the
SDK breaks compatibility we update the adapter independently.
- **Cost/budget.** `cursor_cloud` runs on Cursor's billed cloud VMs;
operators must understand they are spending money outside Paperclip's
budget controls when they enable this adapter. Same shape as other
API-billed adapters.
- **No webhook support in V1.** The SDK already provides
stream/wait/cancel/reattach, so V1 does not require a public callback
URL. If a future use case needs out-of-band wakes, we add a Cloud API v1
webhook bridge as a separate change. This is called out in the issue
plan document.
- **Lockfile.** Per repo policy, `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally not
in this PR — CI's lockfile workflow will update it on merge given the
manifest changes.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic Claude (via Claude Code / Paperclip `claude_local`
adapter)
- Model: `claude-opus-4-7` (Claude Opus 4.7), knowledge cutoff January
2026
- Mode: standard tool-use with extended reasoning
- Context: ~200k token window
- Capabilities used: code generation, multi-file edits, shell/test
execution, GitHub 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 run tests locally and they pass (11/11 in
`packages/adapters/cursor-cloud`)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (4 new test files,
11 cases)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (the only UI change is hiding the local-Cursor mode field on
the `cursor_cloud` adapter — happy to attach a screenshot if the
reviewer wants one)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (issue
plan document supersedes the pre-SDK design; tracked in PAPA-203)
- [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
> - Its release automation publishes canary packages to npm and then
validates the published registry state before considering the release
healthy
> - The failing canary run `25139465018` showed that npm can expose a
newly published version through version-specific endpoints before the
root package document has fully converged
> - That made a successful canary publish look like a failed release
because the verifier trusted stale root metadata too early
> - This pull request hardens the registry verification path by
preferring version-specific manifest checks, retrying
convergence-sensitive failures, and distinguishing permanent failures
from propagation lag
> - While validating that change in CI, a separate teardown race in
`heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` surfaced and was hardened
so the PR could pass reliably
> - The benefit is that transient npm propagation lag no longer fails a
successful canary publish, while genuine registry-state and
dependency-integrity failures still stop the release flow promptly
## What Changed
- Hardened `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` so it prefers
version-specific manifest resolution over stale root metadata, adds
bounded registry-fetch timeouts, and classifies failures as retriable vs
non-retriable.
- Updated `scripts/release-lib.sh` and `scripts/release.sh` so
post-publish registry verification retries only convergence-sensitive
failures and reports immediate permanent failures clearly.
- Expanded `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs` with
regression coverage for stale root metadata, fetch timeout behavior,
peer dependency range handling, non-retriable canary-latest cases, and
related verifier edge cases.
- Hardened
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts`
teardown to tolerate the late-comment foreign-key race that CI exposed
while validating this branch.
## Verification
- `pnpm run test:release-registry`
- `node --check scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs`
- `bash -n scripts/release.sh && bash -n scripts/release-lib.sh`
- PR checks passed on head `5c422600fc12acac61f6b7c267a4dc915df622b1`:
`policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`
## Risks
- Low risk. The main behavioral changes are limited to release
automation and verifier retry semantics, plus a test-only teardown
hardening for a CI race.
