## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board UI is the control surface for issues, projects, agents,
goals, workspaces, and operator settings.
> - The existing navigation and list surfaces make several
high-frequency workflows feel harder to scan than they should,
especially around projects and agents.
> - The product direction is to improve those surfaces without breaking
the existing route model or forcing a new IA on every operator at once.
> - This pull request now keeps the dependent IA, project identity, and
agent-list visual refresh work together while the Issue-to-Task copy
migration is split into #7651.
> - The benefit is a clearer left nav, better project identity, denser
agent/project list rows, and brand-aligned status treatment while
preserving the classic default experience behind a flag.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7645
Refs #7651
Internal planning/work references: PAP-53, PAP-56, PAP-58, PAP-59,
PAP-60, PAP-61, PAP-68, PAP-69, PAP-70, PAP-71, PAP-72, PAP-75, PAP-76,
PAP-80, PAP-85, PAP-86, PAP-87, PAP-88, PAP-89.
## What Changed
- Adds `enableStreamlinedLeftNavigation`, defaulting off, and gates
sidebar presentation so classic navigation remains the default.
- Adds project icon persistence, validation, portability, picker UI, and
`ProjectTile` rendering while defaulting new projects to neutral gray.
- Adds projects-list task-count and budget summary data with focused
server/shared/UI coverage.
- Refreshes agent list rows, row actions, active/recent sidebar
behavior, and status capsule/chip styling for the approved brand state
system.
- Removes the placeholder Conference room and Artifacts nav/routes from
the finalized experimental nav direction.
- Removes `pnpm-lock.yaml` and the Issue-to-Task copy migration from
this PR diff; the copy migration now lives in #7651.
## Verification
- Existing branch verification from the authored commits: UI typecheck,
targeted unit tests, and light/dark visual checks for `/agents`, agent
detail, and design-guide status states.
- Maintainer cleanup verification on `75e34e5`: `git diff --check
origin/master...HEAD` passed, the `design/` diff is empty, and the PR
diff is 61 files, below Greptile's 100-file review limit.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 8 tests.
- CI and Greptile should rerun on the latest push.
## Risks
- Broad UI surface area: the experimental flag keeps the classic nav
default, but changed shared components such as `EntityRow`,
`ProjectTile`, and agent status badges could affect multiple pages.
- Database migration: `projects.icon` is additive and nullable, but
migration ordering and portability import/export must stay aligned.
- The Issue-to-Task copy migration is now separated into #7651, so
reviewers should evaluate this PR as IA/project/agent presentation work
only.
- Visual regressions are possible across smaller widths because the PR
intentionally changes dense list-row layouts.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 assisted the original feature commits.
Paperclip-Paperclip agents assisted some planning/design commits. Codex
/ GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access
performed this PR-readiness cleanup and split.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions,
and approval-style handoffs.
> - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest
tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured
checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options.
> - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate
consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the
UI.
> - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract,
server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render
and submit structured selections.
> - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select
confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip
interactions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip
issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox
confirmation issue-thread UI component work.
- GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation /
issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found.
- Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup
work, so it is not linked as a related issue.
## What Changed
- Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for
`request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions.
- Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for
checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response
handling.
- Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can
create the new interaction shape consistently.
- Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox
confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target
states, and accept/decline flows.
- Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the
Paperclip skill/API reference.
## Verification
- Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into
`public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`:
```sh
NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links
NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts
```
Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed.
- CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green.
- Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check
shows all Greptile threads resolved.
## Risks
- Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared
validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK
helpers, and docs.
- No database migrations are included.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile
policy.
- UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested
not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the
work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states.
> 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 file access,
shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip
control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata
is not exposed inside this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, and
`github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` is the public intake for bugs and
feature work
> - PR #7575 (just merged) shipped a first cut of
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/`: bug / feature / adapter forms plus a chooser
config that disables blank issues — enough to stop greeting filers with
an empty textarea
> - Reviewing [PR
#4189](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/4189) surfaced
additional, complementary items worth landing now rather than later: PII
handling (logs and config paste fields routinely contain agent
transcripts, encrypted-secrets paths, and tokens), richer environment
capture for bugs (install method, adapters, DB mode, access context),
and a subsystem picker on feature/enhancement so the queue can be
filtered by area
> - Items 7–10 from #4189 (CONTRIBUTING.md change, AGENTS.md §11,
`require-issue-link.yml`, GitHub Discussions contact link) are
intentionally deferred — each is its own decision and belongs in a
separate, focused PR
> - The auto-label workflow that earlier revisions of this branch
included was dropped per reviewer feedback — labeling on issue open is a
separate concern from the template content and should land (if at all)
in its own PR
> - This pull request extends the merged templates with PII warnings + a
mandatory privacy checkbox on `bug_report.yml`, additional optional env
fields, a required subsystem dropdown on `feature_request.yml`, and two
net-new templates (`enhancement.yml`, `docs_issue.yml`)
> - The benefit is that newly filed issues land with enough environment
context and subsystem hint to triage on first read, and paste-field PII
is gated by an explicit reviewer-readable checkbox
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7575
PAPA-521 (follow-up). This is the second half of the issue-templates
work — PR #7575 shipped the baseline, this PR adopts items 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 6 from PR #4189 on top. Item 5 (auto-label workflow) was dropped per
reviewer feedback.
