## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server coordinates issue work and heartbeat runs.
> - The onboarding first-task route sends an assignment wake in the
background.
> - The route test removes related database rows during teardown.
> - A late heartbeat run can keep foreign-key child rows alive during
teardown.
> - This pull request drains the wake and deletes run rows in
foreign-key order.
> - The benefit is a stable test that keeps the onboarding behavior
unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The onboarding first-task route sent a background assignment wake. The
test teardown removed parent rows before the wake-created heartbeat rows
finished.
**Expected behavior**
The test teardown should wait for the background wake and remove
heartbeat rows before it removes their parent rows.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the onboarding first-task route test.
2. Repeat the test many times.
3. Observe an intermittent foreign-key error during teardown.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `c30fe965920eeb7e7fb88e17574a65bed8fc01a4`.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev (pnpm dev).
**Installation method**
Built from source (pnpm dev / pnpm build).
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core bug).
**Database mode**
Embedded PGlite (default — DATABASE_URL unset).
## What Changed
- Stub the server adapter in the route test so the dispatched run
finishes at once.
- Drain heartbeat runs to quiescence before teardown.
- Delete heartbeat runs and child rows before their parent rows.
- Delete runtime state and company skill rows in foreign-key order.
- Keep the route behavior and all three test assertions unchanged.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-onboarding-first-task-routes.test.ts` from the
`server` package.
- The author ran the suite 25 times with 25 passes.
- The suite reproduced the teardown foreign-key error before this
change.
## Risks
Low risk. This change affects one test file and does not change product
code or route behavior.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5. The model used tool calls and code review assistance. The
exact context window and reasoning mode were not exposed in this 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
- [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] 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 server runs a scheduled reaper that archives terminal workspaces
after it checks their state.
> - The reaper reads candidates in `updatedAt` order and skips
candidates that do not qualify for archive.
> - The fixed page kept the same skipped candidates at the front, so the
reaper did not inspect later eligible workspaces.
> - This pull request adds a keyset cursor and a throttled log for
sweeps that archive no workspace.
> - The benefit is that the reaper inspects all candidates over time and
reports an inert sweep.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The terminal workspace reaper inspected a fixed page of old candidates.
Ineligible candidates stayed in that page, so the reaper skipped later
eligible workspaces on every sweep.
**Expected behavior**
The reaper must inspect each candidate over time and archive every
eligible terminal workspace.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create more than 50 terminal workspace candidates.
2. Keep the oldest page ineligible for archive.
3. Place an eligible workspace after that page.
4. Run repeated reaper sweeps.
5. Observe that the later eligible workspace remains unarchived.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `3efdf555e6e14a46747c796c3c554438bfc03261`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with the server test suite.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core bug).
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
## What Changed
- Add a keyset cursor that uses `(updatedAt, id)` order across reaper
pages.
- Reset the cursor at the end of the candidate set so the next sweep
starts at the beginning.
- Add a throttled log when a sweep inspects candidates but archives
none.
- Add regression tests for archive delivery and starvation.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — 45 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — 16 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — clean.
## Risks
Low risk. The change affects only candidate paging and the related
reaper log. The cursor resets after the candidate set, so the sweep
remains periodic.
## Model Used
Codex, OpenAI GPT-5, extended reasoning, tool use, and 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 (no exact duplicate found; related scheduler PR #10911 is
distinct)
- [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 (no
documentation applies; this is an internal reaper behavior change)
- [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 helps people manage AI agents for work.
> - Agent adapters connect Paperclip to tools such as the Codex command
line tool.
> - A sandboxed Codex agent may start without a credential.
> - The operator needs a safe sign-in flow that does not expose
credentials to the shared package or the sandbox.
> - This pull request adds a company-scoped device-login flow with a
temporary Daytona sandbox.
> - The flow promotes the credential only after readiness checks pass
and removes the temporary sandbox after use.
> - The result lets an operator sign in to a sandboxed Codex agent from
the agent form.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Problem or motivation**
A Codex adapter that runs in a sandbox cannot authenticate when the
company has no pre-provisioned Codex credential.
**Proposed solution**
Add a company-scoped device-login session. Start a temporary sandbox,
run `codex login --device-auth`, stream the code and URL, verify
readiness, promote the credential, and delete the sandbox.
**Alternatives considered**
Pre-provisioning a credential does not support first-time sandbox login.
Keeping the credential in the login sandbox does not provide a durable
company credential.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the roadmap item for cloud and sandbox agents.
**Additional context**
The flow uses a five-minute cleanup reaper, compare-and-set status
changes, and a PostgreSQL advisory lock to protect promotion and
cleanup.
## What Changed
- Add the adapter login-session contract, database table, and migration.
- Add company-scoped server routes and a service for sandbox device
login.
- Add credential promotion, readiness checks, and cleanup after login.
- Add restart-safe cleanup for abandoned login sandboxes.
- Add sandbox login controls to the agent creation and edit forms.
- Keep device-login and vendor identifiers out of public shared and
adapter UI symbols.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local exec vitest run`
passed with 310 tests at the submitted commit.
- The server login route, service, and reaper tests passed with 45 tests
at the submitted commit.
- The agent form render tests passed with 26 tests at the submitted
commit.
- The public-symbol leak check passed at the submitted commit.
- A live Daytona sign-in flow still requires confirmation by a user with
a live sandbox.
## Risks
The migration adds a new company-scoped table. A promotion or cleanup
race could remove a credential or leave a sandbox active, so the service
uses claims, compare-and-set transitions, and an advisory lock. The live
Daytona flow needs operator confirmation because local tests do not
provide a real browser sign-in.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution, extended reasoning.
## 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>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Environments give each agent run an execution target, and sandbox
providers (Daytona, E2B, Novita, exe.dev) run as plugin workers
> - A managed deployment provisions one platform-managed sandbox row
with no credential in config; the provider is documented to fall back to
its process env var (for example `DAYTONA_API_KEY`)
> - Plugin workers spawn with a scrubbed environment, so that fallback
never sees the host env var — probe and lease acquisition fail with
"require an API key in config or DAYTONA_API_KEY" even when the
deployment sets the var
> - Separately, the managed-sandbox-only mode hides local rows from
every list, but the instance Default picker renders a hardcoded
synthetic "Local" option that no filter touches
> - This pull request forwards each bundled provider's documented
credential env var to its own plugin worker, and gates the synthetic
Local option on the flag
> - The benefit is that the documented host-env credential fallback
works for plugin-backed providers, and managed-sandbox-only instances no
longer offer Local anywhere
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Plugin worker environment construction
(`server/src/services/plugin-loader.ts`) and the environments UI
(instance Default picker, agent form inherited-environment label).
**Problem or motivation**
Two follow-ups to the managed-sandbox-only mode (#11200), both found on
a live managed deployment:
1. The deployment sets `DAYTONA_API_KEY` as a server env var and the
managed sandbox row omits `config.apiKey` by contract. "Test Connection"
fails with `Sandbox environment probe failed for provider "daytona".
Daytona sandbox environments require an API key in config or
DAYTONA_API_KEY.` A real agent run fails the same way at lease
acquisition. The cause: sandbox providers run as plugin workers, and
`buildPluginWorkerEnv` passes only model-provider keys and in-cluster
Kubernetes vars. The provider's own documented credential env var never
reaches the worker, so the in-plugin `process.env` fallback reads
nothing. The self-hosted path has the same gap: the Daytona plugin
README documents `DAYTONA_API_KEY` as a host-level fallback, and it does
not work today.
2. With `enableManagedSandboxOnly` on, the instance Default environment
picker still shows "Local". The server filters local *rows* out of the
list, and the client filter mirrors that for cached lists, but this
option is a hardcoded `<option value="">Local</option>` — not a list row
— so no filter removes it. Selecting it writes a null default, which run
selection then rejects fail-closed.
**Proposed solution**
Forward each bundled sandbox provider's documented credential env var
into its plugin worker, keyed by the manifest's declared
`environmentDrivers[].driverKey` so a worker only receives its own
provider's credential (daytona → `DAYTONA_API_KEY`, e2b → `E2B_API_KEY`,
exe-dev → `EXE_API_KEY`, novita → `NOVITA_API_KEY`). Keep the existing
gate: only plugins that declare `environment.drivers.register` receive
any passthrough. In the UI, render the synthetic Local option only when
managed-sandbox-only is off; under the flag show a disabled "Select
environment" placeholder only while no default is stamped yet, and stop
the agent form's inherited label from reading "Local".
**Alternatives considered**
Adding `DAYTONA_API_KEY` to the existing `ADAPTER_ENV_PASSTHROUGH` list
was rejected: that list goes to every environment-driver plugin, so each
provider would receive every other provider's credential. A manifest
schema field for declared credential env vars was rejected as heavier
than needed: the bundled providers are known, and the mapping lives next
to the two existing passthrough lists.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/plugin-loader.ts`: new
`SANDBOX_PROVIDER_CREDENTIAL_ENV_PASSTHROUGH` map (driverKey →
documented credential env vars). `buildPluginWorkerEnv` reads the
manifest's `environmentDrivers` and forwards only the matching vars,
after the existing `environment.drivers.register` gate. Blank values
stay excluded.
- `server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts`: the daytona worker
receives `DAYTONA_API_KEY` and not another provider's key; a plugin
whose drivers have no mapping (kubernetes) receives no credential var.
- `ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.tsx`: the Default picker's synthetic
Local option renders only when managed-sandbox-only is off. Under the
flag, a disabled "Select environment" placeholder renders only while the
default is unset.
- `ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx`: the Local option is
present by default and absent under the flag; saved non-local
environments stay selectable.
- `ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.tsx`: the inherited-environment
label falls back to "Managed sandbox" instead of "Local" under the flag.
## Verification
- `server`: `npx vitest run src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts -t
buildPluginWorkerEnv` — 5 passed (3 existing, 2 new).
- `ui`: `npx vitest run src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx` — 22
passed (2 new); `npx vitest run
src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx` — 10 passed.
- `tsc --noEmit` clean in `server` and `ui`.
- Live managed deployment: confirmed the tenant service env carries
`DAYTONA_API_KEY` while the probe fails with the exact message above,
which pins the root cause to the worker env, not delivery.
## Risks
- The worker env grows by exactly one var per matching bundled provider,
only when the deployment sets it and only for plugins that declare a
matching environment driver. Plugins without a mapping see no change.
- Self-hosted behavioral shift is the fix itself: a host-level
`DAYTONA_API_KEY` (or E2B/EXE/NOVITA equivalent) now reaches the
provider as its README documents. Deployments that set the var but
expected it to stay inert had no working configuration to preserve — the
provider errored on every keyless probe and run.
- UI change is inert unless `enableManagedSandboxOnly` is on (default
false everywhere).
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code — extended thinking,
tool use, parallel read-only subagents for the two root-cause traces.
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The previous pull request added server-side chunked resumable import
transfers; without clients, large imports still ride the single fragile
upload
> - The Import page and the CLI need to slice large packages, upload
parts with retry and progress, resume after interruptions, and preview
before applying
> - Preview is the missing server piece: the browser flow is
preview-then-import, so a completed spool must be previewable without
re-uploading
> - This pull request adds the transfer preview endpoint, switches the
Import page to the chunked path for zips over 48 MB, and teaches the CLI
the same for oversized local imports
> - The benefit is that large imports get progress, per-part retry, and
resume in both clients, while small imports keep the exact single-shot
path they have today
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
With only the server transfer routes in place, users still upload large
company packages as one request from the Import page and the CLI: no
progress indication, no retry below the whole file, and no resume after
a dropped connection or refresh. The preview-then-import flow also
cannot run against an uploaded transfer, forcing a second full upload.
**Expected behavior**
A large package uploads once as verified parts with visible progress;
preview and import both run against the uploaded spool; an interrupted
upload resumes with only the missing parts re-sent; packages at or below
48 MB behave exactly as before.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Select a 500 MB zip on the Import page over an unreliable connection.
2. Watch the single upload fail near the end and restart from zero,
twice — once for preview, once for import.
3. Same story headless via the CLI.
## What Changed
- Server: `POST /import/transfers/:id/preview` runs the existing preview
logic against the completed spool (shared assembly + whole-file
verification helper with apply); preview neither completes the run nor
deletes the spool, so the subsequent apply reuses it. Missing parts
respond with the missing list.
- UI: zips over 48 MB take the chunked path in both preview and import —
the file is sliced into 32 MB parts hashed with WebCrypto (single
ArrayBuffer, no second copy), the transfer is created or resumed (the
create response's missing-parts list drives what uploads), parts upload
sequentially with three attempts each and visible progress, then
transfer preview/apply replace the multipart calls. The existing preview
pane, collision handling, adapter overrides, and async job polling are
unchanged; ≤ 48 MB keeps the single-shot path.
- CLI: oversized local `.zip` or folder imports zip/slice/hash with node
crypto, upload with resume and per-part retry and progress lines, and
use transfer preview/apply. Small packages keep the inline path
byte-identical.
- Failure honesty: adapters/API errors fail open to existing behavior; a
part failing all attempts surfaces a durable error panel with resume
intact.
## Verification
- Server: preview-then-apply on one spool (run stays open, spool intact,
then apply completes), preview with missing parts rejected — added to
the transfer route suite (embedded Postgres).
- UI suite: large file takes the chunked path (manifest shape, part
uploads, progress, apply on a resumed transfer, single-shot endpoints
never called), small file stays single-shot, part failure after three
attempts surfaces the error panel without running preview, resume
re-uploads only the missing part.
- CLI: manifest slicing/hashing, threshold behavior for zip and folder
sources, folder-zip round-trip through the real zip reader, upload
resume/retry/exhaustion/already-completed, full-command chunked and
small-zip inline flows.
- Server, ui, cli typechecks clean. Exact counts in the PR checks.
## Risks
- The 48 MB threshold only routes between two verified paths; behavior
below it is untouched.
- Chunked CLI imports use the board-scoped transfer routes, so oversized
CLI imports need board credentials (agent tokens keep the agent-safe
small-file path). No privilege change — board actors already had the
generic routes — but the two size regimes differ semantically; called
out for review.
- A CLI dry-run over the threshold uploads parts before previewing; the
spool persists (24 h sweep) and a later apply resumes without re-upload
— inherent to preview-against-spool.
Stacked on #11223 — merge that first; this PR then shows only the
preview endpoint and client changes.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended
thinking and tool use (multi-agent implementation with independent
verification).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Company import moves large packages into an instance, and since the
upload cap rose to 1 GB, the transport is the weak point: one HTTP
request, buffered fully in memory, with no resume
> - A dropped connection at 90% of an 800 MB upload starts the whole
transfer over, and a server restart loses all progress
> - This pull request adds the server side of chunked resumable import
transfers: a durable run ledger and routes that accept the same import
zip as verified ~32 MB parts spooled to disk
> - An interrupted transfer resumes from the parts already uploaded —
across dropped connections, page refreshes, and server restarts — and
peak upload memory drops from the whole package to one part
> - The benefit is that large imports become reliable on real-world
connections instead of all-or-nothing
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Large company imports travel as a single HTTP upload. On a slow or flaky
connection, any interruption discards all progress and the upload
restarts from zero. The server buffers the entire compressed package in
memory during upload. A server restart mid-upload loses the transfer
entirely. With the upload cap now at 1 GB, these failure modes govern
exactly the imports the cap was raised for.
**Expected behavior**
A large import upload survives interruptions: already-transferred data
is kept and verified, only the missing remainder is re-sent, and the
server's memory use during upload is bounded by a part, not the package.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Import a multi-hundred-MB company package over a connection that
drops mid-upload.
2. The upload fails; retrying starts from byte zero.
3. Repeat on an unstable connection and the import may never complete.
## What Changed
- New `company_transfer_runs` table (drizzle schema + migration) and
`companyTransferRunService`: one row per transfer with a content-derived
idempotency key, per-part completion recorded atomically and
idempotently, resume scoped to actor and direction, completed runs
short-circuiting retries of identical content.
- New transfer routes beside the existing import routes, same
authorization: declare a sliced zip (`POST /import/transfers` —
validates cap, 64 MB part ceiling, contiguity, size sums, sha256
format), upload parts (`PUT .../parts/:n` — raw body, hash-and-size
verified before an atomic write to a disk spool under the instance root;
re-uploads are no-op successes), poll resume state (`GET .../:id` —
missing parts recomputed from disk), and apply (`POST .../:id/apply` —
requires all parts, re-verifies the assembled zip against the whole-file
hash fail-closed, then feeds the existing import pipeline through
factored helpers rather than duplicated logic).
- Hourly sweep fails and cleans spools idle for 24 h; a swept transfer
honestly reports all parts missing on resume.
- Strict UUID gating on run ids before any filesystem path construction.
- The existing single-shot upload path is untouched; clients arrive in
the follow-up PR.
## Verification
- Transfer route suite (embedded Postgres): create/upload/status/apply
round-trip with a real imported company, out-of-order parts, wrong-hash
part rejected and unrecorded, re-upload no-op, apply-with-missing-parts
rejection, resume after failure with prior progress intact,
assembled-hash mismatch failing closed with spool deletion, actor
scoping 404s, async-job apply, sweep followed by honest resume.
- Ledger suite (embedded Postgres): part idempotency, actor/direction
scoping, completed-run short-circuit, cancelled runs staying cancelled.
- Existing portability route suite unchanged and green; server + db
typechecks clean. Exact counts in the PR checks.
## Risks
- New routes are additive; the existing import path is untouched. The
transfer routes carry the same board authorization as the import routes
they sit beside.
- Disk spool: bounded by the existing upload cap per transfer, cleaned
on success, failure, hash mismatch, and by the 24 h sweep. Spool paths
are strict-UUID-gated.
- The apply step still materializes the assembled zip in memory once
(same profile as today's single-shot import at apply time); upload-time
memory drops to one part.
- Known limitation, deliberate: transfers are keyed on content alone, so
identical package content cannot be imported twice without re-exporting
(surfaced explicitly to the caller). Acceptable for v1; noted for
review.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended
thinking and tool use (multi-agent implementation with independent
verification).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The issue detail page is a core operator surface where perceived
latency directly affects task navigation
> - Performance work needs repeatable evidence so later optimizations
can be compared against the same scenarios
> - The page did not expose stable user-timing marks for its header or
first useful content
> - There was also no isolated seeded browser rig that measured warm
navigation, cold deep links, waterfalls, or server time
> - This pull request adds the instrumentation and a one-command
Playwright baseline harness
> - The benefit is that issue-page performance changes can be validated
with reproducible median measurements instead of anecdotes
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, and browser performance tooling.
**Problem or motivation**
The issue detail page performs a large client bootstrap and request
fan-out, but the repository lacks stable user-timing boundaries and a
repeatable benchmark. That makes performance changes difficult to
compare and allows regressions to be judged from anecdotes instead of
consistent evidence.
**Proposed solution**
Add stable header/content paint measures, development/QA-only lifecycle
vital reporting, aggregate server timing for the issue endpoint, and a
seeded Playwright command that runs warm/cold scenarios under throttled
and unthrottled profiles with N≥5 median reporting.
**Alternatives considered**
Ad hoc DevTools recordings were rejected because they are not repeatable
or reviewable. Production telemetry was rejected because this baseline
should not change production data collection. A unit-only harness was
rejected because it cannot capture browser bootstrap, rendering, and
network waterfall costs.
**Roadmap alignment**
The roadmap calls for agent performance to be measurable over time. This
change applies that evidence-first principle to a core operator page and
does not duplicate a listed roadmap deliverable.
**Additional context**
The generated report includes warm and cold medians, TTFB/FCP/LCP where
applicable, request and byte totals before first useful content,
JavaScript bytes, and issue endpoint server timing.
## What Changed
- Added `issue-detail:navigate→header-paint` and
`issue-detail:navigate→content-paint` user-timing measures to the issue
detail page.
- Added development/QA-only TTFB, LCP, and INP console reporting without
production telemetry delivery.
- Added `Server-Timing` for `GET /api/issues/:id`.
- Added `pnpm exec playwright test --config
tests/perf/issue-detail/playwright.config.ts`, which seeds an isolated
instance and runs N≥5 warm/cold samples under unthrottled and Fast 4G/4x
CPU profiles.
- Added Markdown, raw JSON, and Chrome-trace outputs with median
baseline tables and waterfall data.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `npx playwright test --config
tests/perf/issue-detail/playwright.config.ts --list`
- `pnpm exec playwright test --config
tests/perf/issue-detail/playwright.config.ts` — passed 20 samples in 9.4
minutes (5 runs × 2 scenarios × 2 profiles) for the baseline;
post-review integrity reruns also exercised the corrected paths, while
this shared runner intermittently killed Chromium processes, so the rig
now performs one bounded browser-crash retry per sample.
- Baseline medians: warm unthrottled 278/447 ms header/content; cold
unthrottled 646/646 ms; warm throttled 1240/2060 ms; cold throttled
3932/3933 ms.
## Risks
- Low product risk: the new browser measurements are development/QA
tooling and the UI timing work does not change visible layout.
- `Server-Timing` exposes only aggregate handler duration, not query
contents or private identifiers.
- Native INP reporting uses supported browser event timing entries and
silently no-ops where unsupported.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4, tool-assisted coding and browser execution with
reasoning enabled; 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] 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: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Environments give each agent run an execution target: the local
host, SSH, or a sandbox provider
> - A managed deployment can provision one platform-managed sandbox
environment through the `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` `environments`
section
> - That row is fully locked today. A tenant cannot add environment
variables for their agents. There is also no way to hide local execution
— run selection falls back to the local row
> - A platform that manages the sandbox for its tenants needs both: the
tenant adds env vars (and nothing else), and local execution is neither
visible nor reachable
> - This pull request opens exactly one tenant edit (env vars) on the
managed sandbox row, and adds an `enableManagedSandboxOnly` mode that
hides local and makes run selection fail closed
> - The benefit is a complete managed-sandbox experience with no change
for self-hosted instances
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Environments (managed sandbox provisioning, environment routes, run
environment selection) and the environments UI.
**Problem or motivation**
Platform-provisioned sandbox environments
(`metadata.managedByPaperclip`) reject every write on cloud-managed
instances. Agents often need environment variables inside their sandbox.
The tenant has no way to set them on the managed row. Separately, an
operator cannot remove local execution: the environment list always
shows the local row, and run selection falls back to it when no default
is set.
**Proposed solution**
Allow an envVars-only PATCH on the managed sandbox row, and echo those
env vars back for editing. Add a managed-tier feature
(`enableManagedSandboxOnly`) that hides the local environment from all
read surfaces and redirects local-landing run selection to the managed
sandbox environment, failing closed when it is unavailable.
**Alternatives considered**
UI-only hiding of the local row. This was rejected: it does not stop a
run from resolving to local, so it is presentation without enforcement.
Full unlock of the managed row was also rejected: name, driver, and
config stay platform-owned so boot reconciliation cannot fight tenant
edits.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/environments.ts`: the platform-provisioned write
floor admits an envVars-only PATCH on the generalized managed sandbox
row (sandbox driver, `managedByPaperclip`, not legacy kubernetes-marker
rows). Name, driver, config, status, metadata, and DELETE stay rejected.
The read floor stops blanking env vars on that row; credential-shaped
config keys stay redacted for every actor. Legacy kubernetes-marker rows
keep the full floor.
- Same file: under `enableManagedSandboxOnly`, the environments list and
the by-id read omit the local row for every actor, including instance
admins.
- `server/src/services/execution-workspace-policy.ts`:
`resolveExecutionWorkspaceEnvironmentId` gains the managed-sandbox-only
inputs. A selection that lands on the local environment is redirected to
the managed sandbox environment. With no active managed row it throws
`ManagedSandboxUnavailableError` — never local. Non-local selections
(ssh, user-created sandboxes) are untouched.
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: the run path reads the flag, looks
up the managed row (`findManagedSandboxEnvironment`, new read-only
finder in `environments.ts`), and passes both to the resolver. Mirrors
the forced-kubernetes precedent, which keeps precedence when both
regimes are on.
- `server/src/services/managed-environments.ts`: after a successful
reconcile, the instance default environment moves to the managed sandbox
row when the current default is unset, local, or dangling. A
tenant-chosen custom environment is never overridden.
- `packages/shared`: new `enableManagedSandboxOnly` key (schema default
false, catalog tier `managed`, cloudDefault false, selfHostedDefault
false) and the matching interface field.
- UI: managed rows show a "Managed by Paperclip" lock badge; editing one
opens a dedicated env-vars-only editor that sends the one PATCH shape
the server admits (the old full form failed with a 403 on save). New
`ui/src/lib/managed-sandbox-environment.ts` mirrors the local filter for
cached lists (applied in the project picker; the agent picker already
excluded local). The experimental settings page gains the toggle at its
alphabetical card position. `environmentsApi.update` now declares the
`envVars` field it already sent.
- Tests: environment route floor coverage (envVars-only accepted, mixed
bodies rejected, legacy rows still blanked and locked, local hidden and
404 under the flag, self-hosted unchanged), an embedded-postgres service
test pinning that boot reconciliation never touches tenant env vars,
resolver redirect/fail-closed cases, managed-environments
default-stamping cases, and UI lib/settings tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts
src/services/managed-environments.test.ts` — all pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run` — 425 pass
(catalog/schema default parity is pinned by an existing test).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` and the affected UI
suites (CompanyEnvironments, InstanceExperimentalSettings incl.
card-order test, new lib test) — all pass.
- Full workspace `pnpm test`: 3,414 passed. 17 files report failures on
this machine; the identical 17 fail on a clean `origin/master` worktree
in the same environment (git-worktree/skills/embedded-postgres
environment dependencies and plugin-SDK zero-test collections). One
additional file (`issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts`) failed one
timing-sensitive test in one of two full-suite runs and passes 7/7 in
isolation on this branch — a flake in a domain this diff does not touch.
The branch introduces no new failures.
- Self-hosted zero-delta: every new behavior is gated on the
cloud-managed instance check or the new flag, which defaults to false in
schema and catalog; pinned by the "does not floor platform-marked rows
on self-hosted instances" and flag-off tests.
## Risks
- Behavior is opt-in twice over: the write-floor exception applies only
to rows the managed-config provisioner stamps, and the hiding/forcing
applies only when `enableManagedSandboxOnly` is on (default false
everywhere). Self-hosted instances see no change.
- The env-vars echo is scoped to the generalized managed sandbox row;
legacy kubernetes-marker rows keep the blanket floor because
pre-generalization builds may have written platform values there.
- Fail-closed run selection means a managed instance with the flag on
and an archived managed row (provider plugin down) refuses runs with a
precise error instead of running locally. That is the intended posture.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code CLI.
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent work
> - Opening an issue fans out into several authenticated issue-detail
reads, so repeated work on that path directly affects perceived latency
> - Those reads repeated issue and authorization lookups, returned full
private JSON even when unchanged, and performed non-critical bookkeeping
writes on the request path
> - Interaction reads also performed lifecycle writes even though `GET`
must be read-only
> - This pull request adds request-scoped reuse, private conditional
responses, read-only interaction access, and bounded write debouncing
without crossing actor, request, or company boundaries
> - The result is less database, serialization, logging, and
response-body work while preserving authorization and interaction
lifecycle invariants
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is the server-only latency phase. Related work is tracked
separately in #10415 (aggregate view), #10416 (warm navigation, merged
into the base), and #10463 (bundle split). This pull request
intentionally excludes those scopes.
**What happened?**
Opening an issue detail view caused avoidable server costs: repeated
issue and authorization reads within one request, full private JSON
responses when a representation was unchanged, writes during
interaction-list reads, production debug transport setup, and immediate
bookkeeping writes for cloud tenant activity and board-key usage.
**Expected behavior**
All successful JSON `GET /api/issues/:id/*` responses should support
strong private ETags and `304 Not Modified`. Repeated work may be reused
only within the current request. `GET /interactions` must not modify
stored interactions. Non-critical activity timestamps may be debounced
without weakening authentication or stale instance-admin cleanup.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start Paperclip in local development or self-hosted server mode.
2. Open one issue and request its detail subresources with the same
authenticated actor.
3. Repeat a successful JSON request with its `ETag` in `If-None-Match`.
4. Observe `304 Not Modified`, no interaction writes from `GET
/interactions`, and unchanged authorization boundaries.
**Deployment mode / installation**
- Local development or self-hosted server
- Built from source
- Core server behavior; not adapter-specific
## What Changed
- Added strong ETags and `Cache-Control: private, must-revalidate` to
successful JSON reads under `/api/issues/:id/*`, including
standards-compliant `If-None-Match` handling.
- Added request-scoped promise memoization for issue and authorization
lookups; no authorization result survives the request.
- Made `GET /interactions` read-only, moved supersession and
terminal-state handling to mutation paths, and prevented plugin callers
from accepting or rejecting interactions after an issue closes.
- Removed the production debug-file logger transport while preserving
development formatting.
- Debounced cloud-tenant activity and board-key `lastUsedAt`
persistence, while keeping stale instance-admin deletion unconditional
and authentication checks per request.
- Added focused tests for ETags, request isolation, authorization
lifecycle behavior, interaction invariants, logger configuration, and
retry-safe debounce behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/private-json-etag.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 2 files,
23 tests passed.
- Focused Vitest run covering request memoization, authorization,
interactions, plugin orchestration, logger, cloud tenant, board auth,
and issue services — 9 files, 264 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
- Scope guardrails: 21 changed files under `server/src`; no lockfile,
workflow, migration, UI, aggregate-view, or bundle-split changes.
## Risks
- Strong ETags hash each successful serialized JSON response. This adds
a small CPU cost but avoids transferring unchanged bodies.
- Debounced bookkeeping timestamps can lag by the bounded debounce
interval. They are non-critical usage metadata; authentication still
runs per request, and stale instance-admin deletion remains
unconditional.
- Legacy pending interactions on terminal issues are projected as
expired by reads and are finalized only by mutation paths. The stored
record remains unchanged on `GET` by design.
- No database schema or migration changes are included.
> This is a focused performance correction and does not duplicate a
planned core feature in `ROADMAP.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.3-codex` for the initial implementation and
`gpt-5.6-sol` for isolation, verification, and PR preparation, with
reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and GitHub CLI access.
The runtimes did not expose authoritative context-window sizes.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - Each user can let agents tidy that user's Mine inbox
> - The profile control saves either an open policy or an agent
allowlist
> - Explicit inbox archive requests checked only the separate
`inbox:manage` grant
> - This made the saved profile control ineffective for explicit user
targets
> - This pull request makes authorization honor the target user's saved
policy
> - The benefit is that the UI control and the API now enforce the same
user choice
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An agent received `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` when it archived
an issue with an explicit `userId`. The denial occurred even when that
user had enabled inbox management for the agent in Profile Settings. The
authorization service checked only `principal_permission_grants` for
explicit targets and ignored the saved user inbox policy.
**Expected behavior**
An explicit target is allowed when the target user saved an `open`
policy or an allowlist that contains the agent. An unsaved default-open
policy must remain limited to the responsible-user path. A scoped
`inbox:manage` grant must remain an administrative override.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Save an inbox-agent allowlist for a user.
2. Include the acting agent in that allowlist.
3. Call `POST /api/issues/{issueId}/inbox-archive` with that user's
explicit `userId`.
4. Observe the incorrect `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` response
on the previous implementation.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `7ea2068ef8`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core authorization bug.
**Database mode**
External Postgres in production. The regression tests use embedded
PostgreSQL.
**Access context**
Agent bearer authentication.
Related foundations: #9658 and #9724.
## What Changed
- Read the target user's saved inbox-agent policy before the
explicit-target decision.
- Allow saved `open` policies and matching allowlists for explicit
targets.
- Keep unsaved implicit-open policies responsible-user-only.
- Keep scoped `inbox:manage` grants as administrative overrides.
- Add service and route regressions for allow, deny, archive, unarchive,
and audit metadata.
- Update the implementation contract and agent-facing inbox API
guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts` — 66 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is limited to explicit inbox targets with a saved
policy.
- A missing policy row still denies explicit cross-user access.
- A non-matching allowlist and a disabled policy still deny access
unless a scoped administrative grant applies.
> 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 based on GPT-5. The runtime did not expose the exact
model build or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository
tools, code execution, and focused test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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.
> - Task comments can contain references to files in project and
execution workspaces.
> - Paperclip detected path-shaped inline code and showed it as an
actionable file chip.
> - The UI did not first confirm that the current board session could
open the file.
> - Missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, and unsupported files therefore
looked actionable and failed after a click.
> - This pull request adds an issue-scoped availability check and
promotes only confirmed files to chips.
> - The benefit is that the task thread shows a file action only when
that action can succeed.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Task comments promoted path-shaped inline code to file chips before
Paperclip checked the file. A chip could point to a missing, denied,
ambiguous, remote, or non-previewable file. The action then failed after
the user selected it.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must show a file chip only after the server confirms that the
current board session can open the exact file reference. All other
path-shaped text must stay ordinary inline code.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Add a task comment that contains inline code with a missing or
inaccessible workspace path.
2. Open the task thread as a board user.
3. Observe that the path looks like an actionable file chip.
4. Select the chip and observe that the file cannot open.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`19be4cf927` and earlier.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev and self-hosted server.