> I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This is a narrow release bugfix
and does not overlap planned core feature work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` with tool use and local code
execution enabled. This agent session runs on a GPT-5-class coding
model; the exact backend model ID/context window is not exposed by the
local 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I have addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The release pipeline gates new public packages behind a bootstrap
policy: `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` requires every
package marked `publishFromCi: true` in
`scripts/release-package-manifest.json` to already exist on npm
> - PR #5580 added the new Daytona sandbox provider plugin but had to
land with `publishFromCi: false` because the package had never been
published, so CI's release plan would have failed bootstrap validation
otherwise
> - Now that `@paperclipai/plugin-daytona` has been bootstrap-published
to npm by hand, the temporary `false` flag is the only thing keeping it
out of the standard CI publish flow
> - This pull request flips the Daytona entry to `publishFromCi: true`,
matching every other release-enabled package in the manifest
> - The benefit is that future tagged releases will publish the Daytona
plugin automatically alongside the rest of the monorepo's public
packages
## What Changed
- Single-line flip in `scripts/release-package-manifest.json`:
`@paperclipai/plugin-daytona` is now `publishFromCi: true`
## Verification
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` → `Release package
manifest OK: 19 enabled for CI publish, 0 disabled pending bootstrap`
(was 18 + 1)
- `node ./scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs
scripts/release-package-manifest.json` against `origin/master` →
`Release bootstrap OK for changed manifests:
@paperclipai/plugin-daytona`, confirming npm sees the
bootstrap-published package
- No code changes; no tests required beyond the existing manifest
validators
## Risks
- Low risk. Only effect is that the next release run will include
`@paperclipai/plugin-daytona` in its publish set
- If the npm bootstrap was incomplete, CI's bootstrap check will fail
loudly before any release tag goes out — same safety net the policy is
designed to provide
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended thinking, 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (N/A —
manifest-only flag flip, covered by existing validators)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — release config)
- [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-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
> - Agents need isolated sandbox environments to execute work safely;
Paperclip already supports E2B as a sandbox provider plugin
> - Users want to use Daytona (https://www.daytona.io/) as an
alternative sandbox backend, but no plugin existed for it
> - Without a Daytona plugin, teams that prefer Daytona's
pricing/regions/runtime can't run Paperclip agents on it
> - This pull request adds a `@paperclip/sandbox-provider-daytona`
plugin that mirrors the existing E2B plugin shape and wires up Daytona's
`@daytonaio/sdk` for sandbox lifecycle, command execution, and shell
detection
> - The benefit is that operators can pick Daytona as a first-class
sandbox provider without touching core code, broadening Paperclip's
runtime options
## What Changed
- New plugin package `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona` with
manifest, worker entry, and provider implementation backed by
`@daytonaio/sdk`
- Implements sandbox create/destroy/exec/upload/download lifecycle,
shell command detection, and config/env wiring consistent with the E2B
plugin
- Adds unit tests under `src/plugin.test.ts` and a README documenting
setup and the `DAYTONA_API_KEY` requirement
- Minor adjustments in `scripts/paperclip-issue-update.sh`,
`packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts`, and
`packages/shared/src/validators/issue.ts` to support the integration
## Verification
- Re-ran the full sandbox provider matrix on the QA Paperclip instance
using Daytona as the runtime — all 6 adapters executed inside the
Daytona sandbox with zero `environmentExecute` timeouts
- 5/6 adapters pass cleanly (or with informational warns); the only
failure is `codex_local`, which is an OpenAI quota/billing issue
unrelated to Daytona
- `pnpm --filter @paperclip/sandbox-provider-daytona test` runs the
plugin unit tests
## Risks
- New optional plugin; no behavior change for users who don't enable it
- Requires `DAYTONA_API_KEY` for runtime use — documented in the plugin
README
- Daytona SDK is a new external dependency; tracked in the plugin's own
package.json so it doesn't affect the core install footprint
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended thinking, 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 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 — backend plugin)
- [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, and the
release pipeline is part of keeping that control plane shippable.
> - The relevant subsystem here is the release automation in
`scripts/release.sh`, which publishes canary builds and then verifies
npm registry state.
> - The failing CI run showed a successful publish followed by an
immediate registry-state verification failure while npm dist-tag
metadata was still propagating.
> - That made the canary job flaky even when the publish itself had
succeeded, which is the wrong failure mode for release automation.
> - This pull request adds bounded retries around the post-publish
registry-state verification step instead of failing on the first stale
read.
> - The benefit is that canary releases tolerate transient npm
propagation lag while still failing clearly if registry metadata never
converges.
## What Changed
- Wrapped the post-publish `verify-release-registry-state.mjs` call in a
bounded retry loop inside `scripts/release.sh`.
- Reused the existing publish verification retry defaults and added
optional overrides via `NPM_REGISTRY_STATE_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS` and
`NPM_REGISTRY_STATE_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS` for dist-tag-specific tuning.
## Verification
- `bash -n scripts/release.sh`
- CI will also exercise the release path via the existing `Canary Dry
Run` workflow job in `.github/workflows/pr.yml`.
## Risks
- Low risk. The main behavioral change is that a genuinely broken
registry-state verification can now wait through the configured retry
window before failing.
> 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 local agent, GPT-5-based Codex runtime in Paperclip with
tool use and shell execution. The exact backend model ID/context window
is not surfaced in this local 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
scotttong
Dotta
Devin Foley
Nicky Leach
Alex
Jannes Stubbemann
Dotta