## What Changed
- `bug_report.yml` — added PII privacy notice with redaction guidance
and anonymizer links; pre-submission preflight checkboxes; optional
fields for install method, adapter checkbox list (Claude Code / Codex /
Cursor / Droid / Hermes / external plugin / core), database mode (PGlite
/ external Postgres), and access context (board / agent); inline PII
warnings on the logs and config paste fields; mandatory privacy
checklist at submission time
- `feature_request.yml` — added a required subsystem dropdown (`server/`
· `ui/` · `packages/db` · `packages/shared` · `packages/adapters` ·
`packages/plugins` · cross-cutting · unsure)
- `enhancement.yml` — new template for improvements to existing
behaviour, with current-vs-proposed-behaviour fields and a required
breaking-changes field
- `docs_issue.yml` — new lightweight doc-issue form (type / location /
description / suggestion)
No workflow changes in this PR.
## Verification
- All 4 changed YAML files round-trip through `js-yaml` cleanly
- Diff vs. master: 4 files changed, +254/-3 (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/`
only)
- Post-merge reviewer steps:
1. Visit `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/new/choose` — expect
five template cards (bug, feature, enhancement, adapter, docs) and the
existing Discord/Roadmap contact links; no "Open a blank issue" option
2. Open each template in turn — required fields should block submission
when empty (in particular: privacy checklist on the bug form, subsystem
dropdown on feature/enhancement, breaking-changes field on enhancement)
## Risks
- Low risk overall. Files are `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` config only — no
runtime effect on the server, UI, CLI, or any package, and no workflows
touched
- If a YAML form has a schema quirk that `js-yaml` accepts but GitHub's
form renderer rejects, GitHub silently falls back to a blank issue for
that template. The reviewer render check above is the mitigation
> 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
Claude Opus 4.7 — provider Anthropic, exact model ID `claude-opus-4-7`,
extended-thinking + tool use, running inside the Paperclip Claude Code
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 (refs #7575, #4189)
- [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 (n/a —
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` content only; `js-yaml` parse check run
instead)
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — repo has no
test coverage for `.github/` content)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (n/a — only the GitHub.com "New issue" page is affected;
render check happens post-merge on github.com)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (will verify after open)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(greploop will run after open)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Contributor onboarding leans on a small set of CI gates
("commitperclip") that read PR metadata and enforce the rules in
CONTRIBUTING.md
> - We recently landed two new contributor rules: every PR must either
link an existing issue or inline an issue-template-shaped description,
and the author must affirm they searched for duplicate PRs first
> - The existing `check-pr-linked-issue` gate only accepted
`Fixes/Closes/Resolves #N`, and there was no gate at all for the
dedup-search affirmation, so the new rules were unenforced
> - This pull request widens the linked-issue gate (accept `Refs #N`,
accept inline template-shaped descriptions) and adds a new dedup-search
gate wired into `run-quality-gates`
> - The benefit is that the rules we ask contributors to follow are now
mechanically enforced, lowering review noise without raising contributor
friction
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #4260 — the PR cited in the original rule discussion, whose body is
the canonical example of the inline-issue-description shape this gate
now accepts.
**Problem or motivation**
The repo recently adopted two contributor rules: (1) link the issue your
PR fixes or inline a description in the issue-template shape, and (2)
confirm you searched for duplicate PRs before opening one. Neither rule
was enforced — the existing linked-issue check only matched
`Fixes/Closes/Resolves #N`, and nothing looked for the dedup-search
affirmation. Reviewers had to remember and re-state the rules by hand on
every PR.
**Proposed solution**
Widen `check-pr-linked-issue.mjs` and add a new
`check-pr-dedup-search.mjs` so commitperclip enforces the rules already
documented in CONTRIBUTING.md and the PR template:
- Accept `Refs #N` as a valid link verb alongside `Fixes`, `Closes`,
`Resolves`.
- Accept a PR body with an inline issue-template-shaped description (≥3
fields matched against the bug, feature, or adapter templates) as a
valid alternative to a linked issue.
- New `check-pr-dedup-search.mjs` looks for a checked checkbox affirming
the author searched for similar/duplicate/prior PRs, wired into
`run-quality-gates.mjs` with the same skip/override semantics as the
other gates.
**Alternatives considered**
- A single regex over the whole PR body looking for issue-template field
names — rejected, too brittle and gave no useful error message when it
failed. The per-field counter lets us tell the author exactly how many
template fields we matched and which template they're closest to.
- Making the dedup-search check live inside `check-pr-linked-issue` —
rejected, the two rules are orthogonal and a separate gate gives a
cleaner error message and respects `[skip-quality-gates]` independently.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is contributor-workflow plumbing for rules that already landed on
`master`. It is not a roadmap feature and does not overlap with planned
core work.
## What Changed
- `check-pr-linked-issue.mjs`: accept `Refs #N`; add
`hasInlineIssueDescription` (per-template field counter, ≥3 fields) so a
fully inlined description satisfies the gate.