**Access context**
Board user.
## What Changed
- Added shared request, response, and validation contracts for batched
workspace-file availability checks.
- Added an issue-scoped server endpoint that resolves file references
with company, issue, workspace, and preview-access checks.
- Added bounded batch concurrency and tests for missing, denied,
ambiguous, remote, unsupported, and available files.
- Added an issue-scoped UI availability registry that deduplicates,
batches, caches, and invalidates file checks.
- Changed task-comment markdown rendering so only confirmed files get
chip styling and file-viewer behavior.
- Bound each chip to the exact workspace target that passed the
availability check.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/workspace-file-resource.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.availability.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts
ui/src/lib/workspace-file-availability.test.ts` — 93 passed, 35 skipped.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — clean.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — all server and UI groups passed. One unchanged CLI
test saw the run-injected static AWS credentials and expected only its
local `AWS_PROFILE`. The same test passed, 8 of 8, after removing only
`AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` from its process
environment.
## Risks
- File chips now appear after an asynchronous availability check, so
path-shaped text can briefly render as inline code.
- Availability results use the existing 30-second file-resource cache
window. File-resource invalidation forces a new check.
- The endpoint limits each request to 100 references and the client
chunks larger sets.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The service did not expose a more specific
model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode,
repository tools, command execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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
- [ ] 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 gives operators a summary for each workspace.
> - An execution workspace detail page used the parent project-workspace
summary slot.
> - Two execution workspaces under one project workspace could therefore
show the same summary.
> - This pull request gives each execution workspace its own summary
scope.
> - It also limits the summary snapshot and generated issue to that
execution workspace.
> - The benefit is that a new or parallel execution workspace cannot
inherit unrelated status.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An execution workspace detail page read and refreshed the summary slot
for its parent project workspace. Parallel execution workspaces could
show the same status and include issues from each other.
**Expected behavior**
Each execution workspace must have one isolated summary slot. Its
generated snapshot must include only issues assigned to that execution
workspace.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create two execution workspaces under one project workspace.
2. Add different issues to each execution workspace.
3. Generate the summary in the first execution workspace.
4. Open the second execution workspace.
5. Observe that the old implementation could reuse the first summary.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem exists on `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
The issue affects both local trusted and authenticated deployments.
## What Changed
- Added `execution_workspace` to the shared summary-slot scope contract.
- Validated execution-workspace ownership and stored generated summary
issues on the correct execution workspace.
- Limited execution-workspace snapshots to issues with the matching
execution workspace ID.
- Updated the execution workspace page to use its own summary slot.
- Updated Summarizer instructions, routine options, catalog metadata,
documentation, and regression tests.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts
ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 30 focused tests
passed; the embedded-Postgres server tests were run outside the
process-restricted sandbox.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate` — passed with 17
catalog skills.
- [Latest-head GitHub
Actions](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/31491475405)
— all 22 jobs passed on `beea14cbaf`, including typecheck, build,
server/workspace tests, serialized suites, e2e, canary, and aggregate
verification. One unrelated adapter cleanup test initially hit an
`ENOTEMPTY` temp-directory race; its single permitted rerun passed.
- Greptile — 5/5 confidence on `beea14cbaf`, 12 files reviewed, zero
comments added, and zero unresolved threads.
## Risks
- Low risk. The new scope is additive.
- Existing project and project-workspace summary slots keep their
current keys and behavior.
- A summary generated for an execution workspace now excludes sibling
workspace issues by design.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The deployment does not expose a more
specific model ID or context-window value. It used agentic reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and GitHub 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 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
> - Company export/import moves a whole company — agents, tasks,
comments — between instances as a portable bundle
> - The bundle never carried task timestamps or parent links: the export
writes neither, the importer lets database defaults stamp "now", and
sub-tasks arrive flattened
> - Boards sort by recency, so every imported task showing "created just
now" collapses the task list into import order, and the task hierarchy
the user built is gone
> - This pull request adds created/updated/started/completed/cancelled
timestamps and a parent link to the bundle (schema v7), preserves them
end to end on import, and keeps comment imports from clobbering a
preserved updated time
> - The benefit is that an imported company reads like the company the
user left: same recency order, same task tree
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
After a company import, every task showed as created at import time.
Recency sorting collapsed to import order, and parent/child task nesting
disappeared. The user called out losing "the meaningful task hierarchy
and recency sorting". Cause: the export bundle has no fields for task
timestamps or parent links, the importer lets `defaultNow()` win on
insert, and the comment importer bumps every touched task's `updatedAt`
to now.
**Expected behavior**
An imported company preserves each task's
creation/update/start/completion times and its position in the task
tree, so sorting and nesting on the destination match the source.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. On a source instance, create tasks over several days, including
sub-tasks nested under parents.
2. Export the company and import it into another instance.
3. Every task shows the import moment as its creation/update time and
all tasks are top-level.
## What Changed
- Export writes
`createdAt`/`updatedAt`/`startedAt`/`completedAt`/`cancelledAt` (ISO,
only when set) and `parent: <taskSlug>` into each task's bundle
extension; a parent outside the export selection drops the edge with an
aggregate warning, mirroring the existing blocker-edge warning
(`server/src/services/company-portability.ts`).
- Bundle schema version 6 → 7. All new fields are optional: v5/v6
bundles import unchanged with a version-aware downlevel warning; bundles
newer than the board still fail closed.
- Manifest parsing validates the new timestamps like comment timestamps
(invalid → warn and ignore, never a hard failure); shared types and the
zod validator carry the new optional fields.
- Import resolves parent slugs to pre-generated destination ids, drops
self-references and cycles from tampered bundles with warnings, and
orders rows parents-first because the self-referencing FK is checked per
insert chunk.
- `importIssues` writes the preserved timestamps (falling back to insert
time when absent; `startedAt` stays null unless bundle-carried, per
#11191's semantics) and `parentId`.
- `addImportedComments` no longer blanket-bumps `updatedAt = now()`; it
takes `GREATEST(updated_at, newest imported comment createdAt)`, so a
preserved update time never regresses while unpreserved rows keep the
old behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability-import-batching.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` — 102 passed,
1 pre-existing opt-in benchmark skip. Includes: full round-trip with
exact timestamp equality and a 3-deep parent chain against embedded
Postgres; v6 back-compat (defaults + warning); forward-compat rejection
(v8); cycle/self-reference/invalid-timestamp tampered-bundle handling;
comment-bump preserve-awareness in both directions.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/shared typecheck` — clean.
## Risks
- **Rollout ordering**: a board on the previous build (max schema v6)
refuses bundles exported by this build (stamped v7) — the existing
newer-than-supported rejection, working as designed. Cross-instance
moves need the importing board upgraded first. Called out here so
operators aren't surprised during the transition window.
- Parent edges from tampered bundles are dropped with warnings rather
than failing the import; blocker relations already behave this way.
- Timestamps are data-only; no destination schema migration.
Stacked on #11191 (its commit is included here) — merge #11191 first;
this PR then shows only the v7 changes.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended
thinking and tool use (multi-agent implementation with independent
verification).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Company import brings a full company package — agents, tasks,
routines — into an instance, with `pauseAutomations` promising a quiet
landing
> - The pause covers the imported entities, but the destination's own
productivity-review sweep does not know the difference between imported
rows and live work
> - The importer stamps every imported in-progress task with `startedAt
= now()`, so six hours later the sweep's long-active check fires on
every one of them and floods the board with review tasks and agent
wakeups
> - This pull request stops fabricating `startedAt` on import and makes
the sweep skip tasks whose assignee agent is paused
> - The benefit is that an import lands quietly: no surprise review-task
storm, and paused teams stay paused until the operator activates them
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
After importing a company package with automations paused, a batch of
"productivity review" tasks appeared roughly six hours later — one for
every imported in-progress task — each with an owner-agent wakeup. The
user described it as jarring and wasteful. Cause: `importIssues`
fabricates `startedAt = now()` for imported in-progress rows, and
`reconcileProductivityReviews` considers any assigned in-progress task
without checking whether the assignee agent is paused, so its
long-active-duration evidence (6 h threshold) trips on the fabricated
timestamp.
**Expected behavior**
An import with paused automations must be quiescent: no destination
sweep should generate work from imported rows until the operator
unpauses the imported team. A paused agent must not accumulate review
tasks it cannot act on.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Import a company package containing tasks with status `in_progress`
assigned to agents, with "pause automations" enabled.
2. Wait for the productivity-review reconcile (runs at startup and on
the heartbeat scheduler tick) more than six hours after the import.
3. Observe one new review task plus an owner wakeup per imported
in-progress task.
## What Changed
- `importIssues` no longer fabricates `startedAt` for imported
`in_progress` rows; it inserts null (`server/src/services/issues.ts`).
Audited every consumer of `issues.startedAt` — all are null-tolerant,
and normal checkout/status-transition paths set the value when work
really starts.
- `reconcileProductivityReviews` skips candidates whose assignee agent
is `paused`, counting them as skipped
(`server/src/services/productivity-review.ts`). This is a general rule,
not import-specific: a paused agent cannot act on a review.
- Tests: paused-assignee candidate with an old `startedAt` creates no
review, and creates one after unpausing; imported in-progress issue
lands with null `startedAt` (embedded-Postgres import test); the
pre-existing long-active regression test still passes.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability-import-batching.test.ts` — 20
passed, 1 pre-existing opt-in benchmark skip.
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` —
78 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — clean.
## Risks
- Behavior change beyond imports: tasks assigned to paused agents no
longer receive productivity reviews anywhere. This is intended — the
review would target an agent that cannot respond — and reviews resume on
the first reconcile after unpausing.
- Imported in-progress tasks now carry no `startedAt` until real work
starts on the destination. The one sweep that read the fabricated value
is the one this PR quiets; all other consumers fall back safely (audit
in the commit body).
- Low risk otherwise: no schema change, no API shape change.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended
thinking and tool use (multi-agent implementation with independent
verification).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Company import/export lets an operator move a full company package
between instances, with the Import page uploading the package as one
compressed `.zip`
> - The server caps that upload at 128 MB, and real company packages
with attachments now exceed it — imports fail at the preview step
> - The failure message tells the user to use the CLI folder import, but
that path posts inline JSON capped at 64 MB, so the advice is a dead end
for exactly these packages
> - This pull request raises the zip upload cap to a 1 GB default, makes
it operator-configurable through an environment variable, scales the
decompression-bomb guards from the cap in effect, and replaces the
misleading hint
> - The benefit is that large real-world company packages import
successfully, and operators with unusual needs can tune the cap without
a code change
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A company import fails at the preview step with `Preview failed: Import
package exceeds 134217728 bytes`. The package is a valid Paperclip
export. Its compressed size is larger than the 128 MB server cap (one
reported package is 257 MB). The error panel suggests the CLI folder
import, but that path sends the package as one inline JSON body capped
at 64 MB, so it also fails.
**Expected behavior**
A valid company package of realistic size imports successfully through
the Import page. If a package is too large, the error must state the
limit clearly and suggest a step that can work.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Export a company with enough attachments to make the compressed
package larger than 128 MB.
2. Open the Import page and upload the `.zip`.
3. Click "Preview import".
4. The preview fails with `Import package exceeds 134217728 bytes`.
**Deployment mode**
Reported from a managed deployment; the limit applies to all deployment
modes.
## What Changed
- Raise `PORTABLE_ZIP_UPLOAD_LIMIT_BYTES` from 128 MB to a 1 GB default
(`server/src/http/body-limits.ts`).
- Add the `PAPERCLIP_IMPORT_ZIP_MAX_BYTES` environment override. Invalid
or non-positive values fall back to the default.
- Scale the zip decompression-bomb guard from the configured cap at the
import route: the aggregate inflated ceiling is 4x the cap. The
per-entry ceiling stays at 512 MB because V8's string length limit
applies to an entry regardless (`server/src/routes/companies.ts`,
`packages/shared/src/portability-zip.ts`).
- Report the 422 limit error in MB instead of raw bytes.
- Replace the "use the CLI folder import for very large packages" hint
on preview failure with advice that works: re-export the package without
large attachments (`ui/src/pages/CompanyImport.tsx`).
- Update the stale comment in `ui/src/lib/import-preflight.ts` that made
the same CLI claim.
- Add tests for the new default, the env override, and the
invalid-override fallback.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/body-limits.test.ts
packages/shared/src/portability-zip.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability-import-batching.test.ts` — all
pass.
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyImport.test.tsx` — passes,
including the updated failure-panel copy assertion.
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean across the workspace.
- Manual: upload a `.zip` larger than the configured cap; the preview
fails with `Import package exceeds the 1024 MB upload limit` and the new
hint. A package between 128 MB and 1 GB now previews and imports.
## Risks
- Peak per-import memory rises with the cap: the upload is buffered in
memory and unzipped in one pass. A 1 GB compressed package can use
several GB transiently. Imports are instance-admin actions, so the
exposure is a deliberate operator action, not anonymous traffic.
Operators on small hosts can lower the cap with
`PAPERCLIP_IMPORT_ZIP_MAX_BYTES`.
- The aggregate bomb guard moves from a fixed 512 MB to 4x the
configured cap. It still bounds expansion far below what a decompression
bomb needs.
- No migration and no API shape change. The 422 message text changes; no
code matches on the old text.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended
thinking and tool use (file edits, local test runs, live-instance
inspection).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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 and relies on issue checkout as the
core task-claiming primitive
> - The issue checkout route is the HTTP boundary that translates
service and database outcomes into agent-usable API responses
> - Routine-linked issues are protected by the partial unique index
`issues_open_routine_execution_uq`, which covers only rows whose
`execution_run_id` is set
> - `svc.checkout` sets `execution_run_id`, so a concurrent claim moves
the row into that index and can raise a 23505 mid-request
> - Unhandled, that surfaces as a 500 and crashes the agent run instead
of being a recoverable conflict
> - Drizzle wraps driver failures in its own `Failed query: ...` error,
so the Postgres error carrying `code` and the constraint name is
reachable only through `cause`
> - This pull request translates that violation into a 409 at the
checkout route, detecting it through the cause chain the way
`isReviewPathRecoveryIdempotencyConflict` already does
> - The benefit is that agents handle routine execution contention
through the normal heartbeat conflict path instead of failing on an
internal server error
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#3660
Related pull requests found while searching for duplicates:
- #3699 — an earlier attempt at this same route-level fix, closed
unmerged. Same shape, and its check has the flat-error bug described
under Verification.
- #3633 — related work on postgres.js `constraint_name` handling in
conflict detection.
- #5662 — covers the adoption path (`assertCheckoutOwner`) that this
pull request does not.
## What Changed
- Added `server/src/db-errors.ts` with `isUniqueViolation(error,
constraintName?)`, which walks the `cause` chain (depth-capped) and
accepts the postgres.js `constraint_name`, the node-postgres
`constraint`, or the driver message as evidence of SQLSTATE 23505.
- Wrapped `svc.checkout()` in `POST /issues/:id/checkout` with a narrow
try/catch that uses that helper to return **409 Conflict** for
`issues_open_routine_execution_uq`, and rethrows every other error
unchanged.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/db-errors.test.ts` covering the wrapped
and bare error shapes, both constraint field names, the message
fallback, non-matching constraints, non-unique-violation codes, and a
self-referential cause chain.
## Verification
- The new unit test includes the wrapped case `{ cause: { code: "23505",
constraint_name: ... } }` that a flat `error.code` check fails, so it is
a real regression guard rather than a restatement of the implementation.
- The wrapped shape is what this codebase observes in practice:
`server/src/__tests__/plugin-tenant-isolation.test.ts` asserts
`cause?.code === "23505"` against embedded Postgres,
`packages/db/src/pipelines-schema.test.ts` asserts that constraint
failures throw `Failed query`, and
`server/src/services/recovery/review-path-recovery.ts` walks the same
chain.
- CI (verify, e2e, policy) exercises this change against current master
through the pull request merge ref.
- Not verified locally: no monorepo install or typecheck was run in this
environment.
## Risks
- Low. One route gains a catch that matches a single constraint and
rethrows all other errors, so no unrelated failure can be swallowed.
- The 409 body `{ error: ... }` matches the other 409 responses this
route already returns.
- Scope limit: this covers the checkout route only. The adoption path
reached through `assertCheckoutOwner` (heartbeat, plugins, and pipelines
routes) can still surface the same violation as a 500; #5662 targets
that path.
- `isUniqueViolation` is new and intentionally generic. Existing flat
23505 checks elsewhere in the server are left untouched by this pull
request.
## Model Used
- Original change: OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class tool-using coding agent in
the Codex CLI environment; exact backend model revision is not exposed
in that runtime.
- Follow-up revision (cause-chain detection plus tests): Anthropic
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), tool-using coding agent with extended
thinking and 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)
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>
## What was done
Replaced the strict `!nonEmpty(process.env.PORT)` guard in
`maybePersistWorktreeRuntimePorts` with a new `isPortPinnedByRuntimeEnv`
helper function. This function checks if `process.env.PORT` is set, but
only suppresses persisting the port to configuration if the ambient
`PORT` matches the newly allocated `selectedPort`.
## Why it matters
Fixes issue #1849. Previously, if an ambient `PORT` environment variable
was exported globally (like inheriting from the shell running the parent
workspace), worktrees would silently fail to write their
collision-avoiding ports (e.g. 3103 instead of 3100) back to their
respective local `config.json` files. This resulted in orphaned
sub-worktrees and lost port tracking on reboot. With this fix, worktrees
correctly persist their assigned ports even while nested under an
inherited environment variables stack, while continuing to respect
manual, explicit pinning.
## How to verify
1. Export a port in the shell explicitly: `export PORT=3100`.
2. Launch a sub-worktree instance which receives an auto-assigned free
port (e.g., `3103`).
3. View the underlying `config.json` for that worktree inside
`.paperclip/worktrees/`.
4. The config file should correctly contain `{"server": {"port": 3103}}`
rather than dropping the write operation.
## Risks
None expected. The `Number()` and `Number.isInteger()` checks handle
parsing edge cases cleanly, defaulting robustly to preventing writes if
`process.env.PORT` is somehow malformed (e.g., set to a non-integer),
ensuring absolute safety during misconfigurations.
Co-authored-by: manavshrivastavagit <manavshrivastava@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip posts system comments when automatic run recovery cannot
continue
> - These comments currently mix the main event with recovery
identifiers and routing details
> - The task chat shell also renders these comments as large raw text
blocks
> - Operators need a short explanation first and inspectable evidence on
demand
> - This pull request emits structured recovery notices and renders them
as compact humanized rows
> - The benefit is a quieter task thread that keeps the full recovery
evidence available
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related prior extraction source: #11070. This pull request replaces only
its structured recovery notice slice with a focused branch based on
current master.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Paperclip recovery escalations and the experimental task chat
system-comment renderer.
**Current behavior**
Recovery escalation comments put action identifiers, owner details, run
details, and failure codes into the visible markdown body. The task chat
shell renders the complete system comment as a large text block.
**Proposed behavior**
The server emits a short system notice with typed metadata sections. The
task chat shell classifies known recovery families and renders one
compact row. An operator can expand the row to inspect the full body and
metadata.
**Reason and benefit**
The main thread stays readable during repeated recovery activity. Typed
links and evidence remain available without exposing raw failure text in
the default view.
**Breaking changes**
The visible recovery comment body is shorter. Recovery action
deduplication now reads the structured metadata and still recognizes
legacy body markers. No API schema or database migration changes.
## What Changed
- Emit stranded recovery escalations with `system_notice` presentation
and typed recovery, owner, run, and failure-code metadata.
- Share bounded metadata row builders across recovery notice producers
and preserve legacy deduplication compatibility.
- Humanize known recovery notice families and render compact expandable
task-chat rows.
- Route system-authored comments ahead of derived agent authorship so
recovery notices do not appear as agent bubbles.
- Add focused server and UI regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run
src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 32 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` — 57 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts` — 39 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'escalates an
exhausted failed successful-run handoff without using generic
continuation recovery first|escalates an exhausted successful handoff
run that still leaves no disposition'` — 2 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'blocks assigned
todo work after the one automatic dispatch recovery was already used'` —
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/system-notice-humanizer.test.ts
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatSystemNotice.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts` — 15 tests passed.
- Storybook visual baselines were not updated because this chat-shell
path has no affected snapshot baseline. Focused rendering tests and
token gates cover this change.
## Risks
- Consumers that parse recovery action identifiers from comment markdown
must move to structured metadata. Server deduplication remains backward
compatible with legacy comments.
- The humanizer uses stable recovery-family phrases. Unknown notices use
a generic truncated first-sentence fallback.
- The UI changes only the experimental task chat presentation. The
stored comment body and expanded metadata remain available.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, reasoning mode, repository tools, shell
execution, and GitHub integration. The runtime did not expose a
context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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.
> - Developers can run Paperclip from linked Git worktrees.
> - The server development watcher scans paths near the active checkout.
> - A main checkout can contain many complete sibling worktrees under
`.paperclip/worktrees`.
> - Scanning those sibling checkouts can stall the watcher before it
starts the server.
> - This pull request excludes the shared worktree directory from the
development watcher.
> - The benefit is that development startup stays responsive as the
number of worktrees grows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The server development watcher traversed sibling checkouts under
`.paperclip/worktrees`. Large worktree collections could make `pnpm dev`
stall before the watcher started the server process.
**Expected behavior**
The watcher must observe only source paths that can reload the active
checkout. It must ignore sibling worktrees in both a main checkout and a
linked worktree.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create several linked worktrees under `.paperclip/worktrees`.
2. Add normal dependency and build output trees to those worktrees.
3. Run `pnpm dev` from the main checkout or one linked worktree.
4. Observe the watcher scan sibling worktrees before it starts the
server.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with `pnpm dev`.
## What Changed
- Detect whether the active server root is inside the managed
linked-worktree directory.
- Ignore the shared `.paperclip/worktrees` root from both main and
linked checkouts.
- Add regression coverage for the resolved ignore path and its globstar
form.
## Verification
- `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run
server/src/__tests__/dev-watch-ignore.test.ts --reporter=verbose`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects only local development watch exclusions.
- A non-standard checkout that copies the same `.paperclip/worktrees`
directory layout will receive the same exclusion.
> 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, context window not disclosed, with reasoning,
tool use, and 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 (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 that manages AI agents for work
> - Sandbox providers let agents run in remote and isolated environments
> - Daytona session commands need a path that sends agent output to the
host without host polling
> - Host polling adds delay and repeats provider output work
> - This pull request adds typed execute.log notifications and a log
sink for incremental output
> - This pull request adds an optional ACP session stream with
final-result replay protection
> - The benefit is lower output delay while the default flags keep
current behavior unchanged
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. The change spans the plugin SDK, Daytona provider,
adapter utilities, and server execution services.
**Problem or motivation**
The Daytona ACP bridge polls a host output file while an agent command
runs. This adds delay and can repeat work. The host also needs a safe
route for provider output chunks.
**Proposed solution**
Add a typed `execute.log` notification with host-issued invocation
correlation. Add an ordered log sink to the environment execute path.
Add an optional ACP session-log path that parses newline-delimited JSON
frames and removes the host output poll for that path.
**Alternatives considered**
Keep the output-file poll as the only path. This keeps the current
behavior but does not provide timely output. The new path stays behind
flags, so the existing path remains the default fallback.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone in
`ROADMAP.md`, including Daytona support.
## What Changed
- Add the typed `execute.log` worker-to-host notification and
company-scoped host route.
- Add ordered `stdout` and `stderr` chunk delivery before the final
execute result.
- Add the Daytona session log sink and the optional ACP streamed session
path.
- Add monotonic frame handling so live and final output reach the host
once.
- Keep `useLogStream` and `streamAgentSessionOutput` off by default.
- Add unit and integration coverage for the notification, execution
target, runtime, and Daytona paths.
## Verification
- Run adapter-utils tests: 445 tests pass locally.
- Run server environment tests: 73 tests pass locally.
- Run Daytona plugin tests: 131 tests pass locally.
- Run TypeScript checks for shared, adapter-utils, and server.
- Review the pull request checks after GitHub completes them.
- All required GitHub checks pass on the current head.
## Risks
The new paths change output delivery only when a feature flag enables
them. The final execute result remains available for parsing and
fallback. The main risk is a provider stream or frame-order error; the
final-result parser limits that risk.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The runtime did not
supply a context-window value.
## 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
No operator documentation change applies because both new flags remain
disabled by default.
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Apps subsystem connects company tools through governed provider
connections.
> - A company can need more than one account for the same provider.
> - The current database constraint and Apps flow assume one named
connection per company.
> - New quarantined actions also need an explicit review decision before
activation.
> - This pull request supports multiple provider connections and
complete action review decisions.
> - The benefit is safer access control and a clear multi-account Apps
workflow.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #11040
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This change affects the Apps UI, the tool access API, the
shared request contract, and the database schema.
**Problem or motivation**
The connection name constraint prevents a company from keeping more than
one connection for a provider. The Apps UI also reuses an existing OAuth
connection when a user asks to connect another account. Action review
can enable selected entries without recording a decision for every
quarantined action.
**Proposed solution**
Remove the company and connection name uniqueness constraint. Let users
open, count, edit, and create multiple provider connections. Require the
finish request to cover every quarantined action exactly once before the
server activates reviewed entries.
**Alternatives considered**
The UI could generate unique internal names and keep the database
constraint. This would preserve a one-connection assumption in the data
model and would make display names part of identity. The server could
also infer review decisions from enabled actions. This would not
distinguish a reviewed disabled action from an action that the user did
not review.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change extends the completed MCP Tool Gateway and Apps milestone.
It also supports the Connected Apps roadmap item. It follows the
navigation and connection management work in #11040.
## What Changed
- Remove the company-scoped connection name uniqueness index with an
ordered and idempotent migration.
- Add a reviewed action list to the finish-app contract and reject
incomplete or duplicate review decisions.
- Activate reviewed entries and keep unreviewed quarantined entries
blocked.
- Enable a completed connection and preserve the company and connection
scope in all updates.
- Show provider connection counts and open the provider setup page from
Browse.
- Let users edit existing connections or connect another account without
reusing an active OAuth connection.
- Update focused server and UI coverage for multiple connections and
action review.
## Verification
- Ran the focused Apps UI suite. All 116 tests passed in 11 files.
- Ran the focused server and CLI suite. All 276 tests passed in 3 files.
- Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`. The migration
safety check passed.
- Ran `pnpm -r typecheck`. All projects passed.
- Ran `pnpm build`. All projects built successfully.
- Ran `pnpm test:run`. It passed 3,735 tests and skipped 4 tests. One
worktree-safety assertion failed because the execution workspace reloads
its worktree marker. The same test passed with an isolated non-worktree
marker.
- Ran `pnpm check:token-gates`. It reports 12 existing violations in the
unchanged `PaperclipOrbit3D.tsx` file from the target branch.
- Started the six affected Playwright specifications. Chromium could not
start because the host does not provide `libatk-1.0.so.0`. The GitHub
e2e jobs will verify these specifications.
- GitHub Actions passed every final-head CI gate, including all three
e2e shards and the aggregate `e2e` and `verify` jobs.
- Greptile reviewed final commit `9af9200426` at 5/5 with zero review
threads.
## Risks
- Removing the name uniqueness index permits duplicate display names.
Stable connection IDs and UIDs remain unique within a company.
- The finish-app endpoint accepts the new review field as optional for
backward compatibility. When clients send it, the server requires a
complete decision for all quarantined actions.
- Multiple OAuth connections depend on the explicit new-connection route
flag. Focused tests cover active and draft connection reuse.
- The migration is ordered after migration 0210. Its `DROP INDEX IF
EXISTS` statement is safe to repeat.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with the `gpt-5.6-sol` model assisted this change. The
agent used repository tools, code execution, test execution, and agentic
reasoning. The Codex runtime manages the context window.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Apps UI manages app discovery and app connections.
> - The managed worktree runtime starts agent work in repository
worktrees.
> - The Apps routes do not match the main discovery flow, and the
connections view lacks a delete action.
> - Legacy managed worktrees can also start before their pending seed
operation runs.
> - This pull request makes app discovery the main Apps route and makes
connection management explicit.
> - It also seeds legacy managed worktrees before runtime startup and
makes the CLI read the repository-local config.
> - The benefit is a clearer Apps workflow and a safer managed-worktree
startup path.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the Apps navigation, app connection management, managed
git-worktree startup, and CLI worktree selection.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. The change affects `ui/`, `server/`, `cli/`, and
development documentation.
**Current behavior**
The `/apps` route opens the connections list while discovery uses a
nested route. The connections list has no delete action. Some legacy
managed worktrees can start runtime work before their pending seed
operation runs. The CLI can also read an ambient Paperclip config
instead of the repository-local config.
**Proposed behavior**
The `/apps` route opens Browse, and `/apps/connections` opens the
connection list. Users can delete a connection after confirmation.
Runtime startup seeds legacy managed worktrees when required. The CLI
resolves the current worktree from the repository-local
`.paperclip/config.json` file.
**Reason and benefit**
Users can discover apps from the canonical Apps route and can manage
existing connections from a dedicated route. Legacy worktrees receive
their required repository content before agent runtime starts. CLI
worktree selection stays scoped to the current repository.
**Breaking changes**
The `/apps` and `/apps/browse` route behavior changes. Old Browse links
redirect to `/apps`. The change does not modify an API schema or
database schema.
## What Changed
- Make Browse the canonical `/apps` page and move the connection list to
`/apps/connections`.
- Align Apps navigation, redirects, attention links, empty states, and
connection actions with the new routes.
- Add connection deletion with confirmation and clear failure feedback.
- Seed legacy managed git worktrees before runtime startup when their
seed status is pending.
- Read the CLI worktree selection from the repository-local Paperclip
config.
- Update focused UI, server, CLI, and development documentation
coverage.
## Verification
- Ran 202 focused UI, server, and CLI tests. All tests passed.
- Ran `pnpm -r typecheck`. All projects passed.
- Ran `pnpm build`. All projects built successfully.
- Ran `pnpm test:run`. The server and UI stages passed 7,168 tests. The
CLI stage found one environment-sensitive secrets test because this
workspace injects static AWS credentials. The isolated CLI file passed
all 8 tests after those injected variables were unset.
- Ran `pnpm check:token-gates`. It reports 12 existing color-token
violations in the unchanged `PaperclipOrbit3D.tsx` file from the target
branch. This pull request does not modify that file.
- Ran focused regression coverage for repository-root CLI config
resolution and connection deletion state. All tests and affected package
typechecks passed.
- Collected all 27 tests in the six changed Playwright specifications
successfully.
- GitHub Actions passed every latest-head CI gate, including all three
e2e shards and the aggregate `e2e` and `verify` jobs.
- Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved
threads.
## Risks
- Existing bookmarks for `/apps/browse` redirect to `/apps`.
- Connection deletion changes visible connection state and requires user
confirmation.
- The legacy seed path runs only for managed git worktrees with pending
seed state. Tests cover the startup condition.
- The rebase preserves the target branch's direct OAuth policy for the
Notion connection flow.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with the GPT-5 model family assisted this change. The agent
used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution.
The runtime does not expose the exact model snapshot or context-window
size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Each run executes inside a persisted **execution workspace** (a row
in `execution_workspaces`) that is either freshly created or
**restored/reused** across runs of the same issue
> - Before adapter launch, a guard rejects a restored workspace whose
`projectWorkspaceId` is null while the issue resolves a concrete project
workspace (`persisted_workspace_missing_project_workspace_id`) — a
safety check against binding a run to a workspace with no
project-workspace link
> - The reuse/**restore** path updated the existing row (cwd, branch,
status, metadata…) but **never set `projectWorkspaceId`**, so a row
persisted with a null value stayed null on every restore
> - Result: for an issue that resolves a project workspace, the guard
fires, `reuse_existing` re-selects and re-binds the *same* stale null
row on the next attempt, and the run crash-loops forever with no
self-heal
> - This pull request backfills `projectWorkspaceId` during restore
(prefer the existing binding, fall back to the resolved one) so the row
heals on first reuse and the guard stops firing
> - The benefit is that reused workspaces created before their project
had a primary project workspace self-repair on next use instead of
crash-looping, while genuine mismatches are still surfaced by the guard
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists — describing the bug inline per the bug
report template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`):
### What happened?
In `heartbeatService`, the execution-workspace reuse/restore branch
calls
`executionWorkspacesSvc.update(reusableExistingExecutionWorkspace.id, {
… })` without a `projectWorkspaceId` field. Only the sibling CREATE
branch sets `projectWorkspaceId`. So an execution workspace that was
persisted with a null `projectWorkspaceId` (e.g. created before its
project had a primary project workspace) is never backfilled on restore.
When such a workspace is later reused for a run whose issue resolves a
concrete project workspace, the pre-launch guard throws
`persisted_workspace_missing_project_workspace_id`, the run fails, and
`reuse_existing` re-binds the identical stale row on the next attempt —
an unbounded crash-loop with no self-heal.
### Expected behavior
On restore, the reused workspace's `projectWorkspaceId` is backfilled
from the resolved project workspace when it is currently null, so the
guard passes and the run launches. An existing non-null binding is never
overwritten (a genuine mismatch is still surfaced by the separate
`project_workspace_mismatch` guard).
### Steps to reproduce
1. Have an `execution_workspaces` row with `project_workspace_id = NULL`
that is eligible for reuse.
2. Give its project a primary project workspace (so the issue now
resolves a concrete `projectWorkspaceId`).
3. Dispatch a run for an issue in that project that reuses the
workspace. The restore `update()` leaves `project_workspace_id` null,
the launch guard throws
`persisted_workspace_missing_project_workspace_id`, and every subsequent
reuse re-binds the same null row and fails identically.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` (branched from `14f20be92`); reproduced on a live self-hosted
instance.
### Deployment mode
Self-hosted, embedded Postgres, local adapters.
## What Changed
- New exported pure helper
`reconcileReusedExecutionWorkspaceProjectWorkspaceId(existing,
resolved)` in `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`, returning `existing ??
resolved ?? null`. It prefers an existing binding (never nulls out a
good value or silently rebinds a genuine mismatch — the guard still
surfaces those), backfills a null binding from the resolved value, and
stays null when neither is present.
- Wire the helper into the reuse/restore
`executionWorkspacesSvc.update(...)` call so the restored row's
`projectWorkspaceId` is set to
`reconcileReusedExecutionWorkspaceProjectWorkspaceId(reusableExistingExecutionWorkspace.projectWorkspaceId,
resolvedProjectWorkspaceId)`. The CREATE branch already set
`projectWorkspaceId`; this brings the restore branch to parity.
## Verification
- Added 3-case unit coverage in
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` for the
helper: (a) backfills a null existing binding from the resolved value,
(b) never overwrites an existing binding even when a resolved value is
present, (c) returns null when both existing and resolved are absent
(null and undefined inputs).
- Confirmed the `update()` patch type accepts the field:
`executionWorkspacesSvc.update` takes `Partial<typeof
executionWorkspaces.$inferInsert>`, and `projectWorkspaceId` is a column
on that table; both
`reusableExistingExecutionWorkspace.projectWorkspaceId` and
`resolvedProjectWorkspaceId` are `string | null`, matching the helper's
`string | null | undefined` params / `string | null` return.
- Live-instance exposure check (embedded Postgres): 354
`execution_workspaces` rows carry a null `project_workspace_id`; all of
them belong to projects with **no** project workspace, so
`expectedProjectWorkspaceId` currently resolves null and the guard does
not fire today. The fix is durable heal-on-reuse protection for the
moment any such project gains a primary project workspace (or a null row
is reused for an issue that resolves one).
- CI (full pnpm workspace install) runs the authoritative test +
typecheck for this change on this PR.
## Risks
- Low risk; scoped to the execution-workspace restore path, no schema or
API change.
- The helper only ever *adds* a `projectWorkspaceId` where the row had
none; it never overwrites an existing binding, so it cannot mask a real
`project_workspace_mismatch` (that guard still runs after).
- Complementary to (not overlapping with) #10130, which escalates a
terminal `workspace_validation_failed` run to `blocked` from the
recovery side; this PR prevents the guard from firing on reuse in the
first place. Neither depends on the other.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use /
code execution (repo edit, embedded-Postgres exposure query, unit-logic
verification).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above (searched open PRs touching heartbeat / execution-workspace /
reuse; only #10130 is related, and it is complementary)
- [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
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no
user-facing docs affected)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (in progress)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task list and the chat views show a Live badge and a Working
shimmer for an issue that has an active run.
> - A finished task kept the Live badge and the Working shimmer after
the run ended and the sandbox stopped.
> - The user interface reads run liveness from the
`heartbeat_runs.status` row. The run finalizer writes the terminal
status in a step that is separate from the agent `status=done` update.
When the sandbox or the run process stops between the two steps,
`heartbeat_runs.status` stays `running` forever.
> - A run row that stays `running` makes a finished task look
perpetually Live, and the user interface has no guard for an issue that
already reached a terminal status.
> - This pull request closes the invariant "environment lease released
implies the run is terminal" on the server, and adds a user interface
guard that suppresses live state for a terminal issue.
> - The benefit is that a finished task stops showing Live and Working,
both at the source (the run row) and at the surface (the badge and the
shimmer).
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Bug description**
- A completed task kept the Live badge and the Working shimmer after its
run ended and the sandbox was torn down.
**Steps to reproduce**
- Run an agent task to completion. Let the sandbox tear down while the
run finalizer is between the `status=done` update and the terminal
run-status write.
- Open the task list or the chat view for the finished task.
**Expected behavior**
- A finished task shows no Live badge and no Working shimmer.
**Actual behavior (before this change)**
- The finished task showed the Live badge and the Working shimmer
because its `heartbeat_runs.status` row stayed `running`.
This pull request supersedes the two separate pull requests #10954
(frontend) and #10955 (backend). It carries all of their changes for the
same race.
## What Changed
Server:
- Run teardown terminalizes a still-running or still-queued run before
it releases the environment lease. It writes `succeeded` when the issue
already reached `done`, `cancelled` when the issue is `cancelled`, and
`interrupted` otherwise. It never overwrites a status that another path
already made terminal.
- The recovery stale-lock sweep terminalizes an orphaned running run to
`interrupted` after it confirms the process and the sandbox are both
gone. It requires recorded process metadata, so it never terminalizes a
live run, a queued run, or a scheduled retry.
- Each terminal transition writes a run event.
- The stale-lock sweep continues and clears the lock when the audit
write fails. It logs the failure loudly.
- New server tests cover both invariants.
User interface:
- A shared guard suppresses the Live badge and the Working shimmer when
the issue status is terminal.
- The guard keeps non-terminal `queued` and `running` issues live.
- The guard prefers the newest issue live-status snapshot.
- New user interface tests cover the guard and the snapshot preference.
## Verification
Server:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps && tsc
--noEmit` in `server/` — 0 errors.
- `pnpm --filter server test
heartbeat-run-lease-release-terminalization.test.ts
recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts` — 12 tests pass.
User interface:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — 0 errors.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/liveIssueIds.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 40 tests pass.
## Risks
- Low risk. The server change only forces a still-live run row to a
terminal status when the lease releases or when the recovery sweep
confirms the process is dead. It never overwrites an existing terminal
status, and it guards the recovery path with process metadata to avoid
terminalizing a live run.
- The user interface change is additive. The guard only suppresses live
state for a terminal issue and keeps queued and running issues live.
- No database migration. No change to any external endpoint.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use, and
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 (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The CLI and server both update Paperclip values in `.env` files
> - The server preserved operator content, but the CLI rebuilt the
complete file
> - A CLI rerun could remove comments, custom values, ordering, and
newline style
> - Both paths need one editor with one value encoding and duplicate key
policy
> - The final integration also needs one regression test across the
related setup and sync safety mechanisms
> - This pull request moves the editor to the shared package and adds
cross-cutting rerun-survival coverage
> - The benefit is safe setup and worktree repair reruns that preserve
operator edits
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The CLI rebuilt the complete `.env` file when it wrote a managed
Paperclip value. This action removed comments, blank lines, custom keys,
original quoting, and the original newline style.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must update only the managed assignments. It must preserve all
unrelated bytes. It must skip the file replacement when all managed
values are current.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Add comments, custom keys, quoted values, and CRLF newlines to the
Paperclip `.env` file.
2. Run a CLI path that calls the agent JWT secret setup.
3. Observe that the old writer replaces the complete file.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem exists on `master` before this pull request.
Related public context: Refs #437.
## What Changed
- Add one shared line-preserving `.env` editor for the CLI and server.
- Define minimal and JSON value encodings in the shared helper.
- Update every stale duplicate of a managed key and preserve current
duplicate encodings.
- Preserve comments, ordering, blank lines, unknown keys, export
prefixes, trailing comments, and newline style.
- Write changed files through a same-directory temporary file and atomic
rename.
- Limit CLI updates to non-empty `PAPERCLIP_*` entries.
- Skip the write when all managed values are current.
- Add shared, CLI, and server regression coverage.
- Refresh the branch after the related config, sandbox, and skill safety
changes landed.
- Add a cross-cutting integration test for config, env-file,
managed-sandbox, and managed-instructions rerun survival.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/env-file.test.ts
packages/shared/src/config-schema.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/agent-jwt-env.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/config-store.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/config-file.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` passes 39 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/rerun-survival.integration.test.ts` passes 4 tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes on the previous head. GitHub CI reruns it
on the refreshed head.
- The previous head passed the complete general, serialized, workspace,
and E2E matrix. GitHub CI reruns that matrix on the refreshed head.
- `pnpm build` passes on the previous head. GitHub CI reruns it on the
refreshed head.
## Risks
- Low risk. The production change only affects managed `.env`
assignments.
- Existing managed assignments can keep their original quoting when
their decoded values are current.
- Changed CLI values keep the prior minimal encoding policy. Changed
server values keep the prior JSON encoding policy.
- Duplicate managed assignments now follow one explicit rule: Paperclip
updates each stale occurrence.
- The master refresh had one import-block conflict. The resolution keeps
both the config merge imports and the env-file imports.
- The added integration file is test-only. It has no database, API, or
UI contract effect.
> 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 from the GPT-5 family produced this change with reasoning,
tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model
ID or context window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents can select company skills and synchronize them to adapter
runtimes
> - The skill sync API replaced the complete selection without an
explicit destructive choice
> - Company package import also replaced conflicting skills by default
> - These defaults could remove operator edits during setup and import
reruns
> - This pull request adds explicit assignment merge modes and safe
package conflict handling
> - The benefit is that reruns preserve operator work unless the caller
explicitly requests replacement
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This change improves agent skill synchronization and company package
import.
**Subsystem affected**
This is a cross-cutting change across the shared contracts, server, CLI,
and UI.
**Current behavior**
Agent skill synchronization replaces the full desired skill set from a
modeless request. Package import replaces a conflicting skill when the
caller does not select a conflict mode.
**Proposed behavior**
Agent skill synchronization requires `add`, `remove`, or `replace`.
Package import skips conflicts by default. Each imported skill reports
whether it was created, renamed, replaced, or skipped.
**Reason and benefit**
Setup and import reruns must preserve operator edits by default.
Explicit destructive modes make data loss less likely and make each
outcome inspectable.
**Breaking changes**
Callers of the agent skill sync API must now send `mode`. Callers that
need the former behavior must send `replace`. Package import now uses
`skip` when `onConflict` is absent.
## What Changed
- Added required `add`, `remove`, and `replace` modes to the shared
agent skill sync contract.
- Added actionable `422` validation for missing or invalid modes.
- Updated first-party UI and CLI callers with explicit modes.
- Changed package skill conflict handling to use `skip` by default.
- Kept plugin-owned and built-in stock skill imports on explicit
`replace`.
- Added created, renamed, replaced, and skipped results to company
imports.
- Added regression coverage for merge modes and package conflict
outcomes.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:run:serialized` (128 suites passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` (20 tests passed)
- Focused agent skill route, company skill service, portability, CLI,
and UI tests passed.
- GitHub CI passed build, typecheck, canary, all general and serialized
test shards, all browser shards, policy, security, and final
verification on commit `2cfbb3e4c5`.
- Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved
threads.
## Risks
- This change intentionally rejects modeless agent skill sync requests.
- The safe package default can leave an existing skill unchanged where
the old default overwrote it.
- All first-party callers now select a mode. Regression tests cover each
outcome.
> 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-5.6-sol` through Codex. The runtime used agentic
reasoning, tool use, code execution, and repository editing. The runtime
did not expose the context window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip creates a managed sandbox environment for each company
during boot
> - Operators can change environment fields after Paperclip creates the
environment
> - The boot reconciler replaced those changes without checking for
drift
> - This pull request adds stock hashes and transactional drift
reconciliation
> - The benefit is that Paperclip can update untouched stock fields
without losing operator work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The managed sandbox boot reconciler rewrote the stock description,
configuration, metadata, and status on every start. It did not detect
operator changes first. A restart could therefore remove an operator's
changes.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must preserve operator changes by default. It must update an
untouched stock environment when Paperclip ships new stock values. It
must perform each row update and stock-hash update atomically.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start Paperclip and let it create the managed sandbox environment.
2. Change one Paperclip-owned stock field on that environment.
3. Restart Paperclip.
4. Observe that the previous reconciler replaced the change.
**Paperclip version or commit**
This bug reproduces on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development and self-hosted server boot are affected.
## What Changed
- Add a shared deterministic stock-hash and drift classifier for
built-in resources.
- Track the managed sandbox stock hash with the company-scoped built-in
resource binding.
- Reconcile the environment and its stock metadata in one transaction
with a row lock.
- Preserve operator-modified and unmanaged rows and report their skipped
update state.
- Use archive ownership tokens so provider recovery reactivates only
Paperclip-archived rows and preserves later operator archive decisions.
- Keep operator-owned environment variables and unrelated metadata out
of the stock fingerprint.
- Add activity records for managed environment creation, updates,
skipped drift, tracking initialization, and archive changes.
- Add regression tests for current stock, available stock updates,
operator drift, unmanaged rows, archive and reactivation, user-owned
fields, and concurrent reconciliation.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run --
--mode serialized` (128 suites passed)
- Repository general server, UI, CLI, shared, skills catalog, database,
adapter, plugin SDK, and plugin creator projects passed. Two
embedded-Postgres tests exceeded the host's five-second default under
the aggregate run and passed in the complete database project with
`--testTimeout=20000`. One timing-sensitive sandbox stream test passed
on its focused retry.
- Focused managed-environment unit and integration coverage passed: 49
tests across the drift classifier, boot report, and environment service
suites.
## Risks
- The main risk is an incorrect ownership boundary in the stock
fingerprint. The fingerprint includes only Paperclip-owned stock fields.
Tests confirm that environment variables and unrelated metadata survive
reconciliation.
- Concurrent reconciliation could otherwise overwrite a late operator
edit. The implementation locks the environment row and updates the row
and hash binding in one transaction. A concurrency test covers this
path.
- There is no schema migration. Existing managed rows initialize
tracking without replacing their current values.
> 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. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size
were not exposed. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The CLI and server share a JSON configuration contract for local
installations and worktrees.
> - Existing config writes removed extension keys because Zod stripped
unknown object properties.
> - Invalid config files could also be replaced with defaults before an
operator preserved the original bytes.
> - Configuration updates must preserve operator edits and must not
rewrite files when the effective value is unchanged.
> - This pull request adds extension-preserving merges, guarded
invalid-config repair, atomic writes, and focused regression tests.
> - The benefit is safe setup and configuration reruns without data loss
or unnecessary mtime changes.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Known-field updates through the CLI or server removed unknown top-level
and nested config keys. Non-interactive configure and onboard paths
could replace a present but invalid config with defaults.
**Expected behavior**
Writers preserve extension keys, skip semantic no-op writes, and require
explicit interactive confirmation before an invalid config is replaced.
Repair preserves an exact collision-safe backup first.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Add an unknown top-level key and an unknown nested provider key to
`config.json`.
2. Update a known field through the CLI or worktree config writer.
3. Observe that the extension keys are removed on the base branch.
4. Write invalid JSON and run configure or onboard without an
interactive terminal.
5. Observe that the original file can be replaced without a durable
invalid-file backup on the base branch.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at the pull request base commit.
## What Changed
- Accept unknown properties at each extensible config object boundary
while keeping every known field validated.
- Merge known-field updates into the parsed source config and preserve
only unknown extension data.
- Warn about near-match key names without deleting or changing them.
- Skip writes when the effective config is unchanged, which keeps file
mtimes stable.
- Write config changes through a temporary file, file sync, rename, and
directory sync.
- Distinguish a missing config from an invalid config in configure and
onboard.
- Back up invalid bytes as `config.json.invalid-N` and verify the source
still matches that backup before repair.
- Require interactive repair confirmation and reject non-interactive
replacement with an actionable message.
- Document the config preservation and repair behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/config-schema.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/config-store.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/configure-repair.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/configure.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/config-file.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= VITEST_MAX_WORKERS=1 pnpm
test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- Confirm all pull request checks are green on the latest commit.
- Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved comments.
## Risks
- Passthrough keeps misspelled keys. Near-match warnings make this
visible without destructive cleanup.
- Merge behavior must distinguish unknown extension keys from optional
known keys. Schema-aware regression tests cover preservation and
known-key deletion.
- Repair must not overwrite bytes that changed after backup. The writer
compares the current source with the selected backup before atomic
replacement.
- The change does not alter database schema, company scoping, or
activity logging.
> 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 model family. The exact deployment model ID and
context window are not exposed. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip uses adapter and sandbox code to start agents and run
sandbox work
> - The current sandbox spans use mixed names and do not group related
run-time work
> - Mixed names make traces harder to read and compare across providers
> - This pull request renames provider spans, adds run-time wrapper
spans, and keeps the host allowlist closed
> - The benefit is clearer traces with the same sandbox behavior and
trust boundary
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves OpenTelemetry span names and grouping for sandbox startup,
execution, callback relay, and agent session work.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above): adapter utilities, sandbox
providers, shared telemetry documentation, and server instrumentation.
**Current behavior**
Sandbox provider spans use mixed names. Related run-time operations
expose inner `sandbox.exec` spans without a named wrapper span. The host
mapper uses a closed allowlist for provider span names.
**Proposed behavior**
Use descriptive provider-scoped span names. Add wrapper spans for agent
session input, agent session output polling, and callback relay. Keep
the host mapper allowlist closed and map unknown names to `other`.
**Reason and benefit**
Clear names make traces easier to read and reduce ambiguity during
sandbox operation analysis. Wrapper spans show the full operation while
preserving the inner execution spans.
**Breaking changes**
None. This change updates telemetry span names and grouping only. It
does not change sandbox behavior, endpoint behavior, or the host trust
boundary.
**Additional context**
Related prior work:
[#10758](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10758).
## What Changed
- Rename Daytona provider sync and session spans with descriptive
provider-scoped names.
- Add three run-time wrapper spans for agent session input, output
polling, and callback relay.
- Add a shared span runner that preserves no-op behavior without a real
tracer.
- Keep the host mapper allowlist closed and map unknown names to
`other`.
- Update telemetry documentation and span-name tests.
## Verification
- Focused adapter-utils span tests pass for startup timing, callback
relay, and sandbox execution.
- Focused Daytona plugin span tests pass for renamed leaf spans and
session open or close spans.
- Focused server tests pass for host mapping and instrumentation.
- The stacked diff contains one commit on top of
`feat/daytona-persistent-session-model`.
## Risks
- Span names change for existing telemetry consumers.
- The wrapper spans add trace structure but do not change sandbox
execution.
- The host mapper keeps the existing closed allowlist and `other`
bucket.
> 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 agent); exact deployment revision and context window
are not exposed in this run; tool use and code execution enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [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] 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.
> - Apps give agents governed access to external tools.
> - The Apps gallery lists Notion, but the server required manually
configured OAuth credentials.
> - Notion's hosted MCP server supports OAuth discovery and dynamic
client registration.
> - Notion also requires HTTPS or a loopback HTTP redirect URI.
> - This pull request adds a direct Notion MCP OAuth path with PKCE and
reusable dynamic clients.
> - It also adds the current Apps UI states for connect and
reauthorization.
> - The benefit is a secure Notion connection with no manual client
credential setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The Apps gallery, Apps connect route, OAuth token lifecycle, and managed
MCP gateway.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/`, `packages/shared/`, `scripts/`, and `ui/`.
**Current behavior**
The Notion gallery cards are disabled. The server uses the classic
Notion OAuth endpoints and requires operator-supplied client
credentials. It does not register an OAuth client from provider
metadata. Concurrent refreshes can also replay a rotating refresh token.
**Proposed behavior**
Enable the Notion Apps flow. Discover OAuth metadata from
`https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. Register and reuse a public RFC 7591
client with PKCE. Require HTTPS or loopback HTTP callbacks. Serialize
refreshes, store each rotated refresh token before the new access token
can be used, and show a reconnect state for `invalid_grant`.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can connect the built-in Notion MCP app without creating or
copying OAuth credentials. Paperclip keeps dynamic clients and rotating
tokens in the company secret store.
**Breaking changes**
None. Explicit environment client credentials still take priority.
Existing Slack and Linear OAuth endpoint hints remain unchanged. Other
OAuth apps remain disabled unless they are allowlisted.
**Additional context**
PR #10910 is a related, broader Connections v3 wizard replacement. This
PR is the focused current Apps flow. The MCP Tool Gateway and Connected
Apps items in `ROADMAP.md` cover this planned capability.
## What Changed
- Classify all 20 reviewed Notion MCP tools with provider-scoped read
and write defaults.
- Require approval for selected Notion mutations, including move,
duplicate, and convert actions that generic verb matching missed.
- Preserve company-scoped connection and catalog resolution for Notion
profiles and policies.
- Add RFC 7591 dynamic client registration with
`token_endpoint_auth_method=none` and mandatory PKCE.
- Store the dynamic client ID on the connection and store any returned
client secret in the company secret store.
- Reuse the registered client for later connects and keep explicit
environment credentials as the first choice.
- Discover protected-resource and authorization-server metadata from the
Notion MCP endpoint.
- Add `redirectConstraints: "https-or-loopback-http"` to the generated
Notion app definition and shared contract.
- Reject non-loopback plain HTTP callbacks before network access with a
TLS setup error.
- Serialize client registration and token refresh operations within the
server process.
- Store a rotated refresh token before publishing the refreshed access
token.
- Treat `invalid_grant` as terminal and move the connection to a clear
reauthorization state.
- Add focused coverage for registration reuse, callback constraints,
refresh rotation, and terminal grants.
- Enable the Notion Apps route and add connect, redirect, success,
error, and reconnect UI states.
- Keep non-allowlisted OAuth apps blocked and cover the UI policy with
regression tests.
## Verification
- The focused Notion policy integration test passed with embedded
PostgreSQL.
- The focused 20-tool classification test passed.
- The server typecheck passed on the governance head.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the rebased head.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the
security follow-up.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
-t \u0027DCR|refresh tokens|invalid_grant|abandoned lease\u0027` passed
10 focused security tests.
- `pnpm build` passed on the rebased head.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
-t 'OAuth|oauth'` passed 14 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts`
passed 5 tests.
- The complete server group passed 3,686 tests with 4 skipped.
- The complete UI group passed 3,656 tests.
- The full local runner found one environment-only CLI failure because
this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials into a test that
expects `AWS_PROFILE` only. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u
AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests.
- The prior UI verification passed 55 focused tests, `pnpm
check:token-gates`, the Storybook build, and review of six 1440 x 1000
screenshots.
- OAuth request sequence: protected-resource metadata `GET
https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp`;
authorization metadata `GET
https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`; dynamic
registration `POST https://mcp.notion.com/register`; authorization `GET
https://mcp.notion.com/authorize`; token exchange and refresh `POST
https://mcp.notion.com/token`; MCP traffic `POST
https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`.
- The live metadata and registration probe confirmed that Notion accepts
HTTPS and loopback HTTP redirects. It rejects a plain HTTP private
hostname.
- A later QA task owns the full browser consent and managed gateway
tool-list dry run against a configured HTTPS deployment.
## Risks
- Notion can add tools. Unrecognized names use the generic classifier,
and new or changed risky tools stay quarantined after connection
activation.
- A deployment that uses a private non-loopback hostname must configure
HTTPS before it can connect Notion.
- Dynamic registration creates a provider-side client. Paperclip reuses
it because registration does not provide a standard delete operation.
- Refresh coordination uses a database CAS lease across service
instances. An unclean crash leaves an uncertain lease and requires
reconnect instead of risking refresh-token replay.
- The current Apps surface overlaps with PR #10910. Merge order can
require a small conflict resolution if that PR lands first.
> 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 on a GPT-5 runtime. The exact deployment ID and context
window are not exposed. The runtime used reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and network tools.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies
> - One core subsystem runs agent work inside sandboxes
> - The Daytona provider uses that path to run user commands
> - The current one-shot model does not keep a shell alive across
commands
> - This pull request adds an opt-in persistent session model for
Daytona
> - The benefit is faster command dispatch with the same sandbox
boundaries
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting. This change touches `packages/adapters`, provider tests,
span names, and sandbox command behavior.
### Problem or motivation
The Daytona provider needs a persistent shell for repeated command
dispatch.
The old advisory wrapper path does not reach that goal.
It also adds cost and removes the session speed gain.
### Proposed solution
Add a `useSessions` driver flag.
Keep it off by default.
Open one Daytona session per lease when the flag is on.
Send each user command into that session.
Read stdout and stderr from the session logs endpoint.
Run each command in a subshell so `exit` does not stop the shell.
Remove the advisory `bwrap` wrapper path and its lease metadata.
Add session setup and teardown spans.
Keep a hard delete on teardown.
### Alternatives considered
Keep the advisory `bwrap` wrapper.
That path does not give a real persistent session.
It also keeps extra command overhead.
Keep a one-shot fallback for user commands.
That would weaken the session model and hide a missing session case.
### Roadmap alignment
This work fits the `Cloud / Sandbox agents` milestone in `ROADMAP.md`.
It also supports the control plane goal of safe remote sandbox
execution.
### Additional context
The handoff verification reported `tsc --noEmit` clean and 119 Daytona
unit tests passing.
The handoff also reported a clean host span allowlist test and five
expected commits on the branch.
The security review gate remains required before merge.
## What Changed
- Added an opt-in persistent session model for the Daytona sandbox
provider.
- Routed user commands through `executeSessionCommand` when sessions are
enabled.
- Removed the advisory `bwrap` command wrapper path and the lease
metadata it used.
- Added session lifecycle spans and span allowlist coverage.
- Documented the leak bound in `DIRECTORY-CONSTRAINT-FINDINGS.md`.
## Verification
- `tsc --noEmit` clean for the Daytona plugin, per handoff verification.
- Daytona unit suite passes, with 119 tests, per handoff verification.
- Host span allowlist test passes, per handoff verification.
## Risks
- Persistent sessions can leak if teardown fails.
- Session logs must keep stdout and stderr separate.
- The flag stays off by default to limit rollout risk.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5, Codex, tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- ASD-STE100 -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server keeps fleet health with periodic sweeps and shows a
dashboard with run activity
> - The Paperclip instance became slow again after the first round of
recovery-sweep indexes landed
> - Live profiling found four steady-state hot paths that read much more
data than they use
> - This pull request bounds the dashboard recursion, adds the missing
taskKey index, and narrows two wide reads
> - The benefit is a large drop in constant database load and a
responsive server
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Describe the bug**
The server becomes slow while agents work. Live query sampling shows
four hot paths:
1. The dashboard run-activity recursive CTE reads every run a company
ever had on each call. One call takes 2.85 seconds. The UI calls it
after almost every fleet event through the dashboard and sidebar-badges
routes.
2. The productivity-review sweep runs each 30 seconds. Its run-scope
filter is `issueId OR taskId OR taskKey` on the run context JSONB. No
index exists for `taskKey`. The planner must detoast every run snapshot
for the agent. One query takes 444 ms and the sweep makes one for each
of ~152 candidate issues.
3. The attention failed-run section selects the full `context_snapshot`
for every run newer than the oldest exhausted run. That fetch moves 29
MB for each feed build.
4. The retention sweep pages the attention feed with a cursor. Each page
makes a full feed rebuild.
**Expected behavior**
Periodic sweeps and dashboard queries read only the data they use, and
use indexes.
**Actual behavior**
The database stays saturated. Users see a slow server.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/dashboard.ts`: bound both arms of the
`recovered_runs` recursive CTE to the chart window. A retry is always
newer than the run it retries, so the bound cannot change visible chart
data. Live time went from 2,852 ms to 54 ms.
- `packages/db/src/migrations/0210_heartbeat_context_taskkey_index.sql`:
add the `taskKey` expression index that completes the
issueId/taskId/taskKey trio. With all three, the planner uses a
BitmapOr. Live time for the productivity run-scope query went from 444
ms to 1.9 ms.
- `packages/db/src/schema/heartbeat_runs.ts`: mirror the new index in
the Drizzle schema.
- `server/src/services/productivity-review.ts`: select only the seven
run fields the evidence code reads. Before, the query pulled full rows
with `result_json` (up to 43 kB per row, 100 rows per issue).
- `server/src/services/attention.ts`: project `issueId`/`taskId` text
fields instead of the full `context_snapshot` in the failed-run
newer-runs query (29 MB per feed build before).
- `server/src/index.ts`: the retention sweep now builds the attention
feed once per company with `all: true` instead of one full rebuild per
cursor page.
- `packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`:
cover the new index and re-run migration 0210 statements to prove
idempotency.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` (includes migration
numbering and safety checks) — pass.
- `npx tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — pass.
- `npx vitest run
packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` —
pass (embedded Postgres, full migration chain, planner assertions,
idempotent re-run of 0209 and 0210).
- `npx vitest run` on attention, dashboard, productivity-review,
decision-retention, issue-blocker-attention, and issue-review-attention
test files — 72/72 pass.
- Live EXPLAIN ANALYZE before/after numbers are in the What Changed
list.
## Risks
- Migration 0210 builds one btree index without CONCURRENTLY inside the
transactional migration runner. The table is not in the large-table
bucket. The 0209 twin built in seconds on a 100k-row live table.
- The CTE bound excludes retry ancestors that are older than the chart
window. Those rows are not visible to the chart query, so chart output
does not change.
- The attention projection changes JSONB scalar handling in one edge
case: a non-string `issueId`/`taskId` value now casts to text instead of
reading as absent. These keys are always strings in practice.
- The retention sweep now holds one full feed in memory per company. The
cursor loop already accumulated all pages into one array, so peak memory
is unchanged.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, Mythos-class tier, extended
thinking + tool use) via Paperclip agent runtime.
- [x] I searched existing PRs and issues and this change is not a
duplicate.
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 task chat thread renders issue comments, system notices, and run
transcripts
> - The server routes comment payloads through the run-secret redaction
walker before it sends them
> - The walker rebuilds each object with `Object.entries`, and this
collapses `Date` instances to `{}`
> - The chat renderer then calls `.toISOString()` on an invalid date and
throws, and the thread falls back to the error banner
> - This pull request keeps `Date` instances intact in redacted
responses and makes the renderer safe against bad timestamps
> - The benefit is that task threads with system notices render
correctly again
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
Task threads that contain a system notice showed the banner "Chat
renderer hit an internal state error." in place of the conversation.
This occurred on many tasks.
**Expected behavior**
The thread renders all comments and system notices with correct
timestamps.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task that has at least one system notice comment (for example
a "Workspace ready" notice).
2. `GET /api/issues/{id}/comments` returns `createdAt: {}` for every
comment because the secret-redaction walker collapses `Date` objects.
3. The system-notice row calls `new Date({}).toISOString()`. This throws
`RangeError: Invalid time value` and trips the thread error boundary.
**Version / deployment**
Regression from #9934 (`e43f187ca`). It applies to all deployments that
include that commit.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/run-secret-redaction.ts`:
`redactRegisteredSecretValues` now returns `Date` instances as-is. Dates
hold no redactable text, and the `Object.entries` rebuild turned them
into `{}`.
- `ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`: the system-notice row formats
its timestamp with a new `toValidIsoString` helper. A value that does
not parse as a date now degrades to "no timestamp" instead of a render
crash.
- Regression tests at three layers:
- Walker unit tests: `Date` values survive with and without registered
secret values.
- Route test: `GET /issues/:id/comments` serializes `createdAt` /
`updatedAt` as ISO strings.
- Render test: a system notice with a malformed `createdAt` renders
without the error boundary.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run --root server
src/__tests__/run-secret-redaction.test.ts` — 5 passed.
- `npx vitest run --root server
src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts` — 4 passed (embedded
Postgres route test).
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx
src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 121 passed.
- Each new test was run against the unfixed code and failed there, which
confirms it guards the regression.
- A local sweep rendered 47 real issue threads through
`IssueChatThread`: 7 tripped the boundary before the fix, 0 after.
## Risks
- Low risk. The server change only preserves `Date` objects that the
walker destroyed before. String redaction behavior does not change, and
the registry-key stripping does not change.
- The UI change only affects the timestamp of system-notice rows and
omits it when the value is invalid.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. Agentic coding session
with tool use (file edits, shell, Vitest). No extended-context or
special reasoning mode.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issue reviews use thread confirmations to record explicit verdicts
> - The server allowed users to resolve review confirmations but
rejected all agent actors
> - This one-way rule prevented an eligible agent reviewer from
completing a review
> - The existing review policy already defines which actor can submit a
verdict
> - This pull request applies that policy to agent confirmation verdicts
on writable issues
> - The benefit is a consistent review gate for users and agents with
preserved audit attribution
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Builds on: #10931 (merged into master before this PR)
- Refs #8617
## What Changed
- Allow eligible agents to accept or reject pending review confirmations
on issues they can write.
- Allow a creator agent to withdraw its own pending review confirmation
when the review policy permits it.
- Reuse the review verdict policy check for users and agents.
- Require an explicit, same-run review-confirmation binding so unrelated
board-only confirmations stay protected.
- Preserve board-only tool action confirmations and existing user
attribution.