- `check-pr-dedup-search.mjs`: new gate, looks for a checked
dedup-search checkbox in the PR body, with clear failure guidance.
- `run-quality-gates.mjs`: wire the new gate in alongside the existing
checks.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`: "Before You Start: Search First" callout pointing
at the PR-template checkbox the gate enforces.
- Tests: unit tests for `Refs #N`, the inline-description threshold
(bolded labels, plain labels, headings), and the dedup-search gate
across checked/unchecked/missing/skip-prefix paths.
## Verification
- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/check-pr-linked-issue.test.mjs` →
all pass
- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/check-pr-dedup-search.test.mjs` →
all pass
- Full repo test matrix: 116/116 pass locally
For the gate itself, this PR exercises both new code paths: the body
inlines a feature-template-shaped description with ≥3 matched fields,
and the dedup-search checkbox below is checked.
## Risks
Low risk. The change is contributor-CI plumbing — no runtime or
migration impact. The widened linked-issue gate is strictly more
permissive (it can only flip prior FAILs to PASS), and the new
dedup-search gate honors the existing `[skip-quality-gates]` prefix, so
an author can always bypass it the same way as the other gates if
needed.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended-thinking enabled, tool use
for filesystem + shell.
## 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>
Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master.
This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml.
Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The CI pipeline (`.github/workflows/pr.yml`) gates every PR with a
`policy` job and a fleet of downstream test/build/release jobs
> - `policy` blocks committing `pnpm-lock.yaml` from non-dependabot,
non-`chore/refresh-lockfile` branches and (when manifests change)
already regenerates the lockfile in memory — but throws it away
> - Every downstream job runs `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, so
manifest-only PRs from human/agent branches deadlock: they can't commit
the lockfile and can't pass `--frozen-lockfile` either, and
`refresh-lockfile.yml` only runs `on: push: master`
> - This pull request closes the loop by uploading the regenerated
lockfile as a workflow artifact (`pr-lockfile`) from `policy` and
restoring it in each downstream job before `pnpm install
--frozen-lockfile` runs
> - The benefit is that any manifest-only PR (e.g. a routine dep bump)
goes green end-to-end without a separate refresh-lockfile round-trip,
and unrelated PRs are unaffected because the download step is
best-effort (`continue-on-error: true`)
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml::policy`: add `id: regen_lockfile` to the
existing manifest-detection step, emit a `regenerated` output, and
conditionally `actions/upload-artifact@v4` `pnpm-lock.yaml` as
`pr-lockfile` (retention 1 day) when a manifest changed
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml` (every downstream job —
`typecheck_release_registry`, `general_tests` [3 matrix], `build`,
`verify_serialized_server` [4 matrix], `canary_dry_run`, `e2e`): add a
`Restore regenerated PR lockfile (if policy uploaded one)` step using
`actions/download-artifact@v4` with `continue-on-error: true`, placed
before the existing `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml::canary_dry_run`: guard the pre-existing
`git checkout -- pnpm-lock.yaml` so it no longer clobbers an
artifact-restored lockfile when one is present
## Verification
- `node -e "require('js-yaml').load(...)"` parses the file; all 6
downstream jobs have the restore step, `policy` has the upload step
- This branch is itself a manifest-untouched PR, so `policy` will not
upload an artifact and every downstream job will skip the download
silently — the existing `--frozen-lockfile` path is exercised end-to-end
with no behavioral change for non-manifest PRs
- Once merged, the next manifest-touching PR (PAPA-530's #7581) will
exercise the artifact path and is expected to go green
## Risks
- **Behavior on non-manifest PRs:** the download step uses
`continue-on-error: true` so a missing artifact is silently ignored; net
behavior on PRs that don't change manifests is identical to today
- **Concurrency / cross-PR artifact bleed:** artifacts are scoped to a
single workflow run, so two concurrent PRs can't see each other's
`pr-lockfile`
- **`canary_dry_run`:** the prior unconditional `git checkout --
pnpm-lock.yaml` was a defensive no-op when `--frozen-lockfile` is
honored; the new conditional preserves that for non-manifest PRs and
additionally preserves the artifact-restored lockfile for manifest PRs
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators need a way to inspect files and work products created by
agents across a company without opening each issue one by one.
> - The existing issue detail surfaces already show attachments and
outputs, but there was no company-level artifacts index or search-result
affordance for artifact-like records.
> - The backend needed a company-scoped artifacts projection API that
preserves issue/run attribution and safe links back to source records.
> - The UI needed a first-class Artifacts page, sidebar entry, reusable
artifact cards, and deep-link handling that keeps company prefixes
intact.
> - This pull request adds the company artifacts API and page, then
wires artifacts into search and issue output surfaces.
> - The benefit is a single place to browse, filter, and open generated
work products and attachments while preserving company boundaries.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#7622.
Feature request fields:
- Problem/motivation: company operators need a consolidated artifacts
surface for attachments and work products produced by agents.
- Proposed solution: add a company-scoped artifacts projection endpoint,
a board Artifacts route, reusable cards, sidebar navigation, and
artifact search integration.
- Alternatives considered: keep artifact discovery only on individual
issue pages; that forces operators to know the source issue before
finding generated outputs.
- Roadmap alignment: checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a focused board
UI/API improvement and does not duplicate a listed roadmap item.
## What Changed
- Added shared artifact types and validators.
- Added a company-scoped artifact projection service/API with tests for
attachment/work-product attribution.
- Added Artifacts board UI route, API client, sidebar link, cards,
filters, and storybook coverage.
- Added artifact result handling to company search and issue
output/deep-link flows.
- Rebased the branch onto the latest `public-gh/master` state and
resolved the route-test conflict by preserving both upstream
team-catalog coverage and artifact route coverage.
- Fixed a local Sidebar test helper so it no longer depends on a
runtime-undefined `React.act` export in this dependency install.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx src/api/artifacts.test.ts
src/lib/company-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Artifacts.test.tsx src/pages/Search.test.tsx
src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-artifacts-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows/*`.
- Duplicate search: no open PRs or issues found for `artifact page
ArtifactCard` in `paperclipai/paperclip`.
Screenshots are intentionally omitted per the internal task instruction
not to add design screenshots or images to this PR unless they are
specifically part of the work. I also attempted browser capture in this
runner, but `agent-browser` failed to launch Chrome and Playwright
Chromium is missing `libatk-1.0.so.0`.
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: this adds a new API projection and UI surface, so
attribution/link regressions could affect artifact navigation.
- Company scoping is covered in the new service/API tests.
- No database migrations are included.
- No lockfile or workflow changes are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with tool use and local command
execution. Exact hosted model identifier 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 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 (intentionally omitted per task instruction; browser capture
unavailable in this runner)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution
policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract.
> - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal
same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and
generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads.
> - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context,
which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer
assigned to hostile content.
> - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging,
route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output
does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the
low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations.
> - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection,
preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind
promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion,
documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks,
enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor
authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic.
> - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review
containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot
surfaces.
Fixes#7531.
## What Changed
- Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus
database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work
products.
- Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent
self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion
checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context.
- Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source
trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime
containment, and quarantine redaction.
- Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust
preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views.
- Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review
contract plan under `doc/plans/`.
- Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses
`ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered
migration are not broken by the renumbered migration.
## Verification
- Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with
lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment
tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata.
- Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to
`0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT
EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not
broken.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts
ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `git diff --check`
- GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release
registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify,
policy/review, Socket, and Snyk.
- Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved
Greptile review threads.
- No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly
says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server
authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata,
and UI preset controls.
- Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate
future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions.
- Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover
the current known routes but future integrations must route through the
same containment layer.
- The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is
5/5.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI
workflow.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added
per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically
required
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issue detail pages promote certain artifact work products into the
dedicated Output surface while also listing raw attachments below
> - Document-like artifacts such as plan markdown can currently be
promoted like binary outputs, which makes the same work product story
look like both an output and a document/attachment
> - The output surface should stay focused on inspectable generated
media, archives, PDFs, WebAssembly, SVG/images, and true binary
deliverables while document-like artifacts remain in the document or
attachment flow
> - This pull request filters document-like artifact metadata out of the
Output section and avoids duplicating the attachments that back promoted
outputs
> - The benefit is a cleaner issue detail page where plans and markdown
reports do not appear as binary outputs, while real output files still
get highlighted
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#7609
Refs PAP-10354
Refs PAP-10369
## What Changed
- Added output MIME-type normalization and eligibility checks for issue
artifact work products.
- Filtered markdown, text, JSON, XML, CSV, YAML, source-like files, and
generic binary artifacts with document-like filenames out of promoted
issue outputs.
- Kept video, image including SVG, PDF, ZIP, WebAssembly, and true
binary artifacts eligible for the Output section.
- Hid attachments that back promoted outputs while leaving filtered
document-like artifact attachments visible.
- Preserved the full image attachment set for chat image gallery lookup
even when promoted image outputs are hidden from the attachment list.
- Added focused tests for output eligibility, glyph labeling, output
promotion, attachment filtering, gallery image preservation, and the
output section render behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-output.test.ts
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
ui/src/components/issue-output/IssueOutputSection.test.tsx`
- GitHub PR checks are green on
`7d1b80f9702f20ab86cc502bffce599b13f1b088`.
- Greptile confidence score is 5/5 and both Greptile review threads are
resolved.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only affects UI classification of Paperclip
artifact work products. The main behavioral risk is an uncommon
text-like generated artifact no longer appearing in the Output section;
it remains available through the normal attachment/document surfaces.
> 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 Paperclip CodexCoder, with repository tool use
and local command 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Fixes#7551
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable
company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch.
> - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that
can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company.
> - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package
contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI
workflows, and the board UI.
> - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped
company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent
creation, and preserved catalog provenance.
> - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into
one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`.
> - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI,
package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync.
## What Changed
- Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional
team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests,
and migration notes.
- Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and
services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams.
- Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source
policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager
reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection.
- Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior,
including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden
agent-run installs.
- Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures,
and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary
navigation.
- Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed
generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai
typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and
`public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`.
- Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`,
generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts.
## Risks
- Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared
contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code.
- Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must
keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks
strict.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy;
CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh.
- The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so
future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
>
> ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and
plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed
on the Paperclip task branch for review.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session;
exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and
local test/typecheck tooling.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The CLI README and banner are the first thing new users see when
running `paperclipai`
> - They still carried the old "zero-human companies" tagline from a
prior positioning
> - Since we've pivoted positioning to "the app people use to manage
agents at work", that copy is now off-brand and misleading
> - This pull request rewrites the CLI banner subtitle and re-syncs
`cli/README.md` from the canonical root `README.md`
> - The benefit is consistent positioning across the CLI surface, root
docs, and onboarding
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs internal issue: audit "zero human companies" mentions in the repo
and align CLI surfaces with the new positioning.
## What Changed
- `cli/src/utils/banner.ts`: replace the "zero-human companies" subtitle
with the new positioning line
- `cli/README.md`: re-sync from the root `README.md` so the CLI doc no
longer drifts (+146/-22)
## Verification
- `git diff origin/master...HEAD` shows only `cli/README.md` and
`cli/src/utils/banner.ts`
- Run `paperclipai` locally and confirm the banner subtitle reflects the
new positioning
- Diff `cli/README.md` against root `README.md` and confirm parity
## Risks
Low risk — docs-only and a one-line banner string. No runtime behavior
change, no schema/migration impact.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7), extended thinking, 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
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (docs-only)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (CLI banner string; no UI)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (will monitor after open)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(will monitor after open)
- [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
> - CONTRIBUTING.md and the PR template are the entry point for new
contributors and set quality expectations for every PR
> - Today they don't tell contributors to search for duplicate/related
work first, don't require a linked GitHub issue, and don't spell out the
merge bar (gates green + Greptile 5/5)
> - Letting duplicate or under-reviewed PRs land creates extra work for
reviewers and erodes quality
> - This PR updates CONTRIBUTING.md and the PR template to require a
search-first workflow, a linked issue, a clear merge bar, and explicit
encouragement to help other contributors land their PRs
> - The benefit is fewer duplicate PRs, easier triage, higher-quality
merges, and a kinder collaboration culture
## What Changed
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`: added a "Before You Start: Search First" section
directing contributors to search GitHub for duplicate PRs and related
issues, with a note that a fresh PR is okay if an old one is dead and
would be painful to merge.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`: require every PR to link a GitHub issue in the
body, plus references to related/duplicate PRs and issues.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`: added a section encouraging contributors to help
finish other people's PRs, thank collaborators, and be kind.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md`: tightened the merge bar — all Paperclip CI gates
must be green and Greptile must be 5/5 with no open P2s,
recommendations, or follow-ups.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` + `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`: updated the
thinking-path opener to "Paperclip is the open source app people use to
manage AI agents for work" (consistent across examples and template).
- `.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md`: checklist gains items for
duplicate/related search, linked issue, gates green, and the Greptile
5/5 bar.
## Verification
- Docs-only change. Reviewed both files render correctly on GitHub.
- No code or tests affected; no CI behavior change beyond the new
checklist items contributors are asked to tick.
## Risks
- Low risk. Documentation and template only — no runtime impact.
Stricter contributor expectations may slow some PRs in the short term.
## Model Used
- Claude, `claude-opus-4-7` (extended thinking, tool use).
## Related
- Issue: #4188 — "Add issue templates and enforce issue-link check on
PRs" (the linked-issue requirement here is a step toward what #4188 asks
for, done in CONTRIBUTING/template rather than CI).
- Prior PR: #4260 — "docs: expand CONTRIBUTING.md and add issue
templates" (open; different scope — issue templates + broader expansion.
This PR is narrower and focused on the search-first + merge-bar
updates.)
## 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 linked the GitHub issue this PR addresses (and any
related/duplicate issues)
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (docs-only change; no tests
to run)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (N/A — docs)
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — docs)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (will verify after push)
- [ ] 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies
> - Heartbeats reuse adapter session state so agents can continue work
across wakeups
> - Hermes can only resume from full canonical session IDs, not
truncated display IDs
> - #6347 exposed a case where Paperclip could save invalid Hermes
output like `from`, or a shortened display ID, as resumable state
> - This pull request hardens the host-side Hermes resume path so
Paperclip only stores and reuses session IDs that can actually resume
> - The benefit is that Hermes wakeups no longer get stuck retrying bad
saved resume state
## What Changed
- Added Hermes-only validation for canonical session IDs in
`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`.
- Stopped building Hermes resume params from truncated display IDs such
as `20260601_141558_`.
- For explicit resume-from-run wakeups, pulls the full Hermes session ID
from the run result payload after validation.
- Preserves the previous valid Hermes session state when a run fails,
times out, or is cancelled instead of replacing it with invalid adapter
output like `from`.
- Clears existing Hermes resume state that fails validation.
- Leaves non-Hermes adapter session behavior unchanged.
- Added regression coverage in
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`.
Addresses #6347.
Supersedes #6351 and covers the full-session resume metadata handoff
from #7280.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — passed, 50 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — clean.