- Add route and service tests for agent accept, reject, withdrawal,
human-only denial, and user attribution.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts` (256
passed after rebasing onto master and the atomic binding fix)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- The change expands who can resolve pending review confirmations. The
existing issue write checks and review policy limit this access.
- Tool action confirmations remain board-only.
- The pull request depends on the review policy helper from #10931,
which is now merged into master.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
The roadmap marks Agent Reviews and Approvals as shipped. This pull
request fixes a narrow server behavior gap in that shipped capability.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and code
execution. The runtime does not expose the context window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an
authorized writer
> - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own
review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule
> - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not
represent the configured execution-stage rules
> - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints
for teams that require an independent or human verdict
> - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds
`anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies
> - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated
verdict controls
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671.
The related public work covers execution-stage independence,
self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change
is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It
keeps configured execution stages active.
## What Changed
- Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same
meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues.
- Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for
`anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for
`in_review` issues.
- Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and
pending interaction accept or reject actions.
- Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and
run tokens remain agent principals.
- Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester
for `not_creator`.
- Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed
actor, and the next step.
- Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior.
- Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and
execution-stage regression tests.
- Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts
--reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin
SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed.
- SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks
and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes.
- Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or
follow-ups.
- The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck,
server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external
security checks.
## Risks
- The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no
backfill.
- `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`.
It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester.
- Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write
access. This is intentional for this issue-level control.
- Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path.
- Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level
policy check.
> This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and
"Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap
capability.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and GitHub CLI access.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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
> - Agents ask humans for decisions through interaction blocks: plan
confirmations, structured questions, suggested tasks, and checkbox
prompts
> - Each agent writes these decision prompts in its own style, so
operators can get long or unclear text at the exact moment they must
decide
> - There is no instance-level control that makes agents use a
controlled language for these decision points only
> - This pull request adds an experimental setting that tells agents to
write all user-interaction content in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical
English, with the context the user needs and the effect of each choice
> - The benefit is faster, clearer human decisions, with agent thinking
and normal responses unchanged
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10410 (optional `/simplified-english` skill in the skills catalog;
this PR adds the instance-level toggle for interactions).
**Problem or motivation**
Agent-posted user interactions (plan confirmations, structured
questions, suggested-task proposals, checkbox prompts) are written in
each agent's default style. Operators who want fast, unambiguous
decisions have no way to ask agents to use a controlled language for
exactly those decision points.
**Proposed solution**
Add an experimental instance setting,
`enableSimplifiedEnglishInteractions` ("Simplified English
Interactions"). When it is on, the server sets
`simplifiedEnglishInteractions: true` in the heartbeat wake payload. The
shared wake-prompt renderer, used by every adapter, then emits a
directive: write all user-interaction content in ASD-STE100 Simplified
Technical English, state what information the user needs to decide, and
state what happens for each choice. The directive applies to interaction
content only. Thinking, comments, documents, and other responses keep
their usual style.
**Alternatives considered**
Per-agent instructions work today, but someone must maintain them on
every agent. An instance-level toggle applies uniformly and turns off in
one place. Server-side rewriting of interaction payloads was rejected:
post-hoc translation is lossy and cannot add the decision context that
only the agent has.
**Roadmap alignment**
Extends the experimental settings surface with another opt-in
agent-behavior refinement, consistent with existing prompt-side flags.
## What Changed
- Added `enableSimplifiedEnglishInteractions` to the experimental
instance-settings zod schema, mirror type, and feature catalog (default
off, tier preference) in `packages/shared`.
- Server `instance-settings.ts` normalizes the flag on both read
branches; `heartbeat.ts` reads it once and passes
`simplifiedEnglishInteractions` into `buildPaperclipWakePayload`.
- Shared adapter renderer
(`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`): added the field to
`PaperclipWakePayload`, normalization, and an `- interaction language
(experimental): ...` directive emitted in both fresh and resume prompt
lanes, so one injection point covers all adapters.
- UI: new experimental settings card "Simplified English Interactions"
in `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`, in alphabetical card
order; fixtures updated.
- Tests: renderer coverage for flag on/off in both lanes, plus
schema/catalog/UI fixture updates.
## Verification
- From the repo root: `node_modules/.bin/vitest run
packages/adapter-utils` (88/88), `packages/shared` validators (25/25),
server instance-settings + heartbeat suites (47/47 and 70/70 consumer
tests), `ui` settings tests (32/32).
- Typecheck is clean in all four touched packages.
- Manual check: turn the flag on in Settings → Experimental, wake an
agent, and confirm the wake prompt contains the interaction-language
directive; turn it off and confirm the directive is absent.
## Risks
- Low risk: the flag defaults to off, and the only behavior change is
one extra directive line in the wake prompt when an operator turns it
on.
- The directive is advisory to the agent; models can still deviate from
STE. No data or API shape changes; no migration.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended
thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Agent SDK.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent
companies.
> - Agents can encounter credentials during work.
> - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human
governance.
> - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret
resolution until an authorized human approves them.
> - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected
agent-config write paths.
> - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject
lifecycle.
> - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into
Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate
them.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Follow-on to #9921, which established run-bound agent secret access.
**Problem / motivation:**
Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for
them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in
work artifacts or immediately creating live access.
**Proposed solution:**
Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each
proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip
receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each
proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human
approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward
reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy.
**Alternatives considered:**
We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put
untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow
uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a
binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human
permission gate.
**Roadmap alignment:**
This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in
#9921 with a governed proposal workflow.
## Security Verdict
Q0 SecEng verdict: **PASS-with-required-changes**. The review accepted
the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to:
- fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction
registration succeed;
- scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with
audit-visible state;
- treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action,
target, provenance, and approver permissions;
- snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at
approval to prevent org-chart laundering;
- make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation
or binding authorization fails;
- deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources
consistently; and
- execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths,
including protected-change gates.
Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service,
route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day
encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a
value that leaked before the propose call.
## What Changed
- Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal
contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject,
withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing.
- Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The
routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source
restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks,
approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails.
- Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal
values remain redacted on later read surfaces.
- Added the Secrets **Proposals** tab and agent configuration **Proposed
access** rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames
agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight,
supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades.
- Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation,
and focused server and UI regression coverage.
- Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal
migration after `0206`.
## QA Acceptance Results
Q5 QA verdict: **PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met**, with one Minor
non-blocking follow-up.
- **AC1:** proposed values never echo, never appear in live
lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board
reviewers.
- **AC2:** restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward
allowed; upward/lateral denied.
- **AC3:** secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename
overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext.
- **AC4:** approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target
agent's runtime list/fetch routes.
- **AC5:** pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds
atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied.
- **AC6:** reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub
ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state.
- **AC7:** token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live
checks plus focused route tests.
- **AC8:** proposal lifecycle events and reused
`secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail;
origin-issue notification and wake are queued.
- **AC9:** both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI
approval materializes the binding.
QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal
values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level
`bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the
restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the
follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking.
## Verification
- Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass.
- Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass.
- Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the
documented 30-second timeout.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean.
- Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and
runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It
verified 9/9 acceptance criteria.
## Risks
- Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while
pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove
server-compromise risk during that window.
- The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable.
A separate follow-up owns that change.
- A new migration can require another renumber if another migration
lands before maintainers merge this pull request.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and
context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning,
repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI
capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its
commit trailers.
## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane,
and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that
plan
> - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published
the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question),
the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that
used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared
> - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA,
is stuck — the feature silently fails
> - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan
confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it
teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it
restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty
state so the pane never goes silently blank
> - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in
the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
<!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug
template. -->
**Bug report**
- **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan
confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document
rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously
pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared.
- **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document
appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane
explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes
CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls.
- **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the
chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation
without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab —
the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing.
- **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server.
Related PR (not a duplicate): #9609 "Pin pending confirmations by
composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this
PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees
behind it.
## What Changed
- **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan
document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its
*latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane
cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse).
- **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles
now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document,
re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation
targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment
or via `ask_user_questions`.
- **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned
to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the
plan scrolls.
- **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is
in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty
state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing.
- **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the
plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a
floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN
- `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages)
- UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx
src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed
- Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed
- Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows
the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation
CTAs stay pinned at the bottom.
Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted
to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally
not added.
## Risks
Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on
plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or
nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being
created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on
creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document
first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are
additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task
experimental flag.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended
thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, test execution).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether
the work was actually delivered.
> - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into
a branch other than the workspace base.
> - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger
delivery evidence for those cases.
> - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing
persisted workspace schema.
> - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered
work, and no active run checkout are all required.
> - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown,
lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent.
> - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and
the fail-closed reaper guards.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace
cleanup.
**Current behavior**
Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active`
and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does
not contain their original commits.
**Proposed behavior**
Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery,
unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace
trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while
shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged
work retains its warning.
**Breaking changes**
The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and
persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required.
**What happened?**
A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged
forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull
request.
**Expected behavior**
Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully
terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run
holds its checkout.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base.
2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target
branch.
3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close
readiness.
Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged”
warning indefinitely.
## What Changed
- Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`,
`merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`.
- Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it
for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks.
- Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has
ground-truth merged-PR evidence.
- Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal,
active-run, and delivered-work guards.
- Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required
live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and
current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions,
inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup.
- Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their
committed HEAD was delivered.
- Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries
with oldest-entry eviction.
- Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease
cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git
index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal.
- Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior,
reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose`
— 63 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose`
after review hardening — 43 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts
src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the
final local head — 73 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15
passed
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` —
server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared
415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran
both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres
migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated
aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds
- `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
## Risks
The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality,
pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be
proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot
cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival
holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation
and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced
removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not
restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or
agent can re-provision explicitly.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID
or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test
execution, and GitHub CLI access were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When an agent run ends without recording a disposition, Paperclip
raises a "missing disposition" handoff so the work does not silently
stall
> - The server already tracks whether such an issue has a live
continuation (a running or queued run, or a queued wake) in
`successfulRunHandoff.hasLiveContinuation`
> - But no UI surface read that flag, so an issue that an agent was
actively working on still showed the "This task still needs a next step"
banner, a loud thread warning, and "Needs next step" badges
> - This pull request makes every missing-disposition complaint respect
liveness: warn only when no live agent is on the issue and it is really
stuck
> - The benefit is that users see the warning only when action is
needed, and the noise disappears while an agent is already handling the
issue
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Description follows the
bug-report template:
**What happened?**
An issue that a live agent run was actively working on showed the
"missing disposition" warning banner, a loud thread notice, and "Needs
next step" badges at the same time. The API payload for that issue
showed `successfulRunHandoff.required: true` together with
`hasLiveContinuation: true` and a `liveRunId`, but the UI ignored the
liveness fields.
**Expected behavior**
The missing-disposition warning appears only when the issue has no live
run or queued wake. A live agent records a disposition when its run
ends. Paperclip complains only if the run ends and no disposition
exists.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Let a run finish on an in-progress issue without a disposition.
Paperclip raises the handoff and queues a corrective wake.
2. Open the issue page while the corrective run (or any new run) is
live.
3. See the banner, the badges, and the loud thread notice — all visible
while the agent works.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` (reproduced at commit 6ffe9df842).
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted development instance.
## What Changed
- `isSuccessfulRunHandoffRequired` (ui lib) returns `false` while a live
continuation exists. This quiets the Kanban card badge and the
issues-list badge. Exception: when the only continuation is a
not-yet-promoted scheduled retry, the notice stays visible so the
**Retry now** control stays reachable.
- `IssueBlockedNotice` also checks the real-time live-run set
(`liveIssueIds`). A run that starts after the issue payload was fetched
hides the banner at once.
- `IssueChatThread` derives an effective handoff state from the live
runs it already tracks. The loud "Missing issue disposition" thread
notice folds into the quiet collapsed row while a continuation is live,
and unfolds if the run ends without a disposition.
- Server: `hydrateSuccessfulRunHandoffLiveness` now hydrates escalated
handoffs too. The blocked-inbox `missing_disposition` attention is
suppressed for escalated handoffs with a live run or wake. This matches
the existing required-state suppression.
## Verification
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx
src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx
src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` — 106 tests pass, including 6
new tests for the live/stale/scheduled-retry matrix
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
src/components/KanbanBoard.test.tsx src/lib` — pass
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts
src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts` — pass, including new
escalated-liveness cases
- `pnpm typecheck` clean in `ui` and `server`; `node
scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` clean
- Manual check: a live issue's API payload showed `required: true` with
`hasLiveContinuation: true` and a `liveRunId` while the banner was still
on screen; with this change that state renders no complaint
## Risks
- Behavioral shift only; no schema or migration changes. All complaints
reappear as soon as the continuation stops without a disposition, so
nothing can get lost permanently.
- A queued wake counts as a live continuation. If a wake sits queued for
a long time, the warning stays hidden for that time. The blocked-inbox
path already behaved this way; the UI now matches it.
- The scheduled-retry carve-out keeps the current Retry-now workflow
intact.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic — agentic coding session
with extended thinking and tool use (file edit, shell, test execution).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issue thread confirmations can pause an issue until a board user
makes a decision
> - Atomic checkout is the only supported transition into `in_progress`
> - An accepted confirmation left a creator-owned issue in `in_review`
while it started a continuation worker
> - The worker could run without the normal checkout state transition
> - This pull request returns that narrow review state to `todo` before
it queues the continuation wake
> - The benefit is that the worker can check out the issue and move it
to `in_progress` through the normal atomic path
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public GitHub issue exists. The following pull requests are
related but do not fix this case:
- Refs #10376. It handles refusal paths for user-owned issues.
- Refs #8516. It handles rejected confirmations for user-owned issues.
- Refs #10274. It gives ownerless waking interactions an agent owner.
**What happened?**
An agent created a confirmation on an issue that was assigned to that
same agent and had status `in_review`. A board user accepted the
confirmation. Paperclip started a continuation worker, but the issue
stayed `in_review`. The normal checkout fields stayed empty.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must return the issue to an actionable state before it wakes
the continuation worker. The worker must then use atomic checkout to
move the issue to `in_progress`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Assign an issue to an agent and set the issue status to `in_review`.
2. Let that agent create a `request_confirmation` with
`wake_assignee_on_accept`.
3. Accept the confirmation as a board user.
4. Observe that the continuation worker starts while the issue remains
`in_review`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The bug reproduced on master before this pull request. This branch is
based on `ffd62a4cbb`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development. The server logic is deployment-independent.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Codex exposed the bug, but the issue-thread continuation logic is
adapter-independent.
**Database mode**
The regression test uses embedded PostgreSQL. The logic is database-mode
independent.
**Access context**
An agent creates the confirmation. A board user accepts it.
## What Changed
- Allow an accepted agent-authored confirmation to return an agent-owned
issue only when the issue is `in_review` and the owner is the creating
agent.
- Keep active `in_progress` work unchanged so an accepted confirmation
cannot reset a running worker to `todo`.
- Add embedded-PostgreSQL regression coverage for user-owned review,
creator-owned review, and creator-owned active work.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --config
vitest.config.ts` — 48 passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace projects.
- `pnpm build` — passed for all workspace projects.
- `pnpm test:run` — 3,411 passed. Three timing-sensitive assertions
failed in the unchanged `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` suite.
- Isolated rerun of `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 15 passed.
## Risks
Low risk. The behavior change is limited to accepted confirmations on
non-terminal `in_review` issues that the creating agent already owns. It
does not change active work, blocked work, terminal issues, other agent
owners, schemas, or public API contracts.
> This is a focused bug fix. It does not add roadmap scope.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact
deployment ID or context-window size. The model used reasoning,
repository tools, code editing, Git, and local test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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.
> - Task assignment policies control which agents can receive work.
> - Protected-agent policy flags currently stop assignment.
> - The existing error says that the assignment requires approval.
> - Paperclip has no approval workflow for this policy.
> - This pull request models the policy as a hard block and gives the
operator an action that exists.
> - The benefit is accurate API guidance without weakening the existing
fail-closed behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #6386
**What happened?**
A protected-agent assignment denial said that approval was required. No
approval record or approval action existed for this policy, so the
message sent agents and operators to a dead end.
**Expected behavior**
The authorization result must state that protected-agent policy blocks
assignment. It must tell a company administrator to remove the block
before retrying.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Set `authorizationPolicy.protectedAgent.requiresApproval` to `true`
on a target agent.
2. Give another agent the `tasks:assign` permission.
3. Preview or attempt assignment to the protected agent.
4. Observe that the old response promises an approval step that does not
exist.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`c54936e2e9` on `master`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source. The behavior is in the core authorization service and
is not deployment-specific.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific.
## What Changed
- Added canonical `protectedAgent.blockAssignment` and
`protectedAgent.blockReason` policy fields.
- Kept the legacy approval-named flags as fail-closed compatibility
aliases.
- Changed denial copy to name the hard block and the administrator
action.
- Added authorization and plugin-host regression coverage for canonical
and legacy policy data.
- Updated the V1 implementation contract with the protected-assignment
rule.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts`
— 2 files passed, 61 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed.
The repository-wide local wrappers exceeded the execution host resource
limit before they printed a final summary. The PR check loop will use
GitHub CI as the complete test and build authority.
## Risks
- Low: assignment remains fail-closed. The change corrects the policy
name and denial guidance.
- Low: legacy fields remain supported, so existing plugin-owned policy
data does not change behavior.
- Low: the new policy schemas allow unknown keys for forward
compatibility, as the existing authorization policy schema already does.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5`, tool-enabled coding agent with
reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub CLI access. The runtime does not
expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The decisions desk shows pending decisions that need an operator
response
> - A strict decision cannot apply its effects after its target task
changes
> - A decision still remained pending when every target task finished
after proposal
> - The card also linked only the origin task, even when the decision
acted on another task
> - This pull request expires those moot decisions and links their
target tasks
> - The benefit is an accurate queue and a clear path to the work that
each decision affects
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related PR: #10801 removes the issue-page decision strip, which makes
clear queue provenance more important.
**What happened?**
A strict decision stayed pending until its time-to-live limit after
every target task reached `done`. The decision card linked only the
origin task. The origin task is where the agent proposed the decision,
and it can differ from the task that the decision affects. An operator
could therefore open a finished task with no visible decision and no
explanation of the real target.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must expire a strict decision when all of its targets finish
after the decision is proposed. The card must show and link every target
task that differs from the origin task.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a strict decision that targets an active task from a different
origin task.
2. Move the target task to `done` without resolving the decision.
3. Run the decision expiry sweep.
4. Observe that the old code keeps the decision open until its
time-to-live limit.
5. Observe that the old card links only the origin task.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The bug reproduces on upstream `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev and self-hosted server modes are affected because the behavior
is in the shared decision service and board UI.
## What Changed
- Expire an open strict decision with reason `target_completed` when
every strict target reached `done` after proposal.
- Keep decisions that intentionally target an already-finished task.
- Keep lenient-only decisions open.
- Keep continuation delivery consistent with other expiry reasons.
- Add target-task links to the decision card provenance line.
- Use one shared target-ID helper across signing, execution, expiry,
card provenance, and resolver preloading.
- Add service and UI regression tests for primary, secondary, and
target-completed cases.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Low migration risk. This change does not alter the database schema.
- The expiry sweep performs the existing strict-target query and adds a
snapshot comparison before expiry.
- A decision remains open if any strict target is active or if a target
was already `done` at proposal time.
> The roadmap lists work queues as planned. This pull request fixes the
existing decisions desk. It does not add a new queue subsystem.
## Model Used
- Implementation: Anthropic Claude through Claude Code. The runtime did
not expose the exact model snapshot or context-window size. The model
used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution.
- PR preparation: OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a
dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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
> - Operators need one activity feed for human, agent, plugin, and
system changes
> - The existing audit endpoint returns only rows that have agent
attribution
> - The full audit view also requires a dedicated permission
> - This pull request adds an explicit all-actors scope with basic and
privileged access tiers
> - The benefit is that company members can inspect the shared activity
history while sensitive attribution and export controls stay protected
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The company audit activity endpoint and the board audit route.
**Subsystem affected**
Server REST API and board UI routing/API contracts.
**Current behavior**
The agent-action audit endpoint excludes activity without an agent ID.
It also rejects company members who do not have the full audit
permission.
**Proposed behavior**
Callers can opt into `actorScope=all`. A company member receives all
actor kinds with sensitive attribution fields removed. A permitted board
user receives complete rows and can use attribution filters. The default
scope and CSV permission remain unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
The board needs one chronological activity source for user, agent,
plugin, and system actions. A two-tier response keeps the feed useful
without widening access to detailed attribution or export capabilities.
**Breaking changes**
None. The endpoint keeps the existing agent-only scope and permission
behavior by default.
## What Changed
- Added `actorScope=all` to the unified audit query and included
activity from every actor type.
- Added a company-readable basic tier that removes run,
responsible-user, agent, and details attribution.
- Kept attribution filters and CSV export behind
`audit:view_agent_actions`.
- Added route and integration coverage for basic readers, permitted
readers, pagination, filter denial, and all actor kinds.
- Added the missing unprefixed `/audit` redirect and company route
classification.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts --reporter=verbose` (35 tests passed)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- The all-actors query can return more rows than the legacy agent-only
query. Cursor pagination and existing limits bound each request.
- The basic tier intentionally exposes action and actor-kind context. It
removes detailed run, agent, responsible-user, and details attribution.
- The legacy endpoint behavior remains the default, which reduces
compatibility risk.
> The roadmap marks activity log and action attribution as shipped. This
change improves that existing capability and does not introduce a
separate workflow system.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`, 114K context, agentic reasoning with tool
use and 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 (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
> - Agents write to tasks they do not own. They comment, they change
fields, and the control plane now permits this by default for
standard-trust agents on any task they can read
> - This makes a task thread ambiguous. A reader sees a comment from an
agent that is not the assignee, but no surface says whose authority that
write rode
> - The same gap applies to field edits. The activity stream named the
verb, but it did not show the before value, the after value, or the
reason the write was permitted
> - The remaining refusals are also opaque. An agent that hits a wall
receives a 403 with no boundary name, no actor who can act, and no
sanctioned path. One real incident spent a full detour to find the
workaround
> - This pull request adds the three surfaces that make open cross-task
writes legible: an attribution chip, a field-level audit receipt, and an
actionable denial contract shared by the API and the UI
> - The benefit is that a reader can answer "who did this, on whose
authority, and was it allowed?" on the task itself, and a blocked writer
is told what to do next
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this work, so the enhancement is described
here.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Cross-task agent writes are permitted, but they are not explained. A
task thread can hold comments from agents that are not the assignee, and
the activity stream can hold field changes made by those agents. Neither
surface names the responsible user behind the write. When a write is
refused, the error text does not name the boundary or the way forward.
**Subsystem affected**
Issue detail UI (comment thread and activity stream), the issue write
authorization responses in the server, and the shared copy contract that
both consume.
**Current behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own looks the same as an
assignee comment.
- An `issue.updated` activity row states the verb only. It does not show
the field-level before and after values, the responsible user, or the
authorization reason.
- A refused write returns a short message such as an ownership error.
The message does not state which rule fired, who is able to perform the
action, or which alternative path is sanctioned.
**Proposed behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own carries a chip that
reads "for {user}". The chip names the responsible user. Its tooltip
states that the author is not the assignee and cannot exceed that user's
permissions.
- Each `issue.updated` row shows a receipt: the changed fields with
before and after values, the responsible user, and the authorization
reason. This applies to board edits as well as agent edits.
- Each refusal states three things: the boundary that fired, who is able
to act, and the sanctioned path. The API error body and the in-app
notice use the same words, because both read one shared contract.
Related pull requests, found by searching this repository:
- Refs #10837 — merged. It added the default-open cross-task write rule,
the comment attribution data, and the per-run containment cap that this
pull request makes visible.
- Refs #10114 — open. It proposes a narrower authorization change in the
same area.
- Refs #7998 — open. It proposes append-only cross-assignee comments as
an alternative to opening writes.
## What Changed
- Adds `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts`. This is one copy
contract for eight ways an issue write can be refused: not visible,
responsible-user ceiling, responsible user unavailable, excluded actor
class, assignee run lock, per-run cross-task cap, missing run context,
and rejected attribution. Each entry names the boundary, who can act,
and the sanctioned path.
- Maps server authorization decisions onto that contract in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts` and
`server/src/services/cross-issue-influence-limit.ts`. The flattened
`error` string carries all three obligations, and `details.code` lets
the UI render the same words. The two cap codes keep the names they
already ship under.
- Adds `CommentAttributionChip`. It renders "for {user}" beside the
author name on agent comments where the author is not the assignee. It
renders nothing when no responsible user is recorded, so older rows stay
clean. It is wired into both `IssueChatThread` and the flagged
`TaskChatThread` redesign.
- Adds `IssueFieldChangeReceipt`. It renders the change receipt under
`issue.updated` rows in the activity stream. Ids resolve to agent and
user names where the directory is loaded. Server-truncated text is
labelled as a preview, so the receipt never implies that it shows a
whole value.
- Adds `IssueWriteDenialNotice`. It renders the shared copy in the app,
keyed off the denial events the server logs on a task.
- Adds a public `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration` page. It renders all
three surfaces and their edge cases for review without a seeded thread.
This follows the existing `ux-lab` pages.
## Verification
Automated, all green:
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/issue-write-denial.test.ts # 17 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueWriteDenialNotice.test.tsx \
src/components/IssueFieldChangeReceipt.test.tsx src/components/CommentAttributionChip.test.tsx \
src/lib/issue-change-receipt.test.ts src/lib/comment-attribution.test.ts # 46 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts # 98 tests
```
`tsc --noEmit` passes for the shared, ui, and server packages.
Manual, in a browser:
1. Start the UI only: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vite`.
2. Open `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration`. No session is needed,
because `ux-lab` routes are public.
3. All three surfaces were captured at 1440x900 in light mode and dark
mode, and at 390x844. The page reported no errors.
4. The chip tooltip was opened by a hover and by a keyboard focus.
Rendering the page found defects that the tests had missed. Three copy
and contrast defects were fixed, and two of them are now pinned by a
test. A design review then found three layout defects, which are also
fixed: the denial notice orphaned its label when a value wrapped, the
receipt icon wrapped onto its own line at narrow widths, and the chip
tooltip was reachable by hover only.
## Risks
Low risk, and additive.
- Every new surface renders nothing when its data is absent. Comments
without a recorded responsible user show no chip, and activity events
without a receipt show no receipt, so existing rows do not change.
- No migration is included. The data these surfaces read already ships.
- The wire values of the two per-run cap denial codes are unchanged.
Only the human-readable text changes, plus six codes that had no
`details.code` before.
- The denial copy is read by agents as well as people. If wording must
change later, one shared module is the only place to change it.
- Roadmap check: this extends the completed "Activity log & action
attribution" area rather than duplicating planned core work.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context
window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. It ran as
an agent in Claude Code and drove a real browser to capture the review
screenshots.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators use the same board application in self-hosted and
Paperclip Cloud deployments.
> - A Cloud tenant contains one company, so an in-app company switch
does not change the active Cloud stack.
> - Cloud operators need the sidebar and company surfaces to use the
signed-in user's stack portfolio.
> - The server must derive Cloud identity and links from trusted
instance context instead of client input.
> - This pull request adds canonical Cloud context, a trusted stack
portfolio proxy, and Cloud-aware navigation.
> - The benefit is consistent stack switching on Cloud while self-hosted
company behavior stays unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server REST routes and the React board UI.
**Problem or motivation**
A Cloud-managed instance contains one company. The existing company
switcher could only switch records inside that tenant. It could not move
the operator to another Cloud stack. The existing header also gave long
organization names too little width.
**Proposed solution**
Expose a canonical public Cloud context in health data. Add a trusted
server proxy for the current user's stack portfolio. Use that data in
the board UI to switch stacks with top-level navigation. Keep the
existing company behavior on self-hosted instances. Move search into the
navigation and keep long organization names inside the sidebar panel.
**Alternatives considered**
An in-app `/stacks` route was rejected because Cloud tenant hosts
reserve that path and stack selection must wake or authenticate another
tenant. Client-supplied user identity was rejected because the server
can derive the trusted Cloud actor.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change advances the Cloud deployments milestone. It keeps the
product local-first and Cloud-ready without changing the self-hosted
mental model.
## What Changed
- Added canonical Cloud instance context and public health metadata.
- Added a Cloud-only stack portfolio proxy with trusted actor forwarding
and per-user caching.
- Prevented normal company creation on Cloud-managed instances.
- Switched the sidebar and Companies page from company actions to stack
actions on Cloud.
- Added full-page stack navigation and Cloud create-stack links.
- Moved search into the sidebar navigation so the organization name
keeps more width.
- Added truncation and hover recovery for long organization and stack
names.
- Added server and UI regression coverage for Cloud and self-hosted
behavior.
- Updated the implementation specification for the Cloud contracts.
## Verification
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passed. All three token gates are
clean.
- `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/__tests__/health.test.ts
src/__tests__/cloud-instance.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/company-cloud-floor.test.ts
src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts` passed: 5 files and 66
tests.
- `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run
src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx` passed: 1 file and 11 tests.
- Pre-PR QA report `7da87ca7` passed all 8 acceptance criteria with real
HTTP route factories and real Chromium screenshots in Cloud and
self-hosted modes.
- Security reviews passed for the canonical Cloud context and stack
portfolio proxy.
## Risks
- Cloud stack switching depends on the configured Cloud application and
tenant portfolio URLs.
- The new health `cloud` block is public by design, but it contains only
canonical public instance metadata.
- The stack proxy fails closed on self-hosted instances and derives the
user identity from the trusted actor.
- Self-hosted navigation and company creation retain their existing
paths and behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5`. The run used reasoning, repository tools,
shell execution, and GitHub integration. The deployment did not expose
its context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip keeps company work visible and governed.
> - Sandbox agents run serial sync work across worker and host
boundaries.
> - The current span path hid real wall-clock time for that sync work.
> - The host needs safe timestamps if it wants true span width.
> - This pull request carries worker timestamps, validates them, and
records the real duration.
> - The benefit is clearer operator visibility for sandbox sync work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This touches `packages/plugins`, `server`, and the
Daytona plugin test surface.
**Problem or motivation**
Sandbox sync spans opened and closed in one host call. The native width
stayed near zero, so the real time spent in serial round trips was hard
to see.
**Proposed solution**
Carry worker start and end times across the span record protocol.
Validate the pair at the host boundary. Record the host span with the
true duration when the pair is safe.
**Alternatives considered**
Keep the numeric duration only. That keeps the data, but it does not
widen the span and it does not show the real wall-clock time.
**Roadmap alignment**
This fits the `Cloud / Sandbox agents` and `Artifacts & Work Products`
areas in `ROADMAP.md`. I found no other roadmap item that covers this
span-width gap.
**Additional context**
The host allowlist stays narrow. Unknown names still map to
`sandbox.provider.other`. Invalid timestamp pairs still fall back to the
synchronous path.
Related public PRs: none found.
## What Changed
- Added optional `startTimeMs` and `endTimeMs` fields to the
`span.record` protocol.
- Captured start and end times in the worker tracer and sent them to the
host.
- Validated host timestamps with finite, ordered, bounded checks before
span reconstruction.
- Extended the host allowlist to the sandbox sync command names.
- Wrapped each inbound sync round trip in its own named span.
- Added tests for the worker path, host boundary, host recorder, and
Daytona sync flow.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugins-sdk test`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/daytona-plugin test`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server tsc --noEmit` still shows
pre-existing `drizzle-orm` duplicate-declaration errors in this sandbox.
The changed files do not touch those lines.
- GitHub checks are green.
- Greptile review is 5/5.
- No open review threads remain.
## Risks
- A bad timestamp pair can fall back to the synchronous path.
- The host clock gate can reject spans if the pair is stale, reversed,
or too large.
- The new worker fields change the wire protocol, but the public plugin
tracer contract stays the same.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5, tool-enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #`
/ `Refs #` or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
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.
> - Agents coordinate through the server API. They find sub-tasks by
filtering the company issues list by parent.
> - `GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues` accepts `?parentId=`. Many
callers send `?parentIssueId=` instead, which the handler never read.
> - The mismatch is silent. The filter is dropped and the full company
list comes back, so agents fetch everything and filter client-side.
Issue #3846 reports this.
> - `parentIssueId` is not an arbitrary spelling. It is the field name
the wakeup payloads in this same route file already use, so callers
expect it.
> - This pull request accepts `parentIssueId` as an alias for `parentId`
at the route boundary, on both the issues list and `issues/count`.
> - The benefit is that parent filtering works for both spellings, and
the list and its count cannot disagree.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#3846
Related: #3870 proposes the same alias for the list route.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `listFilters.parentId` in `GET
/companies/:companyId/issues` now reads `req.query.parentId ??
req.query.parentIssueId`.
- `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `blockedCountFilters.parentId` in `GET
/companies/:companyId/issues/count` reads the same alias, so the list
and its count agree.
- `server/src/__tests__/issues-parent-id-alias.test.ts`: new regression
test for alias resolution, precedence, and absence.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm run test:run --
server/src/__tests__/issues-parent-id-alias.test.ts`.
- The test covers four query shapes: `?parentId=`, `?parentIssueId=`,
both present (short form wins), and neither present (filter unset).
- Existing callers are unaffected. The UI client `ui/src/api/issues.ts`
only sets `parentId`. Nullish coalescing falls back only when the
primary key is absent.
- The service layer applies the filter with `if (filters?.parentId)` in
`server/src/services/issues.ts`. This pull request does not change it.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only widens accepted query input. Both spellings
resolve, and the short form still wins.
- `?parentId=` with an empty value stays falsy and unfiltered, exactly
as before.
- This route has no validation middleware, and these list filters are
not in the published OpenAPI surface. No contract needs an update.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), extended thinking with tool use, run
by the maintainer's triage agent. It rebased the original commit onto
current `master`, extended the alias to `issues/count`, and wrote the
regression test. @scokeepa authored the original one-line route change.
## 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
- [ ] 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: josangmun <cmeia.ai02@cmeia.co.kr>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>
Prefer the trusted organization name, repair known machine-generated legacy names with compare-and-set safety, and preserve the audited fallback behavior required by PAP-16331.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses spans and traces to show how work moves through
agents and tools
> - sandbox.exec spans need a real parent so the trace tree matches the
work tree
> - Wrong parent links make execution history hard to read and hard to
debug
> - This pull request adds a single task.run root span and re-parents
live work to the nearest active span
> - The change keeps detached work under the closest live span instead
of the HTTP root
> - The benefit is a clear trace tree for sandbox.exec work and better
execution diagnosis
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
sandbox.exec spans attached to the wrong parent or to no live parent in
some paths.
**Expected behavior**
Each sandbox.exec span should attach to the nearest live span.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run work that creates sandbox.exec spans during startup and callback
bridge paths.
2. Inspect the trace tree.
3. Observe an orphaned span or a span with the wrong parent.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`672e9de9c8b004aebc1f08e24b612ab067735ad1`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev.
**Additional context**
The branch adds the task.run root span, parents sandbox.startup to it,
and re-parents detached bridge work to the nearest live span.
## What Changed
- Added a task.run root span for the run tree.
- Re-parented sandbox.startup, agent.turn, and detached bridge work to
the nearest live span.
- Added end-to-end trace-tree assertions for the full parent chain.
- Added negative coverage so sandbox.exec does not parent to the HTTP
root.
## Verification
- Focused Vitest suite passed:
`packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts`,
`packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-timing.test.ts`,
`packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts`,
`packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-callback-bridge.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target.test.ts`.
- Result: 5 files passed, 204 tests passed.
- The submitted branch also reported `adapter-utils` checks, `server`
seam checks, and `tsc` exit 0 in the handoff state.
## Risks
- This change can alter trace tree shape in tools that read parent
spans.
- A missed bridge path could still point to the wrong live span.
- Low risk for runtime behavior, because the change only changes span
parent attribution.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5, tool-use capable.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - The company export path writes `.paperclip.yaml` data for large
companies.
> - The YAML renderer used a spread append that can overflow the call
stack on large arrays.
> - That failure turns a normal export into a 500 for large companies.
> - This pull request rewrites the renderer to use an iterative stack
and removes the last spread append.
> - The benefit is that large exports finish without a RangeError and
keep the same output.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
I searched GitHub for related work.
I found PR #7506.
This pull request closes the last spread site that PR left open.
**What happened?**
The company export failed with `RangeError: Maximum call stack size
exceeded` on large YAML output.
**Expected behavior**
The export should finish without a stack overflow.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Export a company with a very large YAML payload.
2. Render the export through `renderYamlBlock` or `renderFrontmatter`.
3. Observe that the old spread append can overflow the call stack.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`79f3a216215500e2ec1a928d5eb5c09364c2abf5`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev (`pnpm dev`) or built from source.
**Additional context**
Related public PR: #7506.
This change keeps the YAML shape, scalar format, and key order the same.
## What Changed
- Reworked `renderYamlBlock` to render iteratively.
- Replaced the last spread append in `renderFrontmatter` with a loop.
- Added regression tests for high-volume block and frontmatter arrays.
## Verification
- `node_modules/.bin/vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`
- The two new overflow tests pass.
- The existing round-trip tests still pass.
- `tsc --noEmit` is clean for
`server/src/services/company-portability.ts`.
## Risks
Low risk.
The change keeps exported YAML content and ordering the same.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5, tool-using coding agent.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] 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.
> - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an
interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them
who decides next.
> - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes
the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without
restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody
reviewing it and no visible action.
> - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is
owed, so the work stalls forever.
> - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant,
exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review
three inline actions in the UI.
> - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews
it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click
Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is
internal.
**Subsystem affected**
The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the
`in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions
attention feed, and the issue-page review panel.
**Problem or motivation**
Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A
user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted.
A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review`
with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie
and the work never progresses.
**Proposed solution**
Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a
`reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and
since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and
inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into
`in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never
renders empty.
**Alternatives considered**
A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not
enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status
banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the
stall.
**Roadmap alignment**
This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and
humans use every day.
## What Changed
- **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or
sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path
(interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a
stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless.
- **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is
under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and
whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now
included in the attention feed.
- **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a
permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake
carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from
the attention feed.
- **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now
wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped.
- **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay
ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes
the named responder when no other path exists.
- **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above
the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the
bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending
interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus
the three actions.
- **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline
on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`.
- **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width
buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up.
New 390px stories capture the phone layout.
## Verification
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx
src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts
src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass.
- Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`,
`issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`,
`recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI).
- A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark
themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled
action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the
horizontal row on desktop.
## Risks
- **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no
renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive.
- **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This
is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests.
- **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a
permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions.
- Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention
loop.
## Model Used
- Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and
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 (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates autonomous agent
work.
> - Agents need to collaborate on issues beyond their current
assignment.
> - Cross-issue comments and updates are useful, but an unbounded run
can create cascading side effects.
> - The control plane must preserve company-wide collaboration while
containing each run's influence.
> - Comment attribution must also show the responsible user and the
acting agent in audits.
> - This pull request adds run-bound cross-issue containment,
attribution, and agent-class wake rules.
> - The benefit is safer collaboration without restoring issue-assignee
ownership restrictions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Agent-authenticated issue comments, updates, reopen behavior, and
assignee wake routing.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server routes and services, shared contracts, database
schema and migration, and implementation documentation.
**Current behavior**
An authenticated agent can collaborate across company issues, but one
heartbeat run has no per-run side-effect boundary. Comment records also
do not persist the responsible user separately from the acting agent.
**Proposed behavior**
Require a valid heartbeat run for agent cross-issue comments and
updates. Audit each attempt and cap a run at 20 cross-issue effects.
Keep the cap in log-only mode until it automatically changes to
enforcement at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Preserve same-issue writes. Use
agent-class wakes for agent comments. Keep same-run completion comments
from reopening completed work. Record the responsible user on
agent-authored comments and activity.
**Reason and benefit**
Agents can collaborate on other issues without an assignment gate, while
each run has an atomic and inspectable side-effect limit. Operators can
identify both the acting agent and the responsible user.
**Breaking changes**
After 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC, the twenty-first cross-issue comment or
update from one heartbeat run returns a containment error. Agent
cross-issue writes without valid run context are rejected. The migration
is additive and backfills existing agent-authored comment attribution
where the source data is available.
## What Changed
- Added an atomic per-run counter for cross-issue agent comments and
updates.
- Added audit events for allowed and rejected cross-issue effects.
- Added the automatic log-only to enforcement flip at 2026-08-11 00:00
UTC.
- Added responsible-user attribution to agent-authored comments,
activity records, shared types, and validators.
- Added an additive migration and migration coverage for existing
comments.
- Updated reopen, resume, and wake behavior so agent comments create
agent-class wakes and same-run completion comments remain inert.
- Updated the implementation specification and regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
packages/db/src/issue-comment-on-behalf-migration.test.ts` — 97 tests
passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration safety checks.
- `pnpm test:run` — server batch: 3,364 passed and 2 skipped; UI batch:
3,504 passed. One unrelated CLI doctor test warned because this agent
runtime injects static AWS credentials.
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` — 8 tests passed and confirmed
the CLI failure was ambient-environment sensitive.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
## Risks
- The fixed enforcement timestamp changes production behavior
automatically on 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Audit logs before that time
provide rollout visibility.
- The per-run counter serializes on the heartbeat-run row. This prevents
concurrent attempts from racing past the cap but adds a small lock scope
for cross-issue writes.
- Existing comments can only be backfilled when their acting run or
agent attribution is recoverable.
> 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 in the Codex agent runtime. The runtime did not expose a
context-window size. Reasoning, shell tools, code editing, and test
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of
AI agents.
> - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for
confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions.
> - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could
resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another
agent for a response.
> - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver
identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so
authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI
behavior.
> - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and
terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle
reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering.
> - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions
without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or
audit invariants.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server
authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API
docs, and UI governance surfaces.
### Problem or motivation
Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent
addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That
made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely.
### Proposed solution
Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity,
enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile
addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and
route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback.
### Alternatives considered
Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was
rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was
rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior.
### Roadmap alignment
Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent
communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work
objects.
### Additional context
Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR
search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only
returned this PR.
## What Changed
- Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and
persistence.
- Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity,
withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior.
- Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization,
persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill
guidance.
- Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent
and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or
is deleted.
- Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed
resolution paths.
- Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention,
adapter, CLI, and UI coverage.
- Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive
mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety
checks.
- `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one
unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials
and warned instead of passing.
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests
passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161`
completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully.
## Risks
- Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is
conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent,
and migration safety checks pass.
- Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but
defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries,
resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal,
expiry, and attention fallback.
- Attention routing depends on current agent invokability;
reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from
retaining visibility or resolution authority.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use,
code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane
tools. Context-window metadata was not reported 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 and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The claude_local adapter runs Claude Code on sandbox execution
targets, and operators verify an agent's configuration with the
test-environment probe before running it
> - Real runs merge the selected environment's env vars (secret refs
included) under the agent's adapter config env, but the probe built its
config from the adapter config alone — so environment-level auth worked
in runs while the Test button reported missing auth, and a dropped
secret binding passed silently
> - The claude env-test hints also did not recognize
`CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` even though the CLI accepts it, and a hello
probe that hit the subscription usage limit reported a hard failure
although authentication worked
> - Separately, the claude-local package test suites were absent from
the CI project list, so two suites drifted broken without notice
> - This pull request makes the probe resolve the same layered env as a
real run, adds the missing auth hint, classifies usage-limit probe
results as a warning, repairs the drifted suites, and turns the
claude-local project on in CI
> - The benefit is a Test button that tells the truth about
environment-level configuration, and a test suite that actually gates
the claude-local adapter
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists; related open PRs: Refs #9488 (recognizes
CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN in environment checks — overlaps with the
auth-hint portion of this PR via a differently named check; it does not
cover the environment-envVars probe merge, the usage-limit
classification, or the CI coverage), Refs #9933 (live credential
validation in environment checks — complementary, no file-level conflict
with the route change).
The underlying problem, following the enhancement template:
**Current behavior**
The test-environment route builds the probe config from the agent's
adapterConfig only. Real runs merge the selected environment's envVars
under the agent env, so environment-level env vars (including auth such
as `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` or `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` bound as environment
secrets) work in runs while "Test environment" cannot see them, and a
missing secret binding passes silently. The claude env-test hints do not
recognize `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN`. A hello probe that hits the
subscription usage limit reports a hard `claude_hello_probe_failed`. The
claude-local package test suites do not run in CI, and two of them are
stale.
**Proposed behavior**
The probe resolves the selected environment's envVars
(environment-consumer secret bindings included) and merges them under
the agent config env with the run-path precedence; missing bindings
surface as an explicit error check that fails the test. The env-test
emits a `claude_oauth_token_configured` info check when that variable is
set. Usage-limit probe results classify as a
`claude_hello_probe_usage_limited` warning because auth works and only
the usage window is spent. The claude-local suites run in CI. Docs state
the resulting facts.
**Reason and benefit**
The Test button should tell the truth: it previously contradicted run
behavior for environment-level configuration and hid broken secret
bindings. Enabling the package suites in CI prevents further silent
drift — two suites were already broken on master without anyone
noticing.
**Breaking changes**
None. Runs are unchanged. The probe route only adds env layers and
checks; setups without environment envVars behave exactly as before.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/agents.ts`: the test-environment route resolves the
selected environment's envVars (forbidden keys stripped,
environment-consumer secret context) and merges them under the agent
adapterConfig env, mirroring `resolveExecutionRunAdapterConfig`
precedence. Missing secret bindings are skipped, reported as an
`environment_env_binding_missing` error check, and fail the test —
matching the `ConfigurationIncompleteFailure` a real dispatch would
raise.
- `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.ts`: new
`claude_oauth_token_configured` info hint between the API-key warning
and the subscription fallback; hello-probe classification gains a
`claude_hello_probe_usage_limited` warning for provider-quota results
(previously a hard `claude_hello_probe_failed`).
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: add
`@paperclipai/adapter-claude-local` to `nonServerProjects` so CI runs
the package suites.
- `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts`:
assert both runtime asset syncs (skills and mcp-config); the suite
predated the mcp-config asset.
- `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.probe.test.ts`:
usage-limit fixture now expects the usage-limited warning; new fixture
covers the genuine transient path (529 overloaded); new tests cover the
token hint and API-key precedence.
- `server/src/__tests__/agent-test-environment-routes.test.ts`: new
tests for the env merge (agent wins on conflict, forbidden key
filtered), missing-binding reporting, and the no-execution-target
fallback path.
- `docs/adapters/claude-local.md`, `docs/adapters/overview.md`: state
the auth-input facts (API key or oauth token wins over stored logins;
snapshot-owns-auth applies when neither is configured) and describe the
environment-aware Test behavior.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local` — 131
tests pass (both drifted suites repaired; they fail on master today).
- `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-test-environment-routes.test.ts` — 7 tests
pass.
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` —
passes with the added project.
- `pnpm typecheck` in `server/` and `packages/adapters/claude-local/` —
clean.
## Risks
- Low risk. The run path is untouched; the probe route change is
additive and inert when the environment has no envVars.
- The probe now performs environment-consumer secret resolution at test
time; access is authorized per binding exactly as at run time, and the
audit consumer is the environment (as before for adapter-config
resolution).
- Enabling the claude-local project in CI adds about 2 seconds of vitest
wall time to the general workspaces group and could surface future
regressions in that package — which is the point.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking enabled, agentic
tool use via Claude Code (CLI).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A guarded hot restart must preserve or finalize every active agent
run.
> - The server uses embedded PostgreSQL when `DATABASE_URL` is not set.
> - The database dependency installs signal handlers before Paperclip
installs its coordinated shutdown handler.
> - Those handlers can stop PostgreSQL before Paperclip writes the
shutdown snapshot.
> - ACP runs also use server-owned stdio and cannot be adopted after
that server exits.
> - This pull request keeps PostgreSQL available through snapshot and
drain, then uses the existing ordered stop.
> - The benefit is a complete restart report with no false adoption and
no missing snapshot loss.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A guarded hot restart with a valid marker can report a live preflight
run as lost with reason `missing_shutdown_snapshot`. The
`embedded-postgres` package imports `async-exit-hook`. That package
registers `SIGINT` and `SIGTERM` listeners before Paperclip registers
its own shutdown listener. The dependency can close PostgreSQL while
Paperclip queries active heartbeat runs and writes the snapshot.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must keep its database available until it persists the
shutdown snapshot and completes any required run drain. A detached CLI
run must remain eligible for adoption. An ACP run must finish as
interrupted and queue a retry because its server-owned stdio cannot
survive the server.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run Paperclip from source with embedded PostgreSQL.
2. Start a local ACP-backed agent run.
3. Write a valid hot-restart marker for the current server process.
4. send `SIGTERM` through the service manager.
5. Inspect the restart report and server log.
6. Observe that PostgreSQL can close before the shutdown snapshot query
completes.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The defect reproduces on `2ab797dcbed0031c45c7335a0f497fea2a20bd9a`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server built from source, with embedded PostgreSQL and a
systemd service.
Related work: #9628 introduced hot-restart continuity. #10556 explores a
broader database ownership transfer. #10775 addresses ACP continuity
after replacement startup. This pull request uses a smaller path: it
keeps the current database owner alive through snapshot and drain, then
performs the existing explicit database stop.
## What Changed
- Remove only the `SIGINT` and `SIGTERM` listeners added by the embedded
PostgreSQL import.
- Preserve Paperclip's existing ordered database stop after heartbeat
snapshot and drain.
- Detect active ACP and server-stdio local runs before shutdown.
- Persist their complete snapshot before changing the marker to an ACP
drain request.
- Drain only ACP runs to an interrupted terminal state and queue their
retry.
- Keep detached CLI runs eligible for adoption in the same mixed
restart.
- Quiesce already-running scheduler queue claims before capturing the
snapshot and selective drain set.
- Report a selected ACP run as lost if process termination succeeds but
its terminal database write does not persist.
- Add the drain reason to the restart report.
- Document the normal path and the one-time recovery path across an
older affected build.
## Verification
- `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_MODE=native pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 100
passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/shutdown.test.ts
server/src/services/hot-restart.test.ts` — 24 passed.
- The shutdown suite imports the real `embedded-postgres` package and
verifies that its eager signal listeners are absent after the guarded
import.
- The embedded PostgreSQL recovery suite verifies snapshot, pre-snapshot
scheduler quiescence, selective ACP drain, detached CLI adoption, queued
retry, original-run finalization, `lostRunIds=[]` in a mixed restart,
and fail-closed reporting when terminal persistence fails.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- A full workspace typecheck reached the UI and stopped because the
shared local install does not contain its declared `@base-ui/react`
dependency. All server and preceding package checks passed. CI uses a
clean install and remains the authoritative full gate.
## Risks
- Low to moderate risk. This changes shutdown signal ownership and local
run behavior during guarded restarts.
- Paperclip already stops its managed embedded database explicitly. The
change removes only the dependency listeners that race the coordinated
path.
- ACP runs now retry instead of receiving an unsafe bare-process
adoption. Detached CLI runs keep their existing adoption behavior.
- The report adds one field. There is no schema migration or breaking
API 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 with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific
model revision or context-window size. Reasoning, repository editing,
shell execution, and test execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change 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.
> - Agents coordinate through company-visible issues, comments, child
tasks, and assignments.
> - The current authorization rules give these write channels different
and narrow ownership grants.
> - Those differences prevent standard-trust agents from coordinating on
work that they can already read.
> - A responsible human user must still bound every agent action.
> - This pull request gives the four issue-write channels one
default-open rule based on issue visibility.
> - The benefit is consistent multi-agent coordination without weakening
company, user, trust-scope, or run-lifecycle controls.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves authorization for comments, issue updates, child creation,
and assignment on company-visible issues.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/` REST API authorization and issue routes.
**Current behavior**
Standard-trust agents can read company-visible issues, but narrow
ownership, parent, or mention grants can still deny related writes. Each
write channel also applies a different rule.
**Proposed behavior**
Allow standard-trust agents to comment, update fields, create child
issues, and assign work when they can read the target issue and the
responsible user is also authorized. Keep company boundaries, low-trust
scopes, checkout conflicts, status rules, pause gates, budget gates, and
explicit reopen rules unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
Agents can coordinate on visible company work without relay issues or
unnecessary manager runs. One shared rule also makes the authorization
model easier to test and maintain.
**Breaking changes**
This intentionally broadens write access for standard-trust agents on
visible issues. Existing company boundaries and governance controls
remain in force.
Related prior approaches: Refs #10233 and Refs #9768. This change
unifies the comment case with visible issue updates, child creation, and
assignment while preserving the responsible-user ceiling and excluded
trust scopes.
## What Changed
- Added a shared default-open authorization decision for visible issue
writes.
- Applied the shared rule to comments, issue updates, child creation,
and assignment.
- Preserved low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, responsible-user,
checkout, lifecycle, pause, and budget controls.
- Preserved explicit resume/restore authority for direct peer lifecycle
transitions on blocked, completed, and cancelled issues.
- Added regression coverage for cross-company denial, user intersection,
excluded scopes, comment-read structure, closed issues, child creation,
assignment, and peer updates.
- Updated the V1 implementation contract for the shared rule.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` —
217 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed.
- Independent security review covered broken access control,
object-level authorization, excessive agency, cross-company access,
responsible-user intersection, excluded scopes, and lifecycle controls;
its peer lifecycle-transition finding is fixed with regression coverage.
## Risks
- Standard-trust agents gain broader write influence on issues that they
can already read.
- Future issue-visibility controls must keep `issue:read` as the
canonical authorization hook.
- Regression tests cover company boundaries, responsible-user
intersection, excluded scopes, active checkout conflicts, closed-issue
behavior, and non-transitive mention authority.
> 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 through Codex. The runtime does not expose the exact
deployment revision or context-window size. Agentic reasoning,
repository tools, shell execution, and test execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server stores all state in PostgreSQL through Drizzle and the
postgres.js driver
> - Self-hosted installs run Postgres on localhost, so per-query latency
is near zero; hosted installs often attach Postgres over a network,
sometimes through a transaction-mode pooler
> - The DB client passes no options to the driver, so operators cannot
disable prepared statements or tune the pool without a source edit, and
the deploy docs told them to edit `client.ts`
> - The attention feed also runs its related-data lookups one after
another, so its latency grows as queries × network round trip
> - This pull request adds optional environment configuration for the DB
client and batches the independent attention-feed lookups with
`Promise.all`
> - The benefit is that network-attached deployments get correct pooler
support and a much faster attention feed, while self-hosted behavior
does not change
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this; description follows the bug report
template:
**What happened?**
On deployments where PostgreSQL is network-attached (managed providers,
pooled endpoints), the attention feed endpoint is slow:
`attentionService.list()` awaits ~15–20 queries strictly in sequence, so
a 70ms round trip turns into more than one second of pure network wait
per call. Separately, connecting through a transaction-mode pooler
(pgbouncer, Supavisor port 6543, Neon `-pooler` hosts) requires
disabling prepared statements, and the only documented way was to
hand-edit `packages/db/src/client.ts` — which `doc/DATABASE.md` itself
tells operators not to do.
**Expected behavior**
The DB client is configurable from the environment (prepared statements,
pool size, timeouts) with driver defaults when unset, and hot read paths
do not multiply network latency by issuing independent queries
sequentially.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the server with `DATABASE_URL` pointing at a Postgres instance
with ~70ms round-trip latency.
2. Open the attention feed (`GET /companies/:companyId/attention`) and
measure response time — it exceeds one second even with little data.
3. Try to connect through a transaction-mode pooler: there is no
supported configuration to disable prepared statements.
## What Changed
- `packages/db/src/client.ts`: `createDb` accepts a
`DatabaseClientOptions` argument and reads optional env config —
`DATABASE_PREPARED_STATEMENTS`, `DATABASE_POOL_MAX`,
`DATABASE_IDLE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS`, `DATABASE_CONNECT_TIMEOUT_SECONDS`.
When nothing is set, no option is passed to the driver and behavior is
identical to the previous bare `postgres(url)`.
- `packages/db/src/client-options.test.ts` (new): env parsing and
driver-option mapping tests, including malformed-value rejection.
- `server/src/services/attention.ts`: the independent related-data
lookups in each feed section now run under `Promise.all` (issue
summary/image/plan-document maps, decision bundle titles, blocked-issue
maps, the newer-runs scan). Section order, item assembly, and query
shapes are unchanged.
- `doc/DATABASE.md` and `docs/deploy/database.md`: the edit-source
pooling instruction is replaced with the env toggle, plus a short
client-tuning reference.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/client-options.test.ts` — 6 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts` — 22 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 45 tests pass; this covers
the call path that runs `attentionService.list()` inside
`db.transaction`, where postgres.js serializes queries on the reserved
connection.
- `tsc` reports no errors in the changed files.
## Risks
- Low risk for self-hosted installs: with no env vars set,
`postgres(url, {})` receives an empty options object, which postgres.js
treats the same as no options — driver defaults throughout.
- The `Promise.all` batches only group queries that had no data
dependency on each other; on the transaction call path the driver still
executes them one at a time on the reserved connection, so transactional
semantics are unchanged.
- Malformed env values now fail fast at startup with a clear message
instead of being silently ignored; this is intentional and only affects
operators who set the new variables.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic — via Claude Code CLI,
extended thinking enabled, tool use (test execution, live latency
measurement against a network-attached Postgres to size the problem).
## 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 (searched "prepared statements", "pgbouncer", "pool",
"attention feed", "lockfile" — closest matches are #10573/#10787
lockfile chores, unrelated to this change)
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Bridge workers keep startup setup separate from long-lived runtime
work
> - The callback bridge must keep queue-directory setup inside the
startup step
> - The long-lived poll loop must run with no active startup step
> - This pull request keeps that boundary in the right place
> - The benefit is correct span parents and correct runtime exec
metadata
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Bug**
**What happened?**
Long-lived bridge continuations kept a stale startup step store during
the queue-directory setup path.
**Expected behavior**
Runtime exec spans should start with no active startup step.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a bridge lane.
2. Let the startup step end.
3. Run later runtime exec work on the same lane.
**Paperclip version or commit**
223068e2ff
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server
## What Changed
- Added `runWithoutActiveStep` in
`packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-timing.ts`.
- Wrapped the long-lived poll timer, socket handlers, and
callback-bridge worker loop in both bridge lanes.
- Added unit tests for store leak and reset behavior.
- Added continuation tests for both bridge lanes and the `criticalPath`
flag.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-timing.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low risk.
- The change alters async context handling in bridge continuations.
- If a caller depends on inherited step state, this change removes it.
- The tests cover the intended bridge lanes.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The decisions desk and queue help operators find work that needs a
human decision.
> - The current views use different grouping, sorting, and labels.
> - Repeated confirmation requests can also leave stale pending actions
in the queue.
> - Blocked-work attention can point at an intermediate issue instead of
the terminal blocker.
> - This pull request aligns the server contract and both user
interfaces.
> - The benefit is a smaller, clearer queue that ranks the decisions
with the largest impact.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related PR: #10774
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The decisions desk and queue currently use different triage rules. They
can show stale repeated confirmations and can rank blocked work by an
intermediate issue.
**Subsystem affected**
This change affects attention aggregation, issue thread interactions,
shared attention contracts, and the decisions user interface.
**Current behavior**
The desk uses a can-wait group that has no clear arrival meaning. The
queue has fewer controls than the desk. Repeated pending confirmations
remain actionable. Blocked-work rows do not always identify the terminal
actionable blocker.
**Proposed behavior**
Group desk items by arrival date, and reserve Decide now for explicit
due dates. Use one toolbar and shelf model on both pages. Supersede
older repeated pending confirmations. Aggregate blocked work under the
terminal actionable blocker and rank it by impact.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators get one consistent triage model. The badge reflects new and
overdue work. High-impact blockers move to the top. Duplicate
confirmation work no longer consumes attention.
**Breaking changes**
The attention summary field `decideNowCount` changes to
`deskBadgeCount`. Consumers must use the new field. Older repeated
confirmation interactions can now finish with the
`superseded_by_newer_request` outcome.
## What Changed
- Supersede older pending confirmation requests for the same issue and
record the mutation in activity history.
- Resolve blocked-work attention to actionable terminal blockers,
suppress live blocker trees, and rank rows by blocked-work impact.
- Group the decisions desk into New today and Earlier, and count new
plus overdue work in the desk badge.
- Share the decision toolbar and shelf components across the desk and
queue.
- Add queue grouping, sorting, filtering, aging, visible training
controls, and clearer recommendation copy.
- Add server, shared-contract, and user-interface tests for the new
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` (all
server, UI, CLI, shared, and catalog tests passed; one fixed five-second
DB timeout flaked under full-suite load)
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` (passed in isolation)
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- The attention summary field rename requires synchronized consumers.
- Terminal-blocker traversal uses cycle and depth guards. A malformed
dependency graph can stop at the last safe node.
- The new arrival grouping changes which items contribute to the
decisions badge.
- Superseding repeated confirmations changes the terminal state of older
pending interactions.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model
snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository
tools, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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 tracks agent work for the team.
> - The startup timing path already emits detailed spans.
> - The run log repeats the same detailed timing.
> - That makes the event larger than it needs to be.
> - This pull request removes the redundant per-step timing fields from
the run-log payload.
> - The benefit is a smaller log with the same detail still available in
traces.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue or open pull request matches this change. I
described the enhancement below.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
`run.startup.step` event output.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Current behavior**
`run.startup.step` writes `roundTrips`, `providerExecMs`,
`providerGetMs`, `createRuntimeMs`, and `ensureSessionMs`. The same
detail already exists in the spans.
**Proposed behavior**
`run.startup.step` keeps only `step`, `durationMs`, and `outcome`. The
heartbeat lifecycle timestamps stay unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
This change removes redundant data from the run log. It keeps the useful
detail in trace spans. It also makes the payload smaller and easier to
read. The revert path stays clear because the removed data has one
producer chain.
**Breaking changes**
Yes. Consumers that read the removed fields must switch to span data or
the remaining event fields. The heartbeat lifecycle timestamps do not
change.
**Additional context**
I searched GitHub for related open PRs and issues. I found no match.
## What Changed
- Removed the redundant per-step timing fields from the run-log payload.
- Removed the now-dead producer chain that fed those fields.
- Kept the span-level timing data and the heartbeat lifecycle
timestamps.
## Verification
- `adapter-utils` typecheck clean
- `server` typecheck clean
- `startup-timing` suite: 30 passed
- `adapter-utils` `execute` suite: 99 passed
- `server` `environment-execution-target` suite: 21 passed
## Risks
- Consumers that still read the removed fields will need a code change.
- This is a one-way-door data removal for the run log.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull requests to ship control-plane changes with
review and audit.
> - This change extends sandbox provider telemetry.
> - The first PR added startup and exec spans.
> - This PR adds provider spans for cache hits, plugin tracer flow, and
Daytona file sync steps.
> - The host must keep the trust boundary and reject unsafe span data.
> - The result is fuller OTel coverage with bounded labels and safe
parentage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Sandbox provider telemetry lacks an explicit cache-hit signal, plugin
span context, and file-sync pack and transfer spans.
The current proxy for a cache hit is fragile.
The plugin SDK also needs a safe tracer surface and a per-call parent
context.
**Proposed solution**
Add an explicit `cacheHit` flag from the Daytona sandbox handle lookup.
Expose `ctx.tracer` on the plugin context and pass a `traceparent`
string with each call.
Record provider spans on the host with allowlist clamping and capability
checks.
Wrap Daytona file sync pack and transfer steps in spans.
**Alternatives considered**
Keep the old `providerGetMs == 0` proxy.
Reject that path because the cache-hit decision belongs at the handle
lookup, not in a timing proxy.
The host stays the trust boundary for worker span data.
It clamps labels, rejects bad parent data, and gates the worker-to-host
span RPC by capability.
A security review completed before this PR opened.
## What Changed
- Added an explicit `cacheHit` flag from the Daytona sandbox handle
lookup.
- Added `ctx.tracer` on the plugin context and a `traceparent` field in
the per-call context.
- Added host-side span recording with attribute clamping and capability
checks.
- Wrapped Daytona file sync pack and transfer steps in spans.
- Added tests for the host trust boundary, the plugin tracer no-op path,
and the Daytona span paths.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-daytona exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
plugin-host-services environment-execution-target instrumentation
plugin-worker-manager`
- `tsc --noEmit` for server, plugin-sdk, and adapter-utils
## Risks
- Span data now crosses the worker boundary, so the host allowlist and
capability gate must stay strict.
- The `traceparent` path must stay valid and host-owned.
- Daytona file sync spans must not add new round trips.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, 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 linked existing issues with `Fixes:` / `Closes:` /
`Refs:` or described the issue in the PR body
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The heartbeat service starts agent runs in local, SSH, sandbox,
plugin, or Kubernetes environments.
> - Runs can share one project working tree.
> - PR #10699 made every shared working tree single-file, including
trusted local and SSH hosts that support coordinated concurrent work.
> - Operators need a policy that keeps remote environments safe and
restores local multi-agent work.
> - This pull request adds an `auto`, `serialize`, or `allow`
concurrency policy and applies it to the final execution environment.
> - The benefit is safe serialization by default for sandboxed targets
and useful concurrency by default for persistent local targets.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related work: #10699 introduced the busy gate that this change makes
configurable. #7852 covers a separate environment-lease race and does
not provide this dispatch policy.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/` heartbeat orchestration and `packages/shared/` workspace
policy contracts.
**Problem or motivation**
The shared-workspace busy gate always defers a second run. This behavior
prevents local multi-agent projects from running concurrently even when
operators expect agents to coordinate through commits.