Full suite did not finish green locally; the failures were outside this
server-only heartbeat path:
- `pnpm test:run`:
- `@paperclipai/adapter-opencode-local` remote SSH tests timed out.
- `ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` failed once in `Inbox toolbar > syncs
hover with j/k selection on inbox rows`; the direct file rerun passed.
- `ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` failed once in
`auto-opens the panel and focuses the thread when deep-linked`; the
direct file rerun passed.
## Risks
- Low risk: no schema, public API, shared contract, or UI changes.
- If Hermes changes its canonical session ID format, the validation
regex will need to be updated.
- Adapter-side parsing still needs its own fix; this PR prevents
non-resumable adapter output from becoming durable Paperclip resume
state.
- This does not add an immediate same-run retry after `Session not
found`; recovery happens by clearing or preserving durable resume state
for later wakeups.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 (`openai/gpt-5.5`) via opencode, with repository
read/search tools and local shell/test execution. opencode did not
expose context-window or reasoning-mode details.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used, including exact model ID 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 — targeted checks passed; full `pnpm
test:run` had unrelated local failures disclosed above
- [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 user-facing docs or commands changed
- [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
> - Most of the inbound feedback loop lives in GitHub Issues: bugs,
feature ideas, and new-adapter requests
> - Today the "New issue" page is a blank textarea, which means reports
arrive without a Paperclip version, without repro steps, and without a
clear separation between adapter requests and feature requests
> - That makes triage slow and routes a lot of low-information issues
back to the requester for follow-up questions before any work can start
> - This pull request adds `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` with three YAML
issue forms — bug, feature, adapter — plus a `config.yml` that disables
blank issues and points contributors at Discord `#dev` and `ROADMAP.md`
> - The benefit is that new issues come in with the fields a maintainer
needs to triage on the first read, and feature requests are nudged
toward the roadmap/Discord coordination path before they turn into
uncoordinated PRs
## What Changed
- Added `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml` — sets
`blank_issues_enabled: false` and adds contact links for Discord `#dev`
and the roadmap.
- Added `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml` — required fields: what
happened, expected behavior, repro steps, Paperclip version/commit, and
a deployment-mode dropdown. Optional: Node version, OS, logs, additional
context.
- Added `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml` — required fields:
problem/motivation, proposed solution. Optional: alternatives,
ROADMAP.md alignment, additional context.
- Added `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adapter_request.yml` — required fields:
agent/provider name, why useful, how invoked. Optional:
willing-to-implement checkboxes, additional context.
Field structure and labels are lifted from @amitdhanda48's earlier
markdown-template proposal (#4260); this PR ports those four files to
GitHub's YAML issue-form schema so required fields are enforced at
submission time. The bundled `CONTRIBUTING.md` rewrite from that
proposal is intentionally out of scope and left for a separate decision.
## Verification
- `node -e
"require('js-yaml').load(require('fs').readFileSync(f,'utf8'))"` against
each of the four YAML files — all parse.
- Diff against `master` is `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` only: `git diff
--stat master...HEAD` shows 4 files, +162 lines, 0 deletions.
- Reviewer step: after merge, visit the repo's "New issue" page on
GitHub and confirm the three forms render in the chooser, blank issues
are disabled, and the Discord/roadmap contact links appear.
## Risks
- Low risk. Files are GitHub-config only — they have no runtime effect
on the server, UI, CLI, or any package. The only behavioral change is on
github.com's "New issue" page.
- If a YAML form has a schema mistake that `js-yaml` accepts but
GitHub's form renderer rejects, GitHub silently falls back to a blank
issue for that template. The mitigation is the post-merge render check
above.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-opus-4-7`, extended-thinking + tool use,
running inside the Paperclip Claude Code harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (n/a — no code paths
exercised by the test suite; YAML parse-check run instead)
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — repo has no
test coverage for `.github/` config)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (n/a — only the GitHub.com "New issue" page is affected;
render check happens post-merge on github.com)
- [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>
Bumps [@cursor/sdk](https://github.com/cursor/cursor) from 1.0.12 to
1.0.18.
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li>See full diff in <a
href="https://github.com/cursor/cursor/commits">compare view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Bumps
[@assistant-ui/react](https://github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/tree/HEAD/packages/react)
from 0.14.13 to 0.14.14.
<details>
<summary>Changelog</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a
href="https://github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/blob/main/packages/react/CHANGELOG.md">@assistant-ui/react's
changelog</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>0.14.14</h2>
<h3>Patch Changes</h3>
<ul>
<li>
<p><a
href="https://redirect.github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/pull/4212">#4212</a>
<a
href="5fe118d6e6"><code>5fe118d</code></a>
- feat: add MCP server support to generative toolkits (<a
href="https://github.com/Yonom"><code>@Yonom</code></a>)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a
href="https://redirect.github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/pull/4213">#4213</a>
<a
href="dcd5897f6d"><code>dcd5897</code></a>
- feat: add provider-executed tool support to generative toolkits (<a
href="https://github.com/Yonom"><code>@Yonom</code></a>)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a
href="https://redirect.github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/pull/4127">#4127</a>
<a
href="606c9d41f5"><code>606c9d4</code></a>
- feat(assistant-transport): honour
<code>Aui-Replay-Content-Length</code> to split sync-server replay from
live bytes (<a
href="https://github.com/Yonom"><code>@Yonom</code></a>)</p>
<p><code>useAssistantTransportRuntime</code> now reads the
<code>Aui-Replay-Content-Length</code> response header on resume and
gates the body at that byte boundary. The replay prefix is decoded while
<code>isLoading: true</code> has rendered through React, then the reader
pauses until <code>isLoading: false</code> has rendered before releasing
live bytes. Tool calls in the replayed portion are recorded as
historical and skip <code>streamCall</code> / <code>execute</code>,
while tool calls that begin after the replay boundary fire normally.