**Proposed solution**
Add `sharedWorkspaceConcurrency` with `auto`, `serialize`, and `allow`
values. Default `auto` permits local and SSH concurrency. It serializes
sandbox, plugin, and forced Kubernetes execution.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping unconditional serialization is too restrictive for persistent
host working trees. Always allowing overlap removes the protection that
sandboxed and remote targets need.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is a focused correction to the shipped cloud and sandbox execution
milestone. It does not add a new roadmap feature.
## What Changed
- Added the optional tri-state field to project policy and issue
override contracts and validators.
- Added a pure resolver with issue override, project policy, and `auto`
default precedence.
- Moved final environment and Kubernetes resolution before the
shared-workspace busy gate.
- Kept the existing deferral and retry behavior for every path that
resolves to serialization.
- Added a task-context warning and a structured log when a run
dispatches beside a live holder.
- Added policy and heartbeat coverage for all requested policy and
environment combinations.
- Documented the new policy and its default behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 32 tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false
PAPERCLIP_DATABASE_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false
PAPERCLIP_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false pnpm test:run` — all 3,528 server
tests passed. The later UI/workspace phase passed 3,384 tests and hit
one unrelated `CompanyEnvironments` navigation timing failure.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx -t "opens the edit form on a
standalone page with existing values and closes after save"` — the
unrelated UI test passed in isolation.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
Policy matrix:
| Policy | Final target | Expected result | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `auto` | local | Dispatch with holder note | Passed |
| `auto` | sandbox | Defer with `workspace_busy` | Passed |
| `auto` | instance-forced Kubernetes | Defer with `workspace_busy` |
Passed |
| `serialize` | local | Defer with `workspace_busy` | Passed |
| `allow` | sandbox | Dispatch with holder note | Passed |
Existing serialization, retry, and stale-holder tests also pass.
## Risks
- `auto` changes the post-#10699 local and SSH behavior back to
concurrent dispatch. Concurrent agents can mutate the same working tree,
so each dispatched run receives an explicit coordination warning.
- `allow` is an operator override and can permit overlap in sandbox or
plugin environments.
- Unknown environment drivers serialize in `auto` mode. This keeps the
fallback conservative.
- There is no database migration. An absent field resolves to `auto`.
> 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). The exact API snapshot and context-window size are
not exposed to the agent. Reasoning, repository editing, terminal tool
use, and local code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip coordinates AI agent work and records execution data.
> - The sandbox startup path and the host-to-sandbox execution path need
clearer OpenTelemetry spans.
> - The trace data now shows wait time, critical path data, and bounded
labels.
> - This pull request adds bounded spans and closed attribute helpers
for sandbox startup and execution.
> - The result is better trace data with low cardinality and no secret
leakage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue exists for this branch.
- Related PR: #10536
- This PR extends the sandbox OpenTelemetry work with exec spans, root
timing, and bounded labels.
## What Changed
- Added a closed span-attribute contract for sandbox startup data.
- Added a bounded label helper for command and region values.
- Threaded the active step context into the execution path.
- Added a `sandbox.exec` span with true timestamps and bounded
attributes.
- Added skipped-step and root-span timing data with low-cardinality
context.
- Moved handshake sub-times and bridge batch data onto spans.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils run typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server run typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
environment-execution-target`
- `git log --oneline
origin/master..origin/feat/sandbox-startup-otel-spans`
- `git diff origin/master...origin/feat/sandbox-startup-otel-spans
--stat`
## Risks
- Span attribute rules could still miss a future field if new code skips
the shared helper.
- Low-cardinality labels may hide some detail, but that is the intended
tradeoff.
- Tracing stays fail-open, so a missing tracer still hides data rather
than stopping work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use enabled. The runtime did not expose the
context window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change 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] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
The current head still has one failing required check: `e2e`. The PR
stays unready for board handoff until that check passes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip coordinates agent runs and checks required runtime
credentials before dispatch.
> - The push-capability preflight protects runs that use the GitHub PR
workflow skill.
> - PR #10659 also made issue title and description text trigger this
preflight.
> - That text heuristic blocks tasks that mention a pull request but do
not need a bound GitHub token at dispatch time.
> - This pull request removes the text heuristic and keeps the explicit
skill trigger.
> - The benefit is that ordinary task wording no longer causes a false
configuration failure.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #10659
**What happened?**
An issue title or description that said to open a pull request or push a
branch could trigger the push-capability credential preflight. The run
then failed before dispatch when no project-level or agent-level GitHub
token was bound, even when the task could proceed without that
preflight.
**Expected behavior**
The preflight must run only when the issue explicitly selects the GitHub
PR workflow skill. Issue prose alone must not enable the guard.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Assign a local Codex or Claude agent an issue that says to open a
pull request.
2. Do not attach the GitHub PR workflow skill to the issue.
3. Start the run without a project-level or agent-level GitHub token
binding.
4. Observe the false `push_write_credential_missing` failure before this
fix.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` after PR #10659.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with a git-sensitive local adapter.
## What Changed
- Removed `issueTextImpliesPrDeliverable` and its text-pattern matcher.
- Restored `requiresPushCapabilityPreflight` to use only explicit GitHub
PR workflow skill keys.
- Removed the obsolete issue-text tests while keeping coverage for the
explicit skill, adapter, and issue gates.
## Verification
- `PAPERCLIP_LOG_DIR=<run-owned-dir> pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — 134 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. A task that states a PR deliverable but does not select the
GitHub PR workflow skill will no longer receive the early credential
preflight. This is the intended temporary behavior.
- Tasks that explicitly select the skill still receive the existing
credential and checkout checks.
> This change does not add a core feature and does not overlap with
ROADMAP.md work.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose the
context-window size. The model used agentic reasoning, tool use, and
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] 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
> - Repo-only project workspaces are materialized by a server-side
managed `git clone` into a per-project directory (#10720 added
credentials for private repos)
> - Two issues on the same project routinely wake seconds apart, and
both runs race the same clone target
> - The loser fails with "destination path already exists", and its
failure cleanup removes the directory out from under the winner's
in-progress clone — both runs then fail every round
> - This pull request serializes materialization per target directory
and makes the clone land atomically via a temp sibling + rename, so the
shared target is never partial and never removed
> - The benefit is that concurrent runs on the same project converge:
one clone happens, everyone adopts it, and unrelated failures no longer
blame the GitHub credential
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
With isolated workspaces enabled on a project whose only workspace is
repo-only, unblocking two issues at once produced lockstep mutual
destruction (observed live, two consecutive rounds): both runs called
the managed-checkout materialization concurrently; one clone created the
target directory, the other's `git clone` failed with `fatal:
destination path '…' already exists and is not an empty directory`, and
that run's failure cleanup deleted the directory while the first clone
was still writing into it (`fatal: could not set 'core…'`). Both runs
failed `workspace_validation_failed`; their staggered retries could race
again. The failure message also wrongly claimed the GitHub credential
"was rejected or lacks access" — the collision had nothing to do with
auth.
**Expected behavior**
Concurrent materializations of the same project checkout share one
clone; a completed checkout is never removed by a failing sibling; the
credential is only blamed for auth-shaped failures.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Project with a repo-only workspace (private repo, isolated workspaces
on).
2. Move two issues on that project to `todo` at the same time so both
runs start within seconds.
3. Both runs fail workspace validation with "destination path already
exists" / "could not set 'core…'" instead of one clone succeeding.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` (75f6256b76).
## What Changed
- `ensureManagedProjectWorkspace` serializes in-flight materializations
per target cwd (a module-level promise map): concurrent callers share
one attempt.
- The clone lands in a `<target>.clone-XXXXXX` temp sibling created with
`mkdtemp`, then moves into place with an atomic `rename`. Clone failure
removes only the temp directory; the shared target is never created
partially and never deleted. If the target appears between the emptiness
check and the rename (another process won), the completed checkout is
adopted instead of failing the run.
- `describeGitAuthFailure` attributes the GitHub credential only when
the error matches the auth-failure pattern; unrelated failures (path
collisions, network errors) no longer claim the token was rejected.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-managed-clone-credentials.test.ts
src/__tests__/git-credentials.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — 169 tests pass,
including new cases: concurrent materializations of the same checkout
succeed with one shared result and no temp litter; failed clones leave
neither target nor temp directories; an authenticated clone failing for
non-auth reasons does not blame the credential.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — clean.
## Risks
- Low risk. The serialization is in-process and keyed by exact target
path; the temp+rename pattern stays on the same filesystem (sibling
path) so the rename is atomic. Single-run behavior is byte-identical
apart from the temp-dir intermediate.
- The rename-conflict adoption path accepts a checkout another
materialization completed; the pre-existing `gitDirExists` adoption
semantics are unchanged.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code CLI).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - #10719 and #10720 both hardened credential scrubbing for server-side
git operations
> - #10719 defined `scrubGitCredentialText` locally in `heartbeat.ts`;
#10720 imported the identical function from the new `git-credentials.ts`
> - The two merged cleanly textually, but together they leave
`heartbeat.ts` with an import that conflicts with a local declaration
(TS2440)
> - This pull request keeps the `git-credentials.ts` copy as canonical,
drops the heartbeat-local duplicate, and re-exports the import so
existing importers are unchanged
> - The benefit is that master typechecks, builds, and produces Docker
images again
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
After #10719 and #10720 merged, master fails typecheck, the server
build, and both Docker image builds with
`src/services/heartbeat.ts(76,3): error TS2440: Import declaration
conflicts with local declaration of 'scrubGitCredentialText'`. The
canary release run for e0c2448267 failed for the same reason, so no
`@paperclipai/db` canary carrying migrations 0201/0202 can publish.
**Expected behavior**
Master typechecks and builds; one canonical `scrubGitCredentialText`
lives in `git-credentials.ts`.
**Steps to reproduce**
`pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` on e0c2448267.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` (e0c2448267).
## What Changed
- Removed the heartbeat-local `scrubGitCredentialText` definition
(byte-identical to the `git-credentials.ts` copy).
- Re-exported the imported function from `heartbeat.ts` so existing
importers, including `heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`, keep
working.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — clean.
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
src/__tests__/git-credentials.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-managed-clone-credentials.test.ts` — 167 tests
pass.
## Risks
Low risk — deletes one of two identical implementations and preserves
the public import surface via a re-export.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code CLI).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Repo-only project workspaces are materialized by a server-side `git
clone`, and isolated `git_worktree` runs refresh their base ref with
server-side `git fetch`
> - Both operations run outside the agent process with no credentials,
so private GitHub repositories can never be cloned or refreshed —
agent-scoped credential env bindings do not reach them
> - The company secret store already has a well-known GitHub token
convention (`GITHUB_TOKEN` / `GH_TOKEN` / `PAPERCLIP_GITHUB_TOKEN`,
consumed by the external-object provider for API reads), but nothing
server-side consults it for git
> - This pull request resolves that token per run and authenticates the
managed clone and every base-ref refresh with it through an ephemeral
credential helper
> - The benefit is that isolated workspaces work on private repositories
with one company secret, while public repositories and self-hosted
ambient git configuration keep working unchanged
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Server workspace materialization (`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`)
and execution-workspace realization
(`server/src/services/workspace-runtime.ts`).
**Problem or motivation**
A project workspace configured with only a private GitHub `repoUrl`
cannot be used for isolated `git_worktree` runs: the managed `git clone`
runs with a sanitized, credential-less environment, and plain git cannot
consume a bare token env variable without a credential helper. There is
no way to give the server a git credential — storing a `GH_TOKEN`
company secret has no effect on server-side git, and a credential-less
private clone hangs on a terminal prompt until the ten-minute clone
timeout. Base-ref refreshes (`git fetch`) during worktree realization
have the same gap.
**Proposed solution**
A `git-credentials` module resolves a token per run — company secret by
well-known name (`GITHUB_TOKEN`, `GH_TOKEN`, `PAPERCLIP_GITHUB_TOKEN`),
then `GITHUB_TOKEN`/`GH_TOKEN` in the server process environment for
self-hosted deployments, then none — and builds a git invocation that
authenticates via an inline credential helper. The token travels in an
env variable; it never appears in argv, URLs, or on disk. Only
`https://github.com` remotes are authenticated; everything else keeps
ambient behavior. The provider is a single factory seam so a future
brokered credential source can replace it without touching call sites.
**Alternatives considered**
- A GitHub OAuth "connect your account" flow: heavier product surface,
needs app registration and callback custody; out of scope for a server
credential and better served by a dedicated connector later. The
provider seam keeps that path open.
- `gh auth setup-git`: writes helper configuration to disk and requires
a global token env; rejected in favor of per-invocation config with no
persistent state.
- Embedding the token in the clone URL: leaks into argv, error messages,
and `.git/config`; rejected.
## What Changed
- New `server/src/services/git-credentials.ts`:
`createGitRemoteAuthProvider` (memoized per run, one secret resolution
and one audit event), `buildGitAuthInvocation` (helper-reset + inline
helper, `x-access-token` username, `GIT_TERMINAL_PROMPT=0`),
`isGitHubHttpsRemoteUrl` host gating (rejects ssh/GHES/http/other
hosts/userinfo URLs), `describeGitAuthFailure`, and the canonical
`scrubGitCredentialText`. Secret resolutions pass a `system` consumer
access context so they are recorded as secret access events.
- `ensureManagedProjectWorkspace` (now exported) accepts an optional
auth provider; the clone env spreads the token after
`sanitizeRuntimeServiceBaseEnv` (which strips `PAPERCLIP_*`), always
sets `GIT_TERMINAL_PROMPT=0`, distinguishes "credential rejected" from
"no credential configured — add a GITHUB_TOKEN or GH_TOKEN company
secret" in the error, and removes the partially created directory on
clone failure so a timeout-killed clone cannot be adopted as a broken
checkout by the next run.
- `refreshRemoteTrackingBaseRef` (now exported) captures the remote URL
it already looked up, asks the provider for an invocation, and
attributes failed authenticated fetches to the credential in a scrubbed
warning. The optional provider threads through `detectDefaultBranch`,
`resolveAuthoritativeBaseRef`, `inspectExecutionWorkspaceBaseDrift`,
`realizeExecutionWorkspace`, and
`ensurePersistedExecutionWorkspaceAvailable`; heartbeat builds one
provider per run for both the anchor-resolution clone path and workspace
realization/restore.
- `github-external-object-provider.ts` imports the shared secret-name
list; `isGitHubDotCom` is exported from `github-fetch.ts`.
- Docs: "Private repositories and repo-only project workspaces" section
in the execution-workspaces guide, cross-linked from the secrets deploy
doc.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/git-credentials.test.ts` —
resolution chain order and precedence, env fallback, memoization,
audited access context, host-gating matrix, invocation shape (token
absent from argv), scrubber, failure descriptions, and a real-git `git
credential fill` round trip that proves the helper executes and answers
with the env-carried token (no network).
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-managed-clone-credentials.test.ts` — clones
behave byte-identically with no provider or a null-returning provider
(local repos, no network), authenticated-failure errors name the
credential, non-auth failures do not mention credentials, partial clone
directories are removed, pre-existing non-git directories keep the
"Using it as-is" path, and the sanitizer spread order keeps the token
env alive.
- `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`
— new `refreshRemoteTrackingBaseRef` cases: provider offered the remote
URL and null keeps behavior identical; failed authenticated fetch
warning names the credential; unauthenticated failure warning stays
credential-free.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` is clean.
- Manual (optional, networked): store a `GH_TOKEN` company secret,
configure a repo-only project workspace pointing at a private GitHub
repository, run an isolated-workspace issue — the managed clone succeeds
and the worktree run proceeds.
## Risks
- Every new parameter is optional; with no provider the git invocations
are byte-identical to before. Public repos and ambient credential
helpers keep working whenever no token resolves.
- Precedence change when a token exists: a stored company secret now
wins over ambient helpers for `https://github.com` remotes (the helper
list is reset for that invocation). The rejected-credential error names
the secret so an operator can fix or remove it.
- `GIT_TERMINAL_PROMPT=0` on the managed clone is the one always-on
change: a credential-less private clone now fails fast with a clear
message instead of hanging until the ten-minute timeout (it could only
ever "succeed" interactively on a TTY dev server).
- The token is scoped to the git process env for one invocation; it is
never written to agent env, run context, disk, or logs, and error text
is scrubbed of URL userinfo.
- No migrations, no image changes (git ships in the image).
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code CLI).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue properties panel can show external objects such as GitHub
pull requests.
> - Those objects are resolved by external-object providers and then
displayed as compact status labels.
> - A GitHub pull request could remain in the fallback `unknown` state
and appear as `Not yet resolved`.
> - That label is confusing when the object is known but has not been
refreshed yet.
> - This pull request refreshes due external objects from the heartbeat
scheduler and improves the unknown-status copy.
> - The benefit is a properties panel that moves from pending refresh to
the real pull request state without a manual refresh.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. I searched for related
public issues and pull requests using the terms `Not yet refreshed`,
`external objects refresh`, and `external PR status`, and did not find a
duplicate implementation.
**What happened?**
The issue properties panel could show a GitHub pull request as `Not yet
resolved` even when the referenced pull request was valid. The object
stayed stale unless a manual refresh path ran.
**Expected behavior**
A known external object should show pending-refresh copy while it waits
for provider data. When the scheduler refreshes it, the properties panel
should show the provider status such as open, merged, or closed.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create or view an issue that references a GitHub pull request.
2. Open the issue properties panel.
3. Observe the external object row before a manual refresh has run.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev and self-hosted server.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Access context**
Board view.
**Privacy checklist**
I reviewed this description and did not include logs, credentials,
private URLs, internal issue IDs, or PII.
## What Changed
- Added a heartbeat scheduler tick that refreshes due external objects
for active companies.
- Kept manual external-object refresh behavior on the same service path.
- Changed display copy so known provider objects use liveness labels
such as `Not yet refreshed`, while fresh unknown provider statuses show
`Status unavailable`.
- Added server and UI tests for scheduled refresh and label behavior.
## Verification
- `corepack pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- GitHub PR checks passed on head `0e7fcd30`
- Greptile reported 5/5 on head `0e7fcd30` with no unresolved review
threads
Notes:
- I ran recursive typecheck and build first. Both hit container resource
limits with exit 137 during concurrent package work, so I reran the
affected server and UI targets separately.
- An unrelated workspace-runtime auto-port test fails in this container
with a PID ownership mismatch. It is outside the files changed here.
## Risks
Low to medium risk.
The scheduler does more periodic external-object work, so the main risk
is extra provider refresh load. The implementation bounds the work to
active companies, due non-terminal objects, and 50 objects per company
per tick. The path also stays behind the external-objects experimental
setting.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Codex execution environment, with shell and
GitHub CLI tool use. The runtime did not expose a more specific internal
model ID or context window.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Heartbeat runs prepare an execution workspace for each issue; with
isolated workspaces (or low-trust runs), the `git_worktree` strategy
needs a real git checkout as its base
> - For repo-only project workspaces, the server materializes the
checkout with a managed `git clone`; when that clone fails, the resolver
drops the error and silently falls back to the agent home directory with
`source: "project_primary"`
> - The pre-dispatch guard then reports
`git_worktree_base_not_git_checkout`, which hides the real cause; if the
fallback directory happens to be a git checkout, the run silently builds
worktrees off the wrong repository
> - This pull request records materialization failures on the resolved
workspace, marks the fallback explicitly, and fails the guard with a
truthful `git_worktree_base_materialization_failed` reason that carries
the clone error
> - The benefit is that operators see the real cause (a failed clone) in
the run error, the blocked-issue comment, and the recovery next action,
instead of a misleading symptom
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An issue configured for isolated `git_worktree` execution on a project
whose only workspace is repo-only (a `repoUrl` with no local path) fails
every run with `workspace_validation_failed` and reason
`git_worktree_base_not_git_checkout`, pointing at the agent home
directory. The message does not mention that the managed `git clone` of
the project repository failed (for a private repository the clone can
never succeed without credentials). The recovery flow then blocks the
issue with the same misleading explanation. Run warnings claim "Project
workspace has no local cwd configured" even though the workspace is
configured and the clone failed.
**Expected behavior**
The run failure, the blocked-issue comment, and the recovery next action
should state the real cause: the project workspace checkout could not be
prepared, including the clone error, so the operator can repair the
repository URL, clone access, or configured local cwd. A fallback
directory that happens to be a git checkout must not let the run proceed
against the wrong repository.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a project whose primary workspace has a `repoUrl` pointing at
a private GitHub repository and no local path.
2. Enable the Isolated Workspaces experimental setting (or use a
low-trust run, which forces isolation).
3. Run any issue in that project.
4. The run fails with `git_worktree_base_not_git_checkout` on the agent
home directory; the clone failure appears nowhere.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` (bd86dbe41b).
## What Changed
- `resolveAnchorWorkspaceForRun` collects every failed project-workspace
materialization attempt (previously the error was dropped unless the row
was the preferred workspace) and returns two new fields on
`ResolvedWorkspaceForRun`: `baseCwdFallback` and
`materializationFailures`. The `source` label is unchanged because
session migration keys off `source === "project_primary"`.
- `assertGitWorktreeBaseWorkspaceReady` accepts the anchor facts and
fails with the new reason `git_worktree_base_materialization_failed` —
checked before the git-checkout probe, so a fallback directory that
happens to be a git repo can no longer host worktrees for the wrong
repository. The message carries the first scrubbed clone error and
remediation, and lands in `run.error`, the persisted
`workspaceValidation` payload, and the blocked-issue comment.
- New `scrubGitCredentialText` masks URL userinfo (a `repoUrl` can
legitimately embed credentials today) before errors reach warnings or
persisted payloads.
- Fallback warning assembly moved into the pure helper
`buildAnchorFallbackWorkspaceNotes`; a clone failure now produces
"Failed to prepare the project workspace checkout: …" instead of the
false "no local cwd configured", with the existing warning texts
preserved byte-for-byte when nothing failed to materialize.
- The workspace-validation recovery comment and the recovery service's
next action explain the new reason specifically.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — new cases: the new
reason takes precedence over the git-checkout probe (fallback cwd is a
real git repo), payload carries the scrubbed failures, anchor-absent
legacy behavior unchanged, scrubber unit tests, and warning-assembly
unit tests that pin the existing texts.
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` — recovery surfaces
still pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` is clean.
## Risks
- Additive persisted-payload fields and a new reason string; recovery
reason handling falls through to generic text for unknown reasons, and
no UI consumes the `git_worktree_base_*` strings.
- Intentional behavior change: a repo-only project whose clone fails and
whose agent-home fallback happened to be a git checkout previously ran
in that unrelated repository; it now fails with the truthful reason. A
test locks this.
- Runs without isolated workspaces (the default) never reach the guard;
their fallback behavior is unchanged.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code CLI).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The heartbeat service dispatches agent runs, and issues in a project
can share one project workspace (one working tree on disk).
> - Two runs can execute in the same shared workspace at the same time.
Each run mutates the same uncommitted files and branches, and the runs
corrupt each other's state.
> - Multi-agent projects hit this as soon as two issues in one project
become active together, so the platform needs to serialize
shared-workspace execution instead of relying on luck.
> - This pull request adds a pre-dispatch gate: a run whose issue
targets a busy shared workspace is deferred with a bounded scheduled
retry instead of dispatched.
> - The benefit is that concurrent issue runs in one project take turns
in the shared working tree, while isolated-workspace runs and unrelated
workspaces stay fully parallel.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10645
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`:
- New pre-dispatch gate in the run executor. Before adapter dispatch,
when the run's issue has a `projectWorkspaceId` and the effective
execution workspace mode is `shared_workspace`, the executor looks for a
holder: another `running` run whose context issue shares the same
project workspace. The gate covers every run shape that reaches adapter
dispatch with issue context — assignee execution runs, comment/mention
interaction wakes, and review-participant runs.
- When a holder exists, the run throws `WorkspaceBusyDeferral` instead
of dispatching. The outer catch recognizes the deferral: it cancels the
run with `errorCode: "workspace_busy"` (contention is not a failure),
cancels its wakeup, schedules a retry through the existing
`scheduleBoundedRetryForRun` primitive (`workspace_busy` reason, 60–120
s jittered delay), and returns the agent to idle. The issue execution
lock transfers to the scheduled retry run, so the issue keeps an active
execution path and stranded-issue recovery does not fire.
- An adapter never dispatches alongside a live holder: deferral has no
attempt ceiling, so a deferred run keeps rescheduling until the
workspace frees. Deadlock safety comes from holder liveness, not a
counter — a holder silent past
`ACTIVE_RUN_OUTPUT_SUSPICION_THRESHOLD_MS` (recovery's own "suspicious
silence" bar, 1 h) stops counting as a holder, so a zombie run can only
delay work, never park it forever, and recovery's silent-run escalation
is already reaping it in parallel. If no retry can be scheduled (agent
paused, issue reassigned), the deferral releases the issue execution
lock so the issue does not strand.
- Holder detection honors isolation: when the isolated-workspaces
experiment is enabled, holders whose issue settings select
`isolated_workspace` / `operator_branch` (or the legacy `isolated`
alias) are not counted, because they never touch the shared tree. A NULL
or `agent_default` mode counts as a holder — over-serializing is the
safe direction.
- Non-assignee deferrals survive replay: the deferral stamps
`workspaceBusyDeferredWhileAssignee` into the run context (inherited by
the scheduled retry), and both the retry promotion gate and the
claim-time staleness check exempt a non-assignee `workspace_busy` retry
from the reassignment cancellation — for such a retry an assignee
mismatch is the expected state, not a reassignment race. An assignee
run's retry keeps the full protection: if the issue is reassigned while
the retry pends, it still cancels with `issue_reassigned`.
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` (new):
embedded-Postgres coverage of the full lifecycle plus unit coverage of
the delay window.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 10 tests:
- a run whose issue targets a busy shared workspace is cancelled with
`workspace_busy`, its adapter never executes, a `scheduled_retry` run
exists with the 60–120 s window, the issue execution lock points at the
retry run, the holder run is untouched, and the agent returns to idle;
- after the holder finishes, `promoteDueScheduledRetries` +
`resumeQueuedRuns` execute the retry run to success;
- a non-assignee comment-mention wake defers, does not touch the issue
execution lock, and its retry promotes, survives the claim-time
staleness check, and executes despite the assignee mismatch;
- an assignee retry is still cancelled with `issue_reassigned` when the
issue is reassigned while the retry pends;
- a holder issue with `executionWorkspaceSettings.mode =
"isolated_workspace"` does not cause deferral;
- a running run in a different project workspace does not cause
deferral;
- a holder silent past the staleness threshold does not cause deferral
(the run executes);
- a retry with ten prior deferrals still defers again — never dispatches
— while the holder is live;
- delay jitter stays inside the base-to-base-plus-jitter window and
clamps out-of-range random sources.
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-` — full
heartbeat suite sweep.
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Behavioral shift: shared-workspace runs that used to start immediately
now wait for the workspace to free. Against a long-running live holder
the wait is unbounded by design — the alternative is dispatching into a
held working tree, which is the corruption this PR removes. Every
deferral is visible in the run timeline (lifecycle event with the holder
run, issue, and attempt number), and the wake is parked, never dropped.
- A zombie holder (a `running` row whose process died) delays contending
runs by up to the 1 h staleness threshold before it stops counting.
Recovery's silent-run escalation targets the same run on the same clock,
so this window matches what the system already tolerates for silent
active runs.
- The holder check and the dispatch are not atomic; two runs that pass
the gate in the same instant can still race. The gate closes the common
window (a second run waking while the first is mid-execution); the
pre-existing sync-conflict handling remains the backstop for the rare
simultaneous start.
- No schema change, no API change, no new configuration.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, tool use, full repository access; implementation, tests, and
verification runs.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The decisions service lets agents propose decisions with a TTL, and
a sweep expires them.
> - Four sweep tests create decisions that expire 5 ms in the future,
then race the service's own clock read.
> - On a loaded CI runner more than 5 ms routinely elapse before
validation, so `create` itself rejects the decision and the test fails
on unrelated PRs.
> - This pull request makes the expiry deterministic: create with a
comfortable future TTL, then move `expiresAt` into the past directly in
the store.
> - The benefit is that the decisions suite stops failing intermittently
and stops blocking unrelated PRs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No open issue exists; the defect is described here following the bug
template.
**What happened?**
`decisions-service.test.ts` fails intermittently in CI with `expiresAt
must be within 30 days` in `bounds expiration work to the configured
batch size` and `falls back to the default sweep batch size for invalid
configuration`. The failure hits unrelated PRs — for example the `PR`
workflow runs for #10699 failed three times on this suite while the same
suite passes locally.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` on a
machine under load (or add a ~10 ms delay inside
`decisionService.create` before the expiry validation).
2. The test builds `expiresAt: new Date(Date.now() + 5)`; by the time
`create` validates, `expiresAt.getTime() <= Date.now()` is true.
3. `create` throws `expiresAt must be within 30 days` (the past-expiry
branch of the validator) and the test fails before the sweep runs.
**Expected behavior**
The sweep tests exercise expiry deterministically and never depend on
fewer than 5 ms elapsing between two clock reads in different modules.
**Paperclip version**
master (`717684ad8f`); the tests landed with the decisions desk workflow
in #10672.
**Deployment mode**
Not deployment-specific — CI and local test runs.
## What Changed
- `server/src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts`: added two helpers —
`nearFutureExpiry()` (a 60 s TTL that passes validation with a wide
margin) and `expireDecisionNow(id)` (moves the stored `expiresAt` into
the past). The four affected tests create decisions with the future TTL,
force-expire them through the store, and drop the 10 ms sleeps. The
sweep observes the same expired state as before with no scheduler-timing
dependence.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts`
— five consecutive local runs, 31/31 passing each.
- No production code changed; the diff is test-only.
## Risks
- Low risk: test-only change. The force-expire helper writes the store
directly, which is the same technique other TTL suites use to avoid
sleeping through real time.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, tool use; diagnosis, fix, and verification runs.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane teams use to manage AI agents and
their reusable capabilities.
> - Skills Manager lets operators discover and import skills from
project workspaces.
> - Automatic discovery only surfaces skills in conventional locations,
so valid skills stored elsewhere in a project are invisible.
> - Operators need a safe way to navigate project folders without
exposing paths outside the selected workspace.
> - This pull request adds company-scoped workspace folder browsing and
selection to the project skill import flow.
> - The benefit is that operators can find and import valid skill
folders regardless of repository layout while preserving workspace
boundaries.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- **Subsystem affected:** Cross-cutting (`server/`, `ui/`, and
`packages/shared`).
- **Problem or motivation:** Project skill imports rely on conventional
directory discovery, which prevents operators from selecting valid
`SKILL.md` folders stored in atypical locations.
- **Proposed solution:** Add a company-scoped browse endpoint and a
folder browser in the import dialog. The server resolves real paths,
rejects traversal outside the workspace, skips symlinks and high-noise
directories, identifies skill directories/files, and caps listings at
250 entries.
- **Alternatives considered:** Expanding the automatic scan to every
directory would be slower and noisier, while accepting arbitrary
filesystem paths would weaken project/workspace scoping.
- **Roadmap alignment:** This extends the completed “Skills Manager,
Skill Studio & Skills Store” capability in `ROADMAP.md` without
duplicating planned core work.
- **Additional context:** GitHub search found no duplicate or closely
related public issues or pull requests.
## What Changed
- Added shared browse request/result contracts and validation for
project workspace navigation.
- Added a company-scoped API route and service that safely lists local
workspace folders and detects `SKILL.md` entries.
- Added project workspace/folder navigation to the import dialog,
including parent navigation, workspace switching, truncation feedback,
and direct skill selection.
- Added service and route regression tests for browsing, skill
detection, company isolation, and traversal rejection.
- Added shared response schemas and OpenAPI documentation for the browse
endpoint.
- Hardened explicit skill selections with realpath containment so
symlinked directories cannot escape the project workspace.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills.test.ts` — 64 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3
tests passed.
- Focused post-review reruns: `company-skills-service.test.ts` — 45
tests passed; shared/server typechecks passed.
- GitHub latest-head checks — all green after one transient e2e rerun;
no pending or failing checks.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean on the rebased head.
## Risks
- Low-to-moderate risk: this adds a filesystem browsing surface.
Realpath containment checks prevent workspace escape, symlinks are
excluded, remote-managed workspaces are rejected, and directory listings
are capped.
- The browser intentionally hides `.git` and `node_modules`; skills
inside those directories cannot be selected through this flow.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.5`, reasoning-enabled with
terminal/tool use and code execution; runtime context-window size is not
exposed.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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
— the execution harness requires preserving the assigned branch name.
- [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 — no
user-facing docs changes are needed beyond this PR description because
the flow is self-explanatory UI behavior.
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision
> - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work
> - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle
old work
> - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and
reversible retention
> - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set
> - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts.
**Problem or motivation**
Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick
queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that
does not delete work.
**Proposed solution**
Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging
shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator
keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin
agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed,
exact item manifest.
**Alternatives considered**
Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting
old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk
query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in
`ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation
from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474.
## What Changed
- Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue
page, and aging shelf UI.
- Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides.
- Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent
notification outbox.
- Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query,
and revive actions.
- Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep.
- Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks.
- Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain
source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction
contract.
- Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused
tests, and Storybook screens.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408
files and 3,362 tests passed)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup,
and UI API tests.
- Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal
50-item page boundary.
The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime
because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The
isolated test passes when those two variables are removed.
## Risks
- The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses
idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation.
- Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set
version checks prevent stale archive writes.
- Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity,
version, or the reviewed set changes.
- Archive is reversible and does not delete source records.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used tool calls, code
execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The
context-window size is not exposed in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Mine inbox gives each human user a personal work queue.
> - A human user can complete a task from the board.
> - The status update did not update the user's inbox archive state.
> - The completed task therefore stayed in the user's Mine inbox.
> - This pull request archives the task for the human user who completes
it.
> - Agent completion does not change another user's inbox archive state.
> - The benefit is that manual completion removes the task from Mine
without an extra action or comment.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
When a human user changed a task status to `done`, the task stayed in
that user's Mine inbox.
**Expected behavior**
The status change should archive the task from that user's Mine inbox.
The operation should not add a task comment.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task that appears in Mine.
2. Change the task status to `done`.
3. Return to Mine.
4. Observe that the completed task is still present.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
All deployment modes with a board user and the Mine inbox.
**Access context**
Board (human operator).
## What Changed
- Archive the completed task for the board user who changes its status
to `done`.
- Persist the status update, inbox archive, and archive audit
atomically.
- Publish live and plugin activity only after the owning transaction
commits, including recovery, decision, and approval completion paths.
- Keep agent-driven completion from changing a human user's inbox
archive state.
- Add database-backed regression tests for the archive, audit, Mine
filter, rollback, event publication, recovery, and agent paths.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts` passed all 7 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` passed all 44
tests.
- Five directly affected server test files passed all 74 tests; decision
and comment-route suites passed all 105 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final
fix.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed.
- The initial repo-wide `pnpm test:run` passed 3,223 tests; one
unrelated plugin orchestration wake-reason test failed and reproduced in
isolation.
- All latest-head GitHub Actions gates are green, including all server
and E2E shards.
- Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with no unresolved review
threads.
- Public GitHub search found no duplicate issue or pull request.
## Risks
- Low risk. The behavior only runs on a board user's transition into
`done`.
- Reopening and completing the task again updates the existing per-user
archive row.
- Agent status updates do not archive a human user's inbox.
- Transactional callers must supply a post-commit activity queue;
covered completion paths do so and tests exercise rollback and
publication order.
- This bug fix does not duplicate planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`.
> 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 from the GPT-5 model family assisted with this change. The
runtime does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window.
Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip
API access were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout.
> - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent
needed to run the app.
> - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never
start a service.
> - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat,
operator, and startup recovery flows.
> - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps
worktree creation lean.
> - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same
reliable runtime setup when a service starts.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred
database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end
runtime provisioning and safe cleanup.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and
isolated instance cleanup.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared
workspace contracts, and development scripts.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree
creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after
workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service
starts.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an
idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service
spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes
the isolated instance safely.
**Reason and benefit**
Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running
Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace
startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the
app.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace
behavior is unchanged when it is absent.
## What Changed
- Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an
idempotent runtime provision script.
- Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace,
and persisted workspace contracts.
- Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for
heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows.
- Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the
`workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase.
- Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made
failed attempts visible and retryable.
- Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown.
- Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound
teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata.
- Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior,
readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup.
- Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase
exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent
runtime injects static AWS credentials)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when
non-secret provider config is present'`
- Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after
stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging,
persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion.
- Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization,
stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and
rewritten sibling pointers.
## Risks
- A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip
records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start.
- Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt,
while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes.
A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is
running before removing it.
- Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service
validates ownership and path containment before removal.
> 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-5.6-sol`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and
code execution. The service does not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
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.
> - Paperclip creates isolated instances for server-managed git
worktrees.
> - The worktree teardown path removes the git worktree but leaves its
isolated instance directory behind.
> - The leaked directory can retain an embedded PostgreSQL process and
database files.
> - Teardown must remove only the collision-resistant instance assigned
to that exact worktree path.
> - This pull request stops the verified embedded PostgreSQL process and
removes the guarded instance directory.
> - The benefit is complete worktree cleanup without risk to another,
default, or live Paperclip instance.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Closing a server-managed git worktree removed the git worktree and
branch, but it left the isolated Paperclip instance directory behind. A
live embedded PostgreSQL process could also keep running against that
directory.
**Expected behavior**
Worktree teardown must stop the isolated embedded PostgreSQL process and
remove only the instance assigned to that exact worktree. It must refuse
mismatched instance IDs and all paths outside
`PAPERCLIP_WORKTREES_DIR/instances/`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a server-managed git worktree with a repo-local
`.paperclip/.env` file.
2. Start its isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance.
3. Close the execution workspace.
4. Observe that the git worktree is removed but the isolated instance
directory remains.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The bug reproduces on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with a server-managed git worktree and embedded
PostgreSQL.
## What Changed
- Give server-managed worktrees collision-resistant instance IDs derived
from their resolved absolute paths.
- Capture the repo-local instance pointer before custom teardown
commands can remove it.
- Require the pointer's instance ID to match the exact worktree-derived
ID.
- Resolve and validate the instance path against the canonical managed
worktree instance root.
- Verify and stop the matching embedded PostgreSQL process before
directory removal, including process-exit races.
- Record successful and refused cleanup operations in the workspace
operation log.
- Add focused ownership, process-race, path-safety, and runtime
integration tests.
- Document automatic isolated-instance cleanup for server-managed
worktrees.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-instance-cleanup.test.ts` — 9 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "records teardown and cleanup
operations when a recorder is provided"` — 1 test passed and 99 tests
skipped.
- `node scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs` — 4
tests passed.
- `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree.sh` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
## Risks
The main risk is removal of the wrong instance directory. Provisioning
assigns a path-derived ID with a SHA-256 suffix, and cleanup requires
that exact ID in addition to a safe instance identifier, an absolute
configured home, a strict child path, canonical path checks, and a
second canonical path check immediately before removal. It refuses
legacy or mismatched IDs, symlink escapes, and all paths outside the
managed worktree instance root. Cleanup failures become visible warnings
and do not delete an unverified path.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact model
snapshot or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository
tools, GitHub tools, and 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 (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane for companies of AI
agents.
> - Operators use the attention feed to find decisions that need action.
> - The feed has eleven source kinds, but it has no durable queue or
triage state.
> - The feed also returns every item and lacks decision deadlines,
snooze state, and decision-focused ordering.
> - This pull request adds secure queue sidecars and enriches the
attention feed with triage data, filters, cursor pagination, and
decide-now ranking.
> - The benefit is a bounded feed that can show the most urgent
decisions first without weakening source visibility rules.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request replaces the closed
[#10634](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10634). It
combines that queue foundation with the dependent attention-feed change
as one review unit.
**Subsystem affected**
Database schema, shared contracts, server authorization and REST APIs,
and the UI attention client library.
**Problem or motivation**
The attention feed can contain hundreds of mixed decision items.
Operators cannot group them into durable queues, set a decision
deadline, snooze an item, or request a bounded page ordered by urgency.
The current client must download the full feed on each refresh.
**Proposed solution**
Store queue membership and triage state by stable attention identity.
Re-authorize each source during queue reads and writes. Enrich attention
items with queue, deadline, snooze, expiry, rule, and origin data. Add
activity and queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, decide-focused
ordering, and a decide-now count.
**Alternatives considered**
Adding queue fields to every source would duplicate schema and
authorization logic across eleven source kinds. Client-only filtering
and sorting would still transfer the full feed and would make pagination
unstable.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change improves the core decision-attention surface and operator
oversight. It does not implement the separate general-purpose work queue
milestone in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped queue, membership, triage, and append-only event
tables with actor and run provenance.
- Added queue CRUD, item membership, starter-rule discovery, and
decide-by and snooze endpoints.
- Kept source authorization on each queue mutation, read, and count.
- Added attention fields for expiry, rule, origin agent, queues,
decide-by attribution, and snooze state.
- Added activity date filters, queue filters, opaque cursor pagination,
and configurable page limits.
- Added decide-now ordering by deadline, expiry, severity, and activity.
- Added `decideNowCount` and excluded actively snoozed items from the
default feed.
- Updated the shared and UI client contracts.
- Added focused server, route, OpenAPI, and UI client tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/decision-queues-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/attention.test.ts
ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts` (72 tests passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared
--filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- The migration adds four company-scoped tables and provenance foreign
keys. Migration numbering and safety checks pass.
- Attention reads can lazily create starter queues and memberships.
Inserts are idempotent, audited, and transactional.
- Cursor validity depends on the filtered feed. The API returns a clear
validation error when the cursor item no longer exists in that feed.
- Queue reads re-check source visibility. This favors correct
authorization over fewer queries.
> 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, model `gpt-5`. The runtime used agentic reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The runtime did
not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The inbox shows work that a board user owns or has joined
> - Issue detail views update a per-user read receipt
> - The Mine query treated that read receipt as user participation
> - A passive view therefore added the issue to Mine
> - This pull request separates passive reads from audited user
mutations
> - The benefit is a Mine inbox that reflects ownership and real
participation
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Opening an issue detail marks the issue as read. The Mine query treated
the read receipt as participation. The viewed issue then appeared in
Mine even when the user did not change it.
**Expected behavior**
Viewing an issue can update unread state. A view alone must not add the
issue to Mine. Issue creation, assignment, comments, and audited user
mutations must add it.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open an issue that you did not create and that is not assigned to
you.
2. Do not comment or change the issue.
3. Open the Mine inbox.
4. Observe that the issue appears in Mine on the previous
implementation.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`90ead239a8`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev from source.
**Additional context**
Related approach: #3421 changes Mine to an assignee-only filter. This
change keeps participation-based Mine behavior and corrects the
participation signal.
## What Changed
- Use an explicit audited user-mutation allowlist for Mine
participation, including comment cancellation.
- Keep passive reads, previews, denied resource requests, and archive
bookkeeping out of Mine participation.
- Record manual routine reuse as an explicit audited inbox touch instead
of a read receipt.
- Keep that inbox bookkeeping from satisfying routine activity gates.
- Add focused regression coverage for passive views, real mutations,
comment cancellation, and manual routine runs.
- Document the Mine participation contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"does not treat passive issue activity"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t
"touches a (coalesced|skipped active) routine issue|ignores inbox
bookkeeping activity"`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- GitHub latest-head CI: all required checks passed, including build,
typecheck, server suites, and e2e shards.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects only the server query that defines user
participation in Mine and the manual routine touch signal.
- Historical audited user mutations can now qualify an issue for Mine.
Passive read and archive actions remain excluded.
> 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 family. The runtime did not expose the exact
deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents on the same project can share one `shared_workspace` clone,
and each sandbox run reconciles its git history back into it
> - When histories written by different runs genuinely diverge,
reconciliation can hit a real merge conflict — a property of the
*workspace*, not of whichever agent happened to run last
> - That agent nonetheless finalized into a sticky `error` state,
removing a healthy agent from rotation while the workspace stayed broken
— and on a shared workspace this serially knocks out every agent that
touches it
> - This pull request classifies workspace-reconciliation failure
signatures as workspace-scoped, so the run still fails with the full
message but the agent stays invokable
> - The benefit is that one bad workspace state no longer disables
agents one by one
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10645 — this addresses the sticky-agent-error clause of that
issue. Workspace run serialization / per-agent worktrees remain tracked
there (design sketch on the issue).
## What Changed
- New exported `isWorkspaceSyncConflictFailure(message)` matching the
reconciliation failure signatures: `merge-tree` conflict ("Failed to
merge concurrent remote git histories"), integrate-retry exhaustion
("Failed to integrate concurrent remote git history"), and bundle
prerequisite failures ("did not send all necessary objects", "lacks
these prerequisite commits").
- Both run-failure finalization paths (adapter returned a failed result;
adapter threw) pass `keepIdleOnFailure` for these signatures — the same
mechanism already used for provider-quota failures — so the agent
finalizes to `idle` instead of `error`. The run itself still fails and
carries the full message; nothing about run reporting changes.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — new
signature matrix (4 positive signatures, negatives for unrelated adapter
failures and null/empty); 121 tests total.
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Low. The only change is which failure families put the agent into
`error`; behavior for every other failure is untouched. A workspace
stuck in conflict still fails every run against it (visible on the runs
surface) — it just no longer takes agents down with it.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Runs that must push to GitHub have a pre-dispatch credential
preflight (`push_write_credential_missing`) so the missing token
surfaces as a configuration-incomplete blocker instead of a late runtime
failure
> - The preflight only triggers when the issue mentions the GitHub PR
workflow *skill* — routine-created issues and agent-to-agent handoffs
rarely do, even when their text literally says "push the branch and open
a PR"
> - In practice the credential gap then surfaced only after
implementation and review were complete, stranding finished work
> - This pull request adds a conservative, verb-anchored text heuristic
over the issue title and description as a second preflight trigger
> - The benefit is that the credential ask reaches the human before any
work is burned
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10644 (completes the prevention set with #10648, #10650, #10658)
## What Changed
- `issueTextImpliesPrDeliverable(text)`: matches verb-anchored
deliverable statements — "open/create/raise/submit a (draft) pull
request/PR", "push … branch/remote/origin/upstream". Verb anchoring
deliberately ignores passing mentions ("the PR merged yesterday", "PR
feedback addressed").
- `requiresPushCapabilityPreflight` takes the issue's title+description
and ORs the text heuristic with the existing skill-mention trigger;
adapter-type and issue gating are unchanged. The run-dispatch call site
threads the already-loaded issue text — no extra query.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — new
heuristic matrix (4 positive, 6 negative including null/empty) and
preflight-by-text cases (text triggers, passing mention does not, no
issue → no preflight); 122 tests total.
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- A false positive turns into a configuration-incomplete blocker asking
for a GitHub token on an issue that didn't need one — the heuristic is
intentionally conservative (verb-anchored) to keep that rare, and the
blocker names the exact remediation.
- No behavior change for issues that neither mention the skill nor state
a PR deliverable.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents decompose work by creating child issues assigned to other
agents
> - When two agents each lack a capability the other assumed (e.g.
neither can push to GitHub), each can "resolve" its blocker by
delegating the same step to the other: A creates a child for B, B
creates a grandchild back for A
> - Nothing detects the cycle; the chain of blocked issues grows and no
signal reaches the human who could actually fix the capability gap
> - This pull request refuses agent-initiated child creation when the
child's assignee is the creator of a still-open ancestor in the same
chain — a mechanical, semantics-free cycle signal
> - The benefit is that the hot-potato dies at creation time with an
actionable error instead of growing a dead chain
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10642 (write-time counterpart: #10648 refuses assignment to
paused agents; the credential-gap *preflight* side is tracked separately
in #10644)
## What Changed
- `issueService.findOpenAncestorCreatedByAgent(parentIssueId, agentId,
{maxDepth})`: bounded walk up the parent chain looking for a still-open
(not done/cancelled) ancestor created by the given agent.
- Agent-initiated issue creation with a parent (both the
create-with-`parentId` route and `POST /issues/:id/children`) now
refuses with a structured 409 (`code: delegation_cycle`, naming the
ancestor) when the new child would be assigned to the agent that created
a still-open ancestor: that agent delegated the work into this chain, so
assigning it back is a cycle. The message states the alternatives —
complete the work, leave the child unassigned, or escalate to a board
operator.
- Deliberately unaffected: human actors (deliberate re-routing is their
call), closed ancestors (re-engaging the creator of finished work is
normal), and accepted-plan decomposition (its children come from a
human-approved plan).
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-assignee-invokability-routes.test.ts` — cycle
refused with 409 and no create call; the same child allowed when no open
ancestor matches; board actors never consult the guard.
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — new
embedded-Postgres coverage: ancestor found through the chain, closed
ancestors ignored, depth bound honored (114 total).
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` —
unchanged (79).
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Low-to-moderate: a new 409 for a creation shape that previously
succeeded. The blocked shape (agent assigns new work to the creator of
an open ancestor) is the cycle signature; the legitimate "hand a subtask
to the parent's assignee" pattern is unaffected because it keys on
assignee, not creator. Watchdog and plan-decomposition flows are exempt
or unaffected as described.
- The walk adds at most `maxDepth` (10) single-row lookups per agent
child creation with an assignee.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators can cancel a running agent from the board when a run is
unwanted — most acutely while cleaning up a runaway loop
> - The recovery machinery treats a cancelled run like any other
unsuccessful terminal run: the stranded-issue sweep classifies the issue
as stranded, creates a recovery action, and wakes the agent again
> - So cancelling runs to stop a loop *fed* the loop: each operator
cancel spawned a recovery action that re-woke the agent the operator had
just stopped
> - This pull request stamps board-initiated cancellations with operator
attribution and makes the sweep stand down while such a run is the
issue's latest activity
> - The benefit is that an operator's cancel is final until something
new happens, instead of being fought by automation
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10646
## What Changed
- `POST /heartbeat-runs/:runId/cancel` (board-only) now cancels with an
explicit reason ("Cancelled by a board operator") and stamps
`resultJson.cancelledByActorType: "user"` / `cancelledByUserId`.
- `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues` gains an early stand-down: when the
issue's latest run is operator-cancelled (the new stamp, or the existing
`operator_interrupted` error code from interrupt-by-comment), the issue
is skipped entirely — no recovery action, no wake — and counted in a new
`operatorCancelExempted` result field. The exemption is inherently
self-limiting: any newer run or wake supersedes it because the gate only
looks at the *latest* run.
- System cancellations without operator attribution (lease expiry,
assignee changes, terminal-status cancels, pause holds) keep today's
recovery behavior unchanged.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`
(embedded Postgres) — 3 new cases: a stamped operator cancel produces
zero recovery actions and zero wakes; an `operator_interrupted` cancel
likewise; an unattributed system cancel still flows into pre-existing
recovery (wake observed), proving the stand-down is scoped to operator
attribution.
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-scheduled-retry-routes.test.ts` — unchanged
(109 tests).
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Low. The only suppressed behavior is recovery of runs a human
explicitly cancelled from the board; everything else is byte-identical.
If an operator cancels and walks away, the issue stays quiet until any
new activity — which is the intent (the operator owns the next step).
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server enforces an issue execution policy. It gates status
changes while a review or approval stage is active.
> - A board user could not cancel a task while an agent reviewer held
the active stage. The API returned "Only the active reviewer or approver
can advance the current execution stage".
> - Board users own the board. They must always be able to edit and
cancel any task.
> - This pull request adds a board override to the execution stage
transition. A board cancel clears the pending stage state and proceeds
instead of raising an error.
> - The benefit is that board users can always stop work, even while a
review is pending or the stored stage state has drifted.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Description follows
`bug_report.yml`:
**What happened?**
A board user set a task to `cancelled` while the task had an active
reviewer stage held by an agent. The PATCH failed with "Task Update
Failed... only the assigned approver or reviewer...". The same failure
occurred when the stored stage state had drifted: the server silently
forced the task back to `in_review` instead of honoring the cancel.
**Expected behavior**
A board user can always edit and cancel any task. A board cancel must
clear the pending review stage and apply the requested status.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a task assigned to agent A with agent B configured as reviewer
in the execution policy.
2. Let agent A hand the task off so the review stage becomes active.
3. As the board user, set the task status to Cancelled.
4. The update fails with the reviewer-only error.
Related work: #5487 touches the execution-policy approver UI. It does
not address the board cancel path.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: the issue PATCH route now passes
`allowBoardOverride` when the actor is a board user.
- `server/src/services/issue-execution-policy.ts`: when
`allowBoardOverride` is set and the requested status is not `in_review`
or `in_progress`, the transition clears `executionState` and proceeds.
This applies both while a stage decision is pending and when the stage
state has drifted, so a board cancel is no longer rejected or silently
flipped back to `in_review`.
- Reviewer gating is unchanged for everyone else: a board user who is
the active participant still uses the normal approve / request-changes
flow, and non-participant agents still receive the 422 guard.
- Assignee-only board updates on an `in_review` task keep the stage
state coherent: reassigning to an eligible stage participant re-pends
the stage with them as the current participant, while reassigning to a
non-participant (or unassigning) dissolves the review back to
`in_progress` instead of persisting an `in_review` issue with no
execution state or an ineligible participant.
- New unit tests and route tests cover board cancellation of an active
review stage and of a drifted pending review, plus reviewer swap,
non-participant reassignment, and unassignment during an active review.
## Verification
- In `server/`: `pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 2 files, 73/73
tests pass on top of current `master`.
- In `server/`: `pnpm run typecheck` passes.
## Risks
- Low risk. The override branch runs only for board actors and only for
target statuses other than `in_review` and `in_progress`. Cancelling
clears `executionState`, so a later reopen starts from a fresh stage
state. Agent-facing flows and reviewer gating are unchanged.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, running in
Claude Code (Claude Agent SDK) with extended thinking and agentic 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 (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents can create and assign issues to other agents, and commonly
escalate to their org-chart manager (`reports_to`) when they hit
something outside their authority
> - Issue assignment already refuses terminated and pending-approval
assignees, but accepts paused assignees from any actor
> - A paused agent never runs, so agent-initiated escalations to a
paused manager become invisible dead letters — accepted silently, never
picked up, never surfaced
> - This pull request refuses paused assignees when the assigning actor
is an agent, at the single normalization helper all four assignment
paths flow through
> - The benefit is that agent-routed work can no longer silently vanish
into a paused agent's queue
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10641
## What Changed
- `normalizeIssueAssigneeAgentReference` (used by issue create, both
child-create routes, and issue update) now throws a 409 when an
**agent** actor assigns to a **paused** agent, with a message naming the
alternatives: assign an invokable agent, leave the issue unassigned, or
escalate to a board operator.
- Board/user actors are unchanged and may still assign to paused agents
deliberately — the pause state is visible in the UI, and staging work
for a later unpause is a legitimate workflow. Terminated /
pending-approval / invalid-org-chain refusals are unchanged for all
actors.
- This matches the existing precedent for watchdogs ("Cannot assign
watchdog to an agent that is not invokable") using the same
conflict-error shape.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-assignee-invokability-routes.test.ts` — new
coverage: agent PATCH → paused assignee 409 (no update call), agent
child-create → paused assignee 409 (no create call), agent assignment to
an invokable agent still 200, board assignment to a paused agent still
200.
- Neighboring suites unchanged: `issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes`,
`issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes`,
`issue-create-deduplication-routes`, `issue-watchdogs-routes` (97
tests).
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Low. The only behavior change is a new 409 for agent actors assigning
to paused agents — previously a silent dead-letter. Agents that relied
on this (escalation flows) now get an actionable error instead; human
workflows are untouched.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Execution policies let one agent implement and another review,
cycling through changes-requested → addressed rounds
> - Nothing bounds that cycle: no round counter, no escalation, no
termination signal — two agents can ping-pong indefinitely, especially
when the review's success criteria drift to something the implementer
cannot satisfy
> - On a real multi-agent instance this produced 6+ unattended rounds
(~8 runs) that continued even after the human had merged the PR under
review
> - This pull request counts consecutive agent-initiated
changes-requested rounds and, at a configurable cap, hands the
still-pending review to the responsible human instead of bouncing back
to the implementer
> - The benefit is that unattended review loops terminate in a human
decision instead of burning runs forever
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10643
## What Changed
- `IssueExecutionState.changesRequestedCount` (schema + type, default
0): consecutive agent-initiated changes-requested rounds on the current
stage. Carries through executor resubmissions, resets to 0 on approval,
and resets when a **human** makes the changes-requested decision — the
cap targets unattended agent↔agent ping-pong, never human review.
- `IssueExecutionPolicy.maxReviewRounds` (optional, 1–50, default null →
server default `DEFAULT_MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS = 3`).
- At the cap, the transition records the reviewer's changes-requested
decision as usual but keeps the stage **pending** with the responsible
human (`responsibleUserId`, falling back to `createdByUserId`) as the
participant: the issue is assigned to that human and the pending review
surfaces through the existing attention/review UI. The human then
approves, requests changes (resetting the counter and handing back to
the implementer), or re-scopes.
- The escalated hold is sticky: transitions from anyone other than the
escalated human no longer re-select a configured agent participant for
the stage (which would have silently undone the escalation on the next
unrelated PATCH). The escalated human's own decisions flow through the
normal participant decision branch.
- Issues with no responsible human keep today's hand-back behavior; the
counter still accumulates so operators can see the churn.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`
— 8 new cases: round counting on hand-back, count carried through
resubmission, escalation at the default cap, sticky hold across
unrelated transitions, human changes-requested resets the counter, human
approval completes the stage, no-responsible-human fallback, and a
`maxReviewRounds: 1` policy override.
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` and the full
`@paperclipai/shared` suite (387 tests) — schema additions are backward
compatible (both fields optional with defaults; persisted states without
the counter parse as 0).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec tsc --noEmit` and `cd server
&& pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Behavior change: an agent-only review loop that previously ran forever
now escalates to a human after 3 agent rounds by default. Instances that
want longer loops can set `maxReviewRounds` per policy. Flows where a
human participates are unaffected (human decisions reset the counter).
- Escalation requires a `responsibleUserId`/`createdByUserId` on the
issue; without one, behavior is unchanged.
- Persisted execution states from before this change parse with
`changesRequestedCount: 0` — no migration needed.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server posts a workspace-ready comment after it prepares an
execution workspace or runtime service.
> - The full Markdown card uses too much space in the task thread.
> - The existing system-notice presentation can show the same comment as
a compact row.
> - The server must keep the original body for API clients and expanded
details.
> - This pull request adds structured presentation data at both
workspace-ready call sites.
> - The benefit is a quieter thread with no data loss and no migration.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The server posts the workspace-ready task comment after workspace
provisioning and adapter-managed runtime startup.
**Current behavior**
The task thread shows a full Markdown comment with strategy, branch,
working directory, services, and warnings. Long branch names can make
this card dominate the thread.
**Proposed behavior**
Show the comment as a compact system-notice row. Expand the row in place
to show the original Markdown body and structured workspace, service,
and warning details. Use a warning tone and open the details by default
when warnings exist.
**Reason and benefit**
The same workspace data is available in the task properties. The compact
row keeps the thread easy to scan while it preserves the full comment
for API consumers and expanded inspection.
**Breaking changes**
None. The comment body stays unchanged. Existing comments without
presentation data keep their current rendering.
## What Changed
- Added workspace-ready presentation and metadata builders.
- Added structured workspace, service, reuse, and warning details.
- Wired both workspace-ready comment paths to send presentation and
metadata options.
- Added focused unit and heartbeat-level tests.
Collapsed notice:
Expanded notice:
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/workspace-runtime-ready-comment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-ready-comment.test.ts` — 8
tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — 300 server files and 405 UI files passed. One
unrelated CLI AWS doctor test detected static credentials from the
runner environment. The same test passed with `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and
`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` removed.
- Built the existing system-notice Storybook story and captured both
compact and expanded states.
- GitHub CI — all latest-head gates passed. One signoff-policy e2e shard
hit a transient checkout-state race and passed on its single rerun.
## Risks
Low risk. This change only adds optional comment presentation data in
two server paths. The body, database schema, API contract, and old
comments remain unchanged. Incorrect metadata would affect only expanded
structured details; focused tests cover the shape and both warning
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 with GPT-5 (`gpt-5`, the exact snapshot and context-window
size are not exposed by this runtime). The agent used reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and visual inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The heartbeat service is the control plane that runs agents through
adapters and records each run's usage and cost in the finance/cost
ledger
> - Adapters report a provider cost (`costUsd`), but there is no way to
represent the provider-billed cost *after* prompt-cache discounts, so
cache-heavy runs are priced wrong and some paid runs end up exported
with a zero/null cost
> - A benchmark comparing Paperclip-orchestrated runs against direct
harness invocation of the same tasks measured 1.5–3.1× higher apparent
USD per pair, largely because cache-discounted billing was not
represented in the exported cost data
> - This pull request adds an optional `cacheAdjustedCostUsd` field to
`AdapterExecutionResult` and a `resolveCacheAdjustedCostUsd` helper in
the heartbeat service that prefers the explicit cache-adjusted figure
and falls back to the reported `costUsd`, persisting it into the run's
usage/ledger JSON
> - The benefit is that paid runs are no longer exported as zero/null
cost and cache-heavy runs can be priced correctly, so operators
comparing orchestrated vs. direct costs see real numbers
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No single existing public issue covers this exactly; closely related
cost-reporting issues:
- Refs #8947 — hermes adapter never reports usage/cost to Paperclip, so
budget limits never trigger
- Refs #6716 — hermes_local cost/usage capture returns zero
- Refs #3320 — expose per-run token counts in activity log and dashboard
**Problem (feature-request form):** Adapters can only report a single
`costUsd`. Providers with prompt caching bill less than the nominal
token cost, and the heartbeat cost accounting has no field for the
cache-adjusted billed amount. As a result, cache-heavy paid runs are
either priced at the undiscounted figure or, when the adapter withholds
the ambiguous number, exported as zero/null. **Proposed solution:** an
explicit optional `cacheAdjustedCostUsd` on the adapter execution
result, resolved server-side with a safe fallback to `costUsd`.
**Alternatives considered:** recomputing cache discounts server-side
from token counts (rejected: provider pricing tables drift and cache
billing rules are provider-specific; the adapter is the source of
truth).
## What Changed
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/types.ts`: added optional
`cacheAdjustedCostUsd?: number | null` to `AdapterExecutionResult`, with
a doc comment on adapter expectations
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: added exported
`resolveCacheAdjustedCostUsd()` (explicit cache-adjusted value wins when
a finite non-negative number; otherwise falls back to a finite
non-negative `costUsd`; otherwise `null`), and consistently uses the
resolved billed value for ledger cents, cost status, and run usage JSON
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts`: added unit
coverage for explicit precedence, fallback, invalid values,
adjusted-only pricing, and discounted ledger billing
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts` — 1 file, 7
tests passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed
- GitHub Actions on head `dc9c3830bf694b9afb3b27c5c8c36bff38e7fdcb` —
all 26 checks clean/skipped; one unrelated E2E checkout-contention flake
passed on its single failed-job rerun
- Greptile review on the same head — 5/5 with zero unresolved threads
## Risks
- Low risk: the field is optional and additive; when absent, behavior
falls back to the existing `costUsd` path
- Ledger/usage JSON gains a new optional `cacheAdjustedCostUsd` key —
consumers that strictly validate keys would need to tolerate it (usage
JSON is already open-shaped)
- No migrations, no API-breaking changes
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Implementation: Anthropic Claude Fable 5, model ID `claude-fable-5`,
standard context window, agentic coding mode with shell/file tool use
- PR preparation and verification: OpenAI Codex on GPT-5 (the runtime
did not expose a more specific serving snapshot or context-window
value), reasoning mode with shell 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 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 (doc
comment on the new field; no user-facing docs affected)
- [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.
> - Operators spend most of their time on the issue detail page. They
talk to the assigned agent there through comments.
> - The current page reads as a ticket form. The thread sits below
properties, the composer sits mid-page, and live agent activity renders
as dense transcript logs.
> - Talking to an agent is a conversation. A chat-first layout matches
that mental model better than a ticket form.
> - A layout change this large must not disrupt current users. It needs
a safe opt-in path and full parity with the existing thread features.
> - This pull request adds a chat-style task view behind a new
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle. The flag is off by default and the
existing page is unchanged when it is off.
> - The benefit is a focused, readable conversation with the agent: live
tool activity folds into compact summaries, the composer stays at the
bottom, and properties, plan, and artifacts move into header tabs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #49 (chat with agents is a much-wanted feature).
Related PRs found in the dedup search:
- #4489 — an earlier, closed attempt to promote the conversation to the
primary surface on issue detail. This PR is a fresh, flag-gated take on
the same goal.
- #8837 — an open PR that proposes a two-column task layout. It
restructures the same page but keeps the ticket paradigm; this PR is
orthogonal because it is opt-in and chat-first.
**Subsystem affected**
UI (issue detail page).
**Problem or motivation**
The issue detail page presents agent conversations as a ticket:
properties first, thread below, composer in the middle of the page, and
raw transcript noise during live runs. Users who mainly converse with
their agents must scroll past chrome to follow the conversation, and
live activity is hard to read.
**Proposed solution**
An opt-in chat-style view of the issue detail page, gated by a new
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle in Settings → Experimental. With
the flag on, the thread fills the center pane, the composer docks to the
bottom of the viewport, Properties / Plan / Artifacts become header
tabs, live turns show a status pill with the current tool action and
elapsed time, and settled turns collapse to a "Worked · N tools" summary
that expands into per-tool rows. With the flag off, nothing changes.
**Alternatives considered**
Restyling the existing layout in place (rejected: too disruptive without
an opt-out), and a separate chat page beside the issue page (rejected:
splits the task's single source of truth). A per-request lab page
(`/task-chat-lab`, dev-only) was kept for design iteration instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
ROADMAP.md "CEO Chat" wants lighter conversations that still resolve to
real work objects. This PR keeps the core task-and-comments model — it
only changes presentation, opt-in — so it does not duplicate that
planned work.
## What Changed
- New `enableTaskChatRedesign` instance setting, exposed as a
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment card in Settings → Experimental (shared
feature catalog, validators, server instance-settings service, and UI
settings page).
- New `ui/src/components/task-chat/` component family: chat thread with
turn grouping, agent reply bubbles, live status pill, collapsible turn
summaries with per-tool rows, plan tab with a sticky CTA action bar,
inline interaction cards, per-request mode chips, and a bottom-docked
composer.
- A shared tool taxonomy (`tool-taxonomy.ts`) maps tool names to verbs
and icons; the status pill, tool rows, and the classic transcript view
all use it.
- A transcript adapter converts stored run logs into chat turns; it
dedupes tool-call updates by `toolUseId` so tool counts match the
expanded rows, and it keeps a tool row's first real name when later
generic updates arrive.
- Composer: posts on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter, supports image paste with
object-URL thumbnail previews (revoked on clear/unmount), and uploads
through the issue attachments route.
- `IssueDetail.tsx`: with the flag on, pane tabs move to the header bar,
the header is not sticky, and the chat fills the center; with the flag
off, the previous layout renders unchanged.
- Motion tokens for the new animations live in `ui/src/index.css` with a
`motion-tokens.ts` catalog and a test that keeps the two in sync (the
catalog now also covers the shared enter/exit/swap tokens that the
decision/quicklook block declares).
- A dev-only `/task-chat-lab` page with fixtures and a tweak panel for
motion tuning.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean across the workspace.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN.
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` — 3,344 of 3,345 tests pass locally. The
one failure is `IssueProperties.test.tsx` monitor-row time formatting,
which is timezone-sensitive: it also fails on unmodified `origin/master`
in a non-UTC timezone and passes with `TZ=UTC`. It is not related to
this change.
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — 21/21 pass (covers
the new setting).
- Manual: start the dev server, open Settings → Experimental, enable
"Chat-Style Tasks", and open any issue. The thread fills the page, the
composer docks to the bottom, and Properties / Plan / Artifacts appear
as header tabs. Assign an agent and comment to watch a live run: the
status pill shows the current tool action with elapsed time, and the
finished turn folds into a "Worked · N tools" summary. Disable the
toggle and confirm the classic page is unchanged.
- Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated: per
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`, "Per-change snapshot verification
demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)".
## Risks
- The flag-off path goes through the same `IssueDetail.tsx` file, so a
regression there would affect current users. Mitigation: the classic
markup renders through the same components as before behind explicit
flag conditionals, and the full UI suite passes.
- The transcript adapter interprets stored run-log formats, including
legacy entries without `toolUseId`. Malformed logs degrade to generic
tool rows rather than crashing.
- The new view changes no server behavior other than one additive
instance setting; it is additive and default-off. Overall risk with the
flag off is low.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5),
extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file editing, shell, test
execution) via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server signs decision specifications with an HMAC
> - PR #10010 made `PAPERCLIP_DECISION_SIGNING_SECRET` a hard startup
requirement
> - Existing installs do not have this new environment variable
> - Those installs now stop during startup
> - This pull request uses a secure persisted instance key when the
override is absent
> - The benefit is that existing installs start without new
configuration and decision signing remains fail-closed
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
After #10010, `startServer()` throws when
`PAPERCLIP_DECISION_SIGNING_SECRET` is unset or shorter than 32
characters. Existing installs without the new environment variable stop
at startup.
**Expected behavior**
The server starts without manual configuration. A new optional feature
must not add a required environment variable for existing installs.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Check out `master` at 9c1f8e7887.
2. Unset `PAPERCLIP_DECISION_SIGNING_SECRET`.
3. Start the server.
4. Observe that startup stops with a missing-secret error.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at 9c1f8e7887.
**Deployment mode**
All deployment modes are affected when the environment variable is
absent.
## What Changed
- Treat `PAPERCLIP_DECISION_SIGNING_SECRET` as an optional override.
- Generate a random per-instance key at
`<instance>/secrets/decision-signing.key` when the override is absent.
- Publish a complete first-time key with an atomic no-overwrite link so
concurrent server starts use one key.
- Repair permissive modes on process-owned secrets directories and
regular key files, reject planted symlinks or foreign-owned paths, and
fail startup if `0700`/`0600` cannot be enforced.
- Keep an explicitly configured secret shorter than 32 characters as a
startup error.
- Add startup, permission, planted-symlink, fail-closed verification,
and generated-key round-trip tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — 45 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` — passed.
- Eight simultaneous resolver processes returned the same persisted key.
The secrets directory/key modes were `0700`/`0600`.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
## Risks
- Existing configured secrets remain unchanged.
- Removing a configured secret after a proposal makes the prior
signature fail verification. Restoring the secret restores verification.
- A restored secrets directory or key with unsafe permissions now fails
startup when the server cannot repair it to `0700`/`0600`; symlinks and
paths owned by another local user are rejected rather than trusted.
- The generated key uses an atomic hard link in the instance secrets
directory. An unsupported file system fails startup instead of replacing
an existing key.
- Existing installs that failed at startup did not sign decisions with a
missing key.
> 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
- Anthropic Claude Fable 5, model ID `claude-fable-5`, produced the
initial implementation with extended reasoning and tool use.
- OpenAI Codex, model ID `gpt-5`, addressed review findings and prepared
the PR with reasoning, repository editing, code execution, and GitHub
tooling. The runtime did not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server can preserve eligible agent runs during a controlled hot
restart.
> - A path change moved restart state from the Paperclip home root to
the instance root.
> - A staged update can therefore make the old server and the new server
read different intent files.
> - The old server then drains live runs, while the new server can start
without a shutdown snapshot.
> - This pull request adds a correlated compatibility handoff and
records the live preflight set.
> - It also verifies the target process instance on Linux, macOS, and
Windows.
> - The benefit is complete and safe run classification across the path
upgrade.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue covers this defect.
**What happened?**
A staged hot restart can run an older server that reads
`hot-restart-intent.json` from the Paperclip home root and a new server
that writes the file under the instance root. The old server misses the
request and uses graceful drain. The new server later finds its marker
without a shutdown snapshot. Before this change, that state could
produce an empty loss list even when live runs existed before restart.
**Expected behavior**
The old server must receive the PID-targeted restart request at its
legacy path. The new server must correlate the legacy shutdown snapshot
with its instance-scoped request. Every run that was live during
preflight must appear as adopted, finalized while down, or lost. A
reused PID must not let a stale marker claim a different process
instance.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a server version from before the instance-root marker change.
2. Keep one or more local-agent heartbeat runs active.
3. Stage a current build and request a hot restart from that build.
4. Observe that the old server reads only the home-root path while the
staged build writes only the instance-root path.
5. Observe graceful drain and a new-server intent that has no shutdown
snapshot.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The path transition entered `master` in #10045. The hot-restart adoption
flow came from #9647. This fix targets current `master` and
compatibility with the immediately preceding home-root behavior.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server built from source with controlled service hot
restarts.
Related work: #9628 is the original broader hot-restart feature PR.
#10556 addresses embedded PostgreSQL lifecycle behavior and does not
address marker-path compatibility.
## What Changed
- Write an authoritative instance-scoped intent and a correlated legacy
home-root handoff marker.
- Merge a legacy shutdown snapshot only when immutable request identity
fields match.
- Prevent a non-default instance from consuming an uncorrelated
legacy-only marker.
- Record preflight running heartbeat IDs and reconcile snapshot
omissions from current database state.
- Serialize marker claims, snapshot writes, stale recovery, and matching
cleanup with recoverable per-path filesystem leases.
- Read process start identity on Linux, macOS, and Windows to
distinguish a reused PID from the original server.
- Require identity for new restart requests and fail closed when a
supported platform cannot provide it.
- Classify older markers by comparing the replacement server boot time
or operating-system process start time with the request time.
- Close the preflight database client explicitly and use a root-safe SQL
query.
- Add focused unit, platform-branch, database-backed, and CI regression
coverage.
- Document the compatibility handoff, process identity probes, and
instance-scoped report path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/hot-restart.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t
"hot-restart|old-server legacy|preflight live|preflight run|spawn
identity before hot restart"` — 24 tests passed and 90 tests were
skipped across 2 files.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/hot-restart.test.ts` — 17
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-watchdogs-routes.test.ts -t "restarts a
stalled claimed run"` — 1 test passed and 10 tests were skipped.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts -t "allows an
agent with issue:delegate"` — 1 test passed and 7 tests were skipped.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- GitHub Actions — 26 of 26 checks passed at
`55a79cb029be8b1dc89926d9d89ccd2181266d5c`.
- Greptile — 5/5 at the same head with no unresolved current-head review
threads.
## Risks
- The legacy handoff path is shared across instances. Exclusive claims
and per-path leases prevent overwrite and match-before-delete races.
- Process identity uses platform commands as a fallback when the health
endpoint has no identity. Linux reads `/proc`, macOS and BSD use `ps`,
and Windows uses PowerShell.
- A supported-platform identity probe failure aborts the restart. This
fails closed instead of replacing an unknown live process.
- Older intent files do not contain process identity. The server
compares the replacement boot or process start time with the request
time when those values are available.
- A preflight database read can fail before the marker is written. The
command fails closed instead of claiming a restart whose live-run set is
unknown.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment model ID and
context-window size were not exposed by this runtime. Reasoning,
repository editing, shell execution, test execution, GitHub CLI, and
Paperclip API capabilities were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change 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
> - Agents can currently perform many mutations directly, while humans
often need a durable review point before cross-issue or destructive
actions occur
> - Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a
standalone, reusable object for presenting options, collecting typed
inputs, detecting stale targets, and auditing effect execution
> - The control plane therefore needs a first-class propose mode that
separates an agent's recommendation from the governed mutation it may
cause
> - This pull request adds Decisions v1 across the database, shared
contracts, server execution and telemetry, agent skill guidance, and
operator UI
> - The benefit is that agents can propose multi-option actions safely
while operators get explicit provenance, fail-closed execution,
per-effect results, and a focused attention workflow
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server`, and `ui`.
### Problem or motivation
Agents need a governed way to propose consequential work without
immediately mutating issues, especially when one choice can affect
several issue trees. Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do
not provide a standalone object with typed options, target snapshots,
effect-level authorization, expiration, execution outcomes, and reusable
attention-feed presentation.
### Proposed solution
Add first-class Decisions that store options and typed inputs, surface
open proposals in the operator attention feed, validate target freshness
and the origin-agent/operator authorization intersection at decision
time, execute a bounded set of auditable effects, and retain terminal
outcomes. Decisions v1 supports comments, status and assignee changes,
follow-up issue creation, blocker resolution, and issue-tree
cancellation, plus bundle grouping, expiration/dismissal, rule-key
telemetry, and agent-facing API guidance.
### Alternatives considered
- Extend approvals with arbitrary effects: rejected because approvals
represent governed yes/no actions and would become an unsafe generic
mutation envelope.
- Model every proposal as an issue-thread interaction: rejected because
decisions can span several targets and need independent lifecycle,
telemetry, idempotency, and effect results.
- Let agents perform the mutation and ask for retrospective review:
rejected because it removes the pre-execution governance boundary this
feature is meant to provide.
### Roadmap alignment
Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` sections **Agent Reviews and Approvals**,
**Enforced Outcomes**, **MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool
access)**, and **Activity History** by making explicit decisions,
authorization gates, auditable execution, and terminal outcomes
first-class control-plane objects.
### Additional context
This does not replace existing approvals or issue-thread interactions,
and it does not add an unrestricted generic mutation effect.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped decision, option, target, and effect-execution
schema plus migration and shared TypeScript/Zod contracts.
- Added decision routes and services for propose, list/get, decide,
dismiss, cancel, target freshness checks, authorization intersection,
idempotency, activity logging, and execution auditing.
- Added rule-key decision telemetry and attention-feed metadata so open
decisions are visible and measurable.
- Added agent skill documentation for proposing and resolving decisions
through the Paperclip API.
- Added the Decisions UI: API client, query keys, inline attention
resolver, bundle grouping, target-issue strip, terminal history,
destructive confirmation, and per-effect result rendering.
- Added server service coverage, DecisionCard state tests, and Storybook
stories for the supported visual states.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — 2,876 passed, 1 skipped, with one unrelated
cross-suite cleanup-order failure in
`heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`; the failing file passes
in isolation (`6/6`).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx` — passed (`9/9`).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed (`5/5`).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — passed (`16/16`).
- `pnpm --filter paperclipai exec vitest run
src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` — passed (`1/1`).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter
paperclipai typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- Rebased-head focused suite — passed (`6` files, `88` tests): shared
decision contracts, Decisions service, OpenAPI routes, startup feedback
export, DecisionCard states, and attention helpers. The follow-up
stale-secondary-target regression passes in the DecisionCard suite
(`10/10`).
- Rebased-head scoped typechecks — passed for `@paperclipai/shared`,
`@paperclipai/db`, `@paperclipai/server`, and `@paperclipai/ui`.
- Rebased-head migration numbering and safety checks — passed after
renumbering the additive migration to `0193` and making it replay-safe
for environments that applied the earlier feature-branch number.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean.
- GitHub PR workflow and Greptile review for
`1f9f7645882d05dfdd9c99377c03a1f53f20e8be` — running after the
stale-secondary-target fix and PR metadata refresh on July 27, 2026.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` exposes an existing
Storybook version mismatch (`storybook` 10.4.6 vs
`@storybook/addon-docs` 10.5.0); Decisions stories were validated with
the docs addon temporarily disabled and the tracked config remains
unchanged.
## Risks
- **Migration:** Adds replay-safe migration `0193`; migration numbering
and safety checks pass. The new tables and indexes are additive.
- **Authorization:** Effect execution intersects the proposing agent's
permissions with the responsible user context and fails closed; mistakes
could reject a valid proposal rather than silently over-authorize it.
- **Concurrency:** Target snapshots and idempotency keys protect against
stale or duplicate execution, but reviewers should focus on mixed-effect
partial outcomes and retry behavior.
- **UI:** Decisions are integrated into the existing attention feed
rather than a separate navigation surface, reducing routing risk but
increasing the importance of attention-item metadata compatibility.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex CLI using `gpt-5.6-sol` for final PR preparation, review
fixes, and verification; repository tools and code execution were
enabled, and context-window size is not exposed in this runtime.
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context assisted with the Decisions
UI implementation, as recorded in the relevant commits.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators need an audit record of agent actions across tasks,
comments, documents, approvals, and runs
> - The permission-gated audit read API provides that record, but
operators cannot inspect it in the product
> - A readable UI must preserve company boundaries, server-side
permission decisions, and redaction
> - Audit exports must also be safe to open in spreadsheet software and
must record the export itself
> - This pull request adds company and per-agent audit views plus a
guarded CSV export
> - The benefit is a searchable, filterable, and reviewable agent action
history with direct links back to work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Feature.** This change adds the frontend and CSV export for the agent
action audit log.
Refs #9731 and #9735.
- Problem: agent actions are recorded, but operators have no readable
product surface to inspect or export them.
- Solution: add a company audit page and a per-agent Audit tab that use
the permission-gated audit API.
- Alternative: build a separate plugin-only surface. This was rejected
because the existing permission model already supports a unified,
server-authoritative view.
This pull request targets the audit epic branch, which contains the
merged #9735 audit API.
## What Changed
- Added a company Audit page and sidebar entry.
- Added a per-agent Audit tab with a fixed agent filter.
- Added filters for agent, responsible user, action domain, entity type,
and date range.
- Added task and run links, responsible-user context, cursor pagination,
and readable action text.
- Added a permission-denied Enterprise card for callers without
`audit:view_agent_actions`.
- Added a CSV export that is permission-gated, capped, self-audited,
CSV-escaped, and protected against spreadsheet formula injection.
- Preserved the merged audit API cursor validation, redaction, and
sub-millisecond pagination behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/audit/AuditFeed.test.tsx` — 6
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts` — 8 passed with
embedded PostgreSQL.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed across all workspaces.
- `pnpm build` — passed across all workspaces.
- `pnpm test:run` — all completed shards passed except one
environment-sensitive CLI assertion caused by injected static AWS
credential variables; the exact test passes 8/8 with those variables
unset.
- Manual Chromium QA exercised the populated feed, active filters,
permission-denied card, per-agent tab, and CSV export.
## Screenshots and Manual QA
- [All audit states exercised in
Chromium](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9744#issuecomment-4998997001)
- [Detailed browser report and per-agent tab root
cause](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9744#issuecomment-4998771061)
The per-agent redirect defect found during QA is fixed in this branch.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The UI and export route are additive and use the
existing company-scoped permission gate. The main risks are large
exports and spreadsheet interpretation. The export is capped at 10,000
rows, records truncation accurately, and prefixes formula-like cells as
text. There are no schema changes or migrations.
> 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
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8, 1M context, extended thinking, tool use,
and code execution produced the original implementation.
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 (deployment ID and context window not exposed),
reasoning, tool use, code execution, browser-test orchestration, and
GitHub review tooling repaired and verified the pull request.
## 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>
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
> - Execution workspaces can inherit runtime services from a project
workspace
> - A project workspace keeps current and historical runtime service
rows
> - The execution workspace read path returned all current rows,
including services removed from the current configuration
> - This pull request matches inherited rows to the current service
definitions
> - The benefit is bounded workspace payloads and accurate service
summaries
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Shared execution workspaces returned current historical service rows
that no longer matched the project workspace configuration. The response
size multiplied across every shared execution workspace.
**Expected behavior**
Shared execution workspaces must return only the newest runtime service
row for each service in the current project workspace configuration.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create one project workspace with many historical runtime service
rows.
2. Create many shared execution workspaces that inherit that project
workspace.
3. List the execution workspaces and inspect each `runtimeServices`
array.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`7301fae942c3d5826974335cb40d6f1e0d95d1e0`
**Deployment mode**
Built from source. The defect is in the server read model and is not
deployment-specific.
No duplicate or related public issue or pull request was found.
## What Changed
- Select only runtime service rows that match the current project
workspace service definitions.
- Preserve each matched service definition index in the API result.
- Avoid loading direct execution service rows for workspaces that
inherit project services.
- Add unit, integration, and volume regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run
src/services/workspace-runtime-read-model.test.ts
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts -t
'selectConfiguredRuntimeServiceRows|returns full details at the observed
volume|inherits only runtime-service rows'`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
The focused test run passed 4 tests and skipped 27 unrelated tests.
## Risks
The read path now omits service rows that do not match the current
configuration. This is the intended behavior for inherited runtime
services. The change does not alter service persistence or lifecycle
transitions.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The context-window size is not
exposed to this run. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and GitHub tools.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Local agent wakes include a default execution contract
> - That contract tells agents how issue-thread continuation policies
behave
> - The current text says `wake_assignee` resumes a confirmation only
after acceptance
> - The server actually wakes for every non-expired resolution and
reserves acceptance-only behavior for `wake_assignee_on_accept`
> - This pull request makes the default prompt match the server contract
and strengthens the recovery follow-up regression case
> - The benefit is that agents choose the correct continuation policy
and recovery tests cover normalized agent name keys
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related work: Refs #5473, Refs #5060, and Refs #10562.
**What happened?**
The default local-agent prompt described `wake_assignee` as
acceptance-only for `request_confirmation`. This conflicts with the
server. The server wakes on every non-expired resolution. A recovery
follow-up test also used an already-normalized execution agent name key,
so it did not exercise the normalization seam.
**Expected behavior**
The prompt must state that `wake_assignee` resumes after acceptance or
rejection. It must direct acceptance-only flows to
`wake_assignee_on_accept`. The recovery regression must use a
display-style agent name key and prove that the follow-up path still
works after normalization.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Read the default local-agent prompt in
`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`.
2. Compare its confirmation continuation text with
`queueResolvedInteractionContinuationWakeup` in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts`.
3. Observe that the prompt gives acceptance-only semantics to
`wake_assignee`.
4. Inspect the recovery hand-back test and observe that its execution
name key is already normalized.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`7301fae942`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev. The prompt and test behavior are not deployment-specific.
## What Changed
- Corrected the default agent prompt for `wake_assignee` and
`wake_assignee_on_accept`.
- Added focused prompt assertions for both the required and obsolete
text.
- Changed the recovery follow-up fixture to use a display-style agent
name key.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
-t 'keeps the default local-agent prompt action-oriented'` passed: 1
test.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts -t 'defers
recovery hand-back wakes until the resolving run exits'` passed: 1 test.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. The production change updates prompt text only.
- Agents that followed the old text may now choose
`wake_assignee_on_accept` for acceptance-only flows.
- The server test change only broadens an existing regression fixture.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact serving model ID and context-window
size are not exposed to the agent. The model used reasoning, repository
tools, tests, Git, and GitHub CLI access.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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] 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>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents update tasks through the issue API.
> - The update response did not state which values changed.
> - Blocker updates also did not echo the scalar blocker IDs.
> - Agents therefore used an extra GET request to confirm a successful
write.
> - This pull request adds an authoritative change receipt and an
optional small response.
> - The benefit is fewer API calls with a clear and compatible write
contract.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and the UI issue cache.
### Problem or motivation
A successful issue PATCH returned the updated issue, but it did not
identify the effective changes. Blocker writes returned relation
summaries without the scalar IDs. Agents could not distinguish a
confirmed clear operation from missing data. The response must confirm
committed field and blocker changes while existing UI clients continue
to receive the full issue by default.
### Proposed solution
Add a `changes` receipt. Add a conditional `blockedByIssueIds` echo.
Support `Prefer: return=minimal`. Keep the full response as the default.
### Alternatives considered
Make the small response the default for agent tokens. This would create
different response contracts by actor type, so this pull request does
not use that design.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a focused control-plane reliability improvement. It does not
duplicate an open roadmap milestone.
## What Changed
- Compute committed issue row and relation changes in the issue service.
- Omit no-op fields and truncate changed long text values to 200
characters.
- Echo blocker ID arrays for blocker set and clear requests.
- Add the opt-in `Prefer: return=minimal` response and
`Preference-Applied` header.
- Keep receipt metadata out of React Query issue caches.
- Add route and embedded Postgres tests for the new contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"returns authoritative update receipts for row fields and blocker
relations"`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Low compatibility risk. The default response only adds receipt fields.
- Minimal mode is opt-in. Existing clients do not receive a smaller
body.
- The receipt excludes `updatedAt` because the response already returns
it as the freshness anchor.
- Prose API and agent workflow guidance will follow after the server
contract is available.
> 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 based on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID, context window
size, and reasoning mode are not exposed to the agent. The agent used
repository tools, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Operators need a predictable installation path that survives beyond
an ephemeral `npx` process
> - A durable installation needs an owned per-user payload store, stable
command shim, safe shell integration, and supported service lifecycle
> - Updates must preserve recoverability by backing up data, installing
side-by-side, verifying the new payload, and retaining rollback state
> - Bootstrap scripts and privileged service operations must fail closed
across download, filesystem, ownership, and consent boundaries
> - This pull request integrates managed install, update, rollback,
service, uninstall, doctor, bootstrap-installer, and runtime-serving
support into one workflow
> - The benefit is a recoverable, inspectable, and documented
installation lifecycle with explicit safety boundaries across Linux,
macOS, containers, WSL, npm, npx, and source checkouts
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Problem
Paperclip lacks a first-class durable installation and lifecycle
workflow. Operators currently have to assemble npm/npx installation,
PATH setup, background-service management, updates, rollback,
diagnostics, and uninstall behavior themselves. That makes upgrades
harder to recover, creates inconsistent behavior across platforms, and
leaves shell/download/service trust boundaries without one documented
implementation.
### Proposed Solution
Add a managed per-user install store and stable shim, a verified shell
bootstrap installer, service lifecycle commands, install-mode-aware
update/rollback behavior, doctor checks, and documentation. Managed
updates back up the database, install and smoke-test a side-by-side
payload, atomically switch `current`, and retain prior payloads. The
shell installer pins registry/download trust boundaries and requires
explicit consent for non-interactive privileged actions.
### Alternatives Considered
- Keep recommending `npx`: simple for evaluation, but ephemeral and
unsuitable for stable services, atomic updates, or rollback.
- Require global npm installation only: familiar, but cannot provide the
owned side-by-side payload store and retained rollback semantics.
- Split the capability across multiple PRs: rejected because install,
update, service, uninstall, bootstrap, and serving behavior share
contracts and security boundaries that need review together.
### Related Pull Requests
- Supersedes #10042 and #10044 with one integrated final diff.
- Incorporates and replaces the closed preparatory work in #10032 and
#10034.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai install`, `update`/`upgrade`, rollback, uninstall,
service lifecycle, onboarding integration, and managed-install doctor
checks.
- Added a private managed payload store, verified manifest/marker
ownership, exclusive mutation locks, atomic manifest/current/shim
writes, retained previous payloads, and provenance validation.
- Added npm and GitHub-ref install sources with exact target resolution,
registry isolation, database backup, side-by-side verification, atomic
activation, service restart coordination, and failure rollback.
- Made managed-update backups report actionable service-start and
`--no-backup` recovery guidance for unreachable databases, while clean
never-onboarded instances skip an empty backup.
- Added systemd user and launchd service definitions, status/health/log
commands, single-instance coordination, stale-port recovery, and
explicit sudo/lingering consent handling.
- Added the `scripts/install.sh` bootstrap path with checked two-stage
downloads, pinned public npm registry usage, platform checks,
dry-run/non-interactive controls, and Docker fixtures.
- Added embedded Postgres/native bootstrap integration,
hot-restart/systemd-notify serving support, passive update notices,
configuration contracts, README/CLI/install documentation, and focused
regression tests.
- Security re-review should explicitly re-verify: (1)
`addManagedPathBlock`/`removeManagedPathBlock` reject symlinked or
non-regular rc files, assert current-user ownership, preserve
restrictive modes, and replace atomically; (2) managed shim replacement
rejects unsafe parents, foreign-owned or multiply linked files, and uses
checked atomic replacement; (3) the shell installer and sudo path
preserve explicit consent and checked downloads; and (4) installed
service/runtime serving remains bound to the validated managed shim and
instance configuration.
## Verification
- `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/clean-install-git.sh
scripts/clean-install-npm.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/install-store.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/install-command.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/managed-install-check.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/onboard-service.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/service-health-check.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/service-manager.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/update-notice.test.ts
packages/db/src/embedded-postgres-native.test.ts` — 9 files, 66 tests
passed
- `pnpm --dir cli typecheck`
- `pnpm --dir cli build`
- Follow-up verification: `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts` (14/14), `pnpm --dir cli
typecheck`, `pnpm --dir cli build`, and `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Full `pnpm test:run` exercised all suites; an injected static AWS
credential changed one unrelated doctor expectation, which passed when
those credentials were removed. A second run cleared that case and
exposed stale pre-existing adapter-utils `dist` output; rebuilding
`@paperclipai/adapter-utils` made the isolated test pass. The updated PR
CI is the authoritative clean-workspace full-suite run.
## Risks
- Installer/update code writes executable shims, symlinks, shell rc
blocks, service definitions, and managed payloads; ownership,
regular-file, symlink, hard-link, marker, and path-containment checks
fail closed before destructive changes.
- The bootstrap installer executes downloaded tooling; downloads are
staged and checked before execution, npm traffic is pinned to the public
registry, and non-interactive privileged behavior requires explicit
consent.
- Linux lingering may invoke `sudo`; the command is surfaced and
confirmed before execution, and unsupported service managers fall back
to foreground-run guidance.
- Database migrations remain forward-only; payload rollback does not
reverse migrations, so managed updates create a backup before activation
unless explicitly disabled.
- Service restart and runtime serving touch process/port ownership;
lifecycle locks, health/version checks, and stable-shim service
definitions reduce split-brain and stale-process risk.
> 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 agents using GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6-sol, with
reasoning, repository/API access, shell execution, and test tooling. The
runtime did not expose a reliable context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The Decisions queue ran five parallel colour/icon vocabularies chosen by
source kind, plus a separate severity badge, so two rows needing the same
response could look unrelated and none of it matched the task list.
Every row now resolves to one of two kinds, each borrowing the task status
it corresponds to: blocking renders as `blocked`, review as `in_review`,
both through StatusGlyph and the existing --status-task-icon-* tokens.
Source kinds keep their own wording; only colour and icon merge.
Card anatomy follows the design mock: no left accent rail, rounded cards
16px apart, a "/"-separated meta breadcrumb, a named See more / See less
control, and no separately tinted drawer when expanded. Verb order is
fixed across both states. Severity moves from chrome to a toolbar filter.
Four defects fixed along the way:
- blocked rows reported themselves as their own blocker (server-side)
- the task key was missing wherever the row's subject IS the task
- the task quicklook stuck open, because closing handed focus back to a
trigger that opens on focus
- the card ring appeared on click, and only on cards with a toggle
Also: the standard task preview is aligned to its trigger's text and
scales out of it, the task eyebrow renders its project as a tile, and the
first motion tokens land alongside the disclosure and crossfade.
Supersedes #9574 and #9575.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Codex agents can run inside sandbox environments, and operators can
bake a Codex login into the sandbox image during interactive image setup
> - Two credential gates (the control plane's pre-dispatch
configuration-incomplete gate and the adapter's execute-time fail-fast)
required host-side Codex credentials — a usable `auth.json` in the
managed home or a configured `OPENAI_API_KEY` — regardless of where the
run executes
> - On managed cloud hosts a local Codex login never exists, so every
sandbox run of a Codex agent failed immediately with "configuration
incomplete: no Codex credentials available for managed home …", even
though the adapter's inbound auth merge already supports the image-login
case end to end
> - This pull request makes the execute-time gate probe the sandbox for
its own `~/.codex/auth.json` before failing, and exempts
sandbox-destined runs from the pre-dispatch host check
> - The benefit is that a sandbox image signed in to Codex is a
first-class credential source, matching what the auth-merge,
precedence-warning, and copy-back machinery were already built for
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Running a `codex_local` agent in a sandbox environment whose image
carries a Codex login failed instantly with `configuration incomplete:
no Codex credentials available for managed home "…/codex-home". Sign in
to Codex on the host with a ChatGPT subscription, or bind a per-agent
OPENAI_API_KEY secret for this agent.` The host has no Codex login and
never will on a managed cloud deployment; the sandbox's own login was
never consulted.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Configure a sandbox environment and capture a custom image after
signing in to Codex inside the interactive image setup.
2. Create a `codex_local` agent that uses that environment, on a host
with no Codex login and no `OPENAI_API_KEY` bound.
3. Start a run: it fails pre-dispatch with the configuration-incomplete
blocker above.
**Expected behavior**
The run launches and Codex authenticates with the sandbox image's own
login, the same way the adapter's host↔sandbox auth merge already keeps
the sandbox credential when the host ships none. A run should only fail
fast when neither the host, a bound `OPENAI_API_KEY`, nor the sandbox
has credentials.
**Paperclip version**
Current `master` (cloud image deployments).
**Deployment mode**
Managed cloud stacks (any deployment where the server host has no local
Codex login).
## What Changed
- Extracted the adapter's execute-time gate into
`assertCodexCredentialsLaunchable`: when host readiness fails and the
target is a sandbox, it probes `~/.codex/auth.json` in the sandbox (same
command the auth-precedence warning uses) and proceeds with a log line
naming the credential source; when the sandbox has no login either, the
error now names all three remediation options (sandbox image sign-in,
per-agent `OPENAI_API_KEY`, host sign-in). Non-sandbox targets keep
today's strict behavior byte-for-byte.
- The control plane's pre-dispatch gate in
`resolveExecutionRunAdapterConfig` now takes the selected environment's
driver and skips the host-credential check for sandbox-destined runs —
only the adapter can probe the sandbox once it is up, so the
execute-time gate is the authority there. Non-sandbox runs keep the
early, well-attributed configuration-incomplete blocker.
- The codex Test flow needed no change: it already seeds host
credentials only when they exist and otherwise leaves the sandbox's
`CODEX_HOME` alone; this aligns the run path with it.
## Verification
- `cd packages/adapters/codex-local && pnpm vitest run` — 210 tests,
including new gate cases: sandbox login present (proceeds + logs
source), sandbox and host both credential-less (fails with the extended
message), non-sandbox target (strict host requirement kept, no sandbox
probe), per-agent API key (no probe at all).
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts
src/__tests__/codex-local-adapter-environment.test.ts` — includes the
new sandbox-exemption case next to the existing blocker tests.
- `pnpm run typecheck` in `server` and `packages/adapters/codex-local`.
## Risks
- Sandbox-destined misconfigurations (no credentials anywhere) now
surface at adapter execute time instead of pre-dispatch, so they read as
an adapter failure with a precise message rather than a
configuration-incomplete blocker. The trade-off is deliberate: the
sandbox must be up to know whether credentials exist, and the failure
message names the exact remediations.
- The sandbox probe adds one short (5s-capped) shell command to sandbox
runs whose host has no credentials; runs with host credentials or a
bound key are untouched.
- Self-hosted behavior is unchanged for local and SSH targets.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use (file edits, vitest/tsc runs). No other
models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Nicky Leach
Devin Foley
Dotta
scotttong
LeonSGP
Manav Shrivastava
Michael Nguyen
scokeepa
Tonio