Responses without the header behave as today.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a
href="https://redirect.github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/pull/4208">#4208</a>
<a
href="0558db2895"><code>0558db2</code></a>
- feat: add <code>updateCustom</code> to thread list runtimes, adapters,
and clients (<a
href="https://github.com/okisdev"><code>@okisdev</code></a>)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a
href="https://redirect.github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/pull/4214">#4214</a>
<a
href="69540af906"><code>69540af</code></a>
- feat: add renderText helpers for tool call status text (<a
href="https://github.com/Yonom"><code>@Yonom</code></a>)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a
href="https://redirect.github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/pull/4199">#4199</a>
<a
href="d9b3119777"><code>d9b3119</code></a>
- feat: a <code>defineToolkit</code> entry may now be an already-formed
<code>ToolDefinition</code> (carrying its own <code>type</code>), not
only an inline definition whose <code>type</code> the compiler infers.
This is what lets a factory like <code>new JSONGenerativeUI({ library
}).present()</code> be used directly as a tool. (<a
href="https://github.com/Yonom"><code>@Yonom</code></a>)</p>
<p>Renames the authoring types to match <code>defineToolkit</code>:
<code>ToolkitDeclaration</code> → <code>ToolkitDefinition</code>, and
adds <code>ToolkitDefinitionEntry</code> (the union of an inline tool
definition and a pre-formed <code>ToolDefinition</code>). The per-tool
inline type is now an internal <code>ToolkitDefinitionInput</code> and
is no longer exported.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a
href="https://redirect.github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/pull/4236">#4236</a>
<a
href="ae54c55c8c"><code>ae54c55</code></a>
- feat: add <code>stubTool()</code> and experimental
<code>useAuiToolOverrides()</code> for locally executed generative
toolkit tools (<a
href="https://github.com/Yonom"><code>@Yonom</code></a>)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a
href="https://redirect.github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/pull/4235">#4235</a>
<a
href="7640b319f7"><code>7640b31</code></a>
- Deprecate component tool registration APIs in favor of toolkit
registrations. (<a
href="https://github.com/Yonom"><code>@Yonom</code></a>)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Updated dependencies [<a
href="cba2b42c26"><code>cba2b42</code></a>,
<a
href="4145caaa23"><code>4145caa</code></a>,
<a
href="58f80e09b5"><code>58f80e0</code></a>,
<a
href="78ff336028"><code>78ff336</code></a>,
<a
href="5fe118d6e6"><code>5fe118d</code></a>,
<a
href="dcd5897f6d"><code>dcd5897</code></a>,
<a
href="0558db2895"><code>0558db2</code></a>,
<a
href="69540af906"><code>69540af</code></a>,
<a
href="d9b3119777"><code>d9b3119</code></a>,
<a
href="ae54c55c8c"><code>ae54c55</code></a>,
<a
href="7640b319f7"><code>7640b31</code></a>]:</p>
<ul>
<li>assistant-stream@0.3.20</li>
<li><code>@assistant-ui/core</code><a
href="https://github.com/0"><code>@0</code></a>.2.10</li>
<li>assistant-cloud@0.1.31</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li>See full diff in <a
href="https://github.com/assistant-ui/assistant-ui/commits/HEAD/packages/react">compare
view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Bumps [@codemirror/language](https://github.com/codemirror/language)
from 6.12.1 to 6.12.3.
<details>
<summary>Changelog</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a
href="https://github.com/codemirror/language/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md">@codemirror/language's
changelog</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>6.12.3 (2026-03-25)</h2>
<h3>Bug fixes</h3>
<p>Fix a crash in <code>bracketMatching</code> when composing at end of
document.</p>
<h2>6.12.2 (2026-02-25)</h2>
<h3>Bug fixes</h3>
<p>Make sure brackets are highlighted in the initial editor state.</p>
<p>Pause bracket matching updates during composition, to avoid
disrupting Mobile Safari's fragile composition handling.</p>
</blockquote>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li><a
href="f5af31eed7"><code>f5af31e</code></a>
Mark version 6.12.3</li>
<li><a
href="371c9ba6be"><code>371c9ba</code></a>
Fix bogus bracket highlighting being generated at end of document</li>
<li><a
href="9531899bd8"><code>9531899</code></a>
Remove duplicated slash in forum url in README</li>
<li><a
href="2f4e7014a5"><code>2f4e701</code></a>
Fix forum link in readme</li>
<li><a
href="b5cd54b2ff"><code>b5cd54b</code></a>
Mark version 6.12.2</li>
<li><a
href="5f86763640"><code>5f86763</code></a>
Pause bracket matching updates during composition</li>
<li><a
href="af8dca9d06"><code>af8dca9</code></a>
Properly show matched brackets in the initial editor state</li>
<li><a
href="693a25efaa"><code>693a25e</code></a>
Use git+https format for package.json repository field</li>
<li>See full diff in <a
href="https://github.com/codemirror/language/compare/6.12.1...6.12.3">compare
view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so its
automation and CI surfaces need to stay reliable enough for agent-driven
maintenance work.
> - Dependabot configuration is part of that maintenance path because it
determines how dependency updates reach the repo and CI.
> - PR #7483 changed `.github/dependabot.yml` to group all npm
patch/minor updates by dependency type.
> - That immediately produced a 26-package grouped PR that was difficult
to merge and contradicted the board's decision to return to
one-PR-per-bump.
> - This pull request reverts only the grouping behavior while
preserving the rest of the Dependabot schedule, labels, limits, and
ignore rules.
> - The benefit is a narrower, more reviewable Dependabot flow that
restores the previous operational behavior without changing unrelated CI
settings.
## What Changed
- Removed the npm `groups:` block from `.github/dependabot.yml`.
- Left the existing weekly schedule, labels, open PR limit, and
major-version ignore rules unchanged.
- Isolated the revert onto a clean branch containing only commit
`446453516c` so this PR does not include unrelated local CI work.
## Verification
- `ruby -e 'require "yaml"; YAML.load_file(".github/dependabot.yml")'`
- `git diff --check origin/master..PAPA-522-revert-dependabot-grouping`
- Inspect the PR diff and confirm only `.github/dependabot.yml` changed.
## Risks
- Low risk. This only removes the grouping stanza and restores previous
Dependabot behavior.
- Operationally, this returns to a higher number of smaller Dependabot
PRs, which is the intended tradeoff for easier mergeability and triage.
> 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 the local `codex_local` Paperclip adapter,
GPT-5-based coding agent backend with tool use and shell execution
enabled. The exact backend model ID/context window is not exposed by
this adapter run.
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Its REST API is the control-plane contract for the board UI, agents,
plugins, and external integrations
> - This branch adds `/api/openapi.json`, which makes the generated
OpenAPI document part of that contract instead of an internal
implementation detail
> - Once the spec is published, it has to match the mounted Express
routes, auth model, and real HTTP behavior closely enough for client
generation and review
> - The existing spec drifted from the live server: it missed mounted
routes, documented a few nonexistent ones, omitted auth semantics, and
normalized response codes too aggressively
> - This pull request makes the generated spec track the real API
surface, exposes security requirements, and adds regression coverage so
drift is caught automatically
> - The benefit is that Paperclip's published API description becomes
trustworthy for integrators, SDK generation, and review without changing
runtime auth enforcement
## What Changed
- Added the OpenAPI endpoint wiring under `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`
so `/api/openapi.json` is generated from the current route-backed
OpenAPI builder.
- Replaced generic request/response bodies with typed schemas where
available so the generated document carries useful structure instead of
opaque blobs.
- Expanded the generated spec to cover the mounted route set, including
access/member flows, CLI auth challenge routes, invite acceptance, issue
thread interaction routes, adapter environment testing, budget policy
routes, resource memberships, secret provider routes, cloud upstream
routes, and `/api/openapi.json` itself.
- Corrected documented path mismatches such as `skills/scan` vs
`skills/scan-projects`, and other route-name/path drift.
- Added security schemes plus operation-level security metadata so
public, authenticated, board-only, and instance-admin endpoints are
distinguishable in the generated contract.
- Fixed reviewed response-code mismatches for create/accept flows and
authz failures, including `201`, `202`, and `403` cases that were
previously flattened away.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` to diff the
generated spec against mounted server routes and assert key
auth/response invariants.
- Hardened the route-drift test after review feedback: it now handles
single/double/template route literals, fails on unlisted route files
that declare router methods, and filters OpenAPI path-item keys to HTTP
methods only.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
Manual notes:
- Confirmed the generated spec now matches the mounted route set in the
focused regression test.
- Confirmed `/api/plugins/install` is marked privileged in the generated
security metadata.
- Confirmed `POST /api/invites/{token}/accept` documents `202`.
- Addressed the Greptile route coverage comments and reran the focused
OpenAPI test, typecheck, and build successfully.
## Risks
- Medium-low risk. The main risk is ongoing spec drift if new routes are
added without updating the OpenAPI builder, but the regression test now
fails on unknown route files that declare router methods.
- The auth metadata is descriptive only; it does not change runtime
enforcement. If reviewers assume this PR hardens server auth behavior,
that would be an incorrect expectation.
- This change increases the amount of hand-maintained OpenAPI mapping in
`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`, so future API additions still need
discipline.
> 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Codex desktop. Exact
internal model variant/version and context-window size are not exposed
in this environment. Tool-enabled coding workflow with terminal
execution, git, and GitHub integration.
## 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 confirmed screenshots are not applicable
- [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: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
scotttong
Dotta
Devin Foley
github-actions[bot]
m.seomoon
dependabot[bot]
Dotta
Aron Prins