## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The experimental Paperclip Runner can execute a guarded Codex run
and persist provider-neutral events.
> - The task page still reads direct-adapter transcripts and cannot
present those native events.
> - Structured runner questions must also use the existing task
interaction experience.
> - Runtime selection must use the persisted run mode, not an adapter
name or a current feature flag.
> - This pull request projects native events and questions into the
existing task thread.
> - Direct adapters keep their existing transcript, composer,
interaction, and finalization paths.
> - The benefit is a complete native Codex task thread without a
behavior change for existing adapters.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12202. This pull request replaces that stale implementation on
current `master`.
**What happened?**
The server persists native runner events and structured input requests.
The task page only consumes direct-adapter transcripts. A native run
therefore cannot present a complete transcript, usage, or question flow
through the normal task experience.
**Expected behavior**
Native runs project persisted provider-neutral events into the existing
task thread. Native structured questions use the existing interaction
card. Direct adapters retain their current behavior.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable the experimental runner.
2. Start a native Codex run that emits progress, usage, a structured
question, and a final reply.
3. Open the task page.
4. Observe that the direct-adapter transcript path cannot project the
native event records.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `67f9867bc`.
## What Changed
- Add the canonical structured-question validator and shared contract
exports.
- Materialize native input requests as existing task interactions.
- Validate native answers and deliver them through the durable
question-response receipt.
- Resume the original PRP request with an idempotent `request.resolve`
command.
- Project native messages, tool activity, cumulative usage, and final
replies into the existing transcript model.
- Propagate persisted `runtimeMode` to the task page and select native
handling only for `runtimeMode: "native"`.
- Expire pending interactions through the shared issue service on every
terminal transition, including decisions, stalled reviews, tree control,
and pipeline retry cleanup.
- Queue native run cancellation while a transaction is open and execute
it only after the owning transaction commits.
- Keep nonterminal and non-runner issue paths on their existing service
call shapes and behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed, including the
Rust runner release build and protocol/catalog drift gates.
- Focused native-thread and lifecycle suites — 18 files and 481 tests
passed during review.
- `issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 19/19 passed after the final
transactional-queue expectation update.
- `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — 87/87 passed in the
final isolated compatibility rerun.
- GitHub Actions — policy, build, canary, typecheck/release registry, 5
serialized server shards, 8 general-test shards, 3 browser shards, and
both aggregate gates passed on `7793f3193`.
- Security — Snyk, Socket Project Report, Socket PR Alerts, and
Superagent passed.
- Greptile — 5/5 on `7793f3193`; all actionable review threads resolved.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- Diff against `master`: 44 files.
## Compatibility Boundary
- Native transcript polling only runs when the persisted run reports
`runtimeMode: "native"`.
- Missing or legacy runtime modes continue through
`useLiveRunTranscripts`.
- Legacy questions keep the existing optional free-text choice.
- Native closed select sets can suppress that legacy fallback.
- Terminal cleanup uses the same issue service for native and legacy
interactions; only a bound native question schedules a native run
cancellation.
- Native cancellation happens after transaction commit, so failed or
rolled-back writes do not cancel a still-valid run.
- The durable delivery service checks the original native request before
it considers a continuation run.
- This pull request adds no migration, dependency, workflow, manifest,
or lockfile change.
## Risks
The main risk is routing a direct-adapter task through native handling
or changing terminal issue behavior. The implementation selects the
native path only from persisted runtime facts, retains the existing
nonterminal call shape, and schedules native cancellation only for a
validated bound native question after commit. Focused and
repository-wide tests cover both paths. Native requests remain bound to
the company, issue, run, and agent; answers are validated, durable, and
idempotent across reconnects.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does 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 and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting
merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision
record.
> - Resolver routes used different authorization rules.
> - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with
normal issue access.
> - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction.
> - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy
evaluator.
> - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and
company isolation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes: #8087
Refs: #7403
Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change
keeps human-only review as an explicit policy.
**What happened?**
Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still
required board access.
This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see
the same problem without board identity.
**Expected behavior**
Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract.
The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It
must also apply all normal governance controls.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent.
2. Resolve it with another authorized agent.
3. Observe the board-only denial.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem exists on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with `pnpm dev`.
## What Changed
- Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind.
- Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task
watchdog scope.
- Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit.
- Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction
data.
- Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board
UI.
- Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression
fixtures.
- Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior.
- Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior
runs.
## Product Rules
- An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the
next action.
- `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond.
- `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator.
- `human_only` requires an authorized person.
- A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the
audience.
- These controls cannot widen the audience.
- A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent.
- A task watchdog does not receive board authority.
- An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue
action limit.
- Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions.
- The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts`
- The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice.
- The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing
provenance.
- The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks.
- The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments.
## Risks
- New interaction writes use `anyone` by default.
- Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need
stricter review.
- Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human
restrictions.
- Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery.
- Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit.
- The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind.
- Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these
rules.
> This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in
`ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID
or context window.
The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the
required labels
- [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented the risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments
- [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 is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 2/8 and focuses on database schema and
shared governance contracts
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The governed access model needs additive persistence and
synchronized shared types before server enforcement can compile.
- Proposed solution: Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke
Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal
compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/01-demo-servers`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for migrations/validators; Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared
types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required
contract consumers identified by boundary testing.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety
checks
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db test` — passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared test` — passed
## Risks
- Migration or contract mistakes could affect every upper layer; all
migrations are additive/idempotent and compile consumers are included in
this boundary.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where
operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their
input.
> - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those
decision points across server APIs and the board UI.
> - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these
actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the
Decisions surface.
> - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards,
grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry.
> - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized,
with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state.
> - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions
experience as one reviewable unit.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience:
grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze
handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to
control the Decisions navigation entry.
## Feature Context
### Problem or Motivation
Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed
runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action.
### Proposed Solution
Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items,
supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through
dismiss and snooze actions.
### Alternatives Considered
Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting
operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize.
### Roadmap Alignment
This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending
governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface.
## What Changed
- Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling,
dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal
migration.
- Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings
contracts.
- Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar
badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook
coverage.
- Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings
normalization, dismissals, and API behavior.
- Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the
branch onto current `master`.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts
ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests
across 9 focused files.
- GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry
have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in
progress.
## Risks
- Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a
new migration and navigation behavior.
- The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting
rollout impact.
- Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is
idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation.
> ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was
identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this
PR.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution.
Context-window size unavailable 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 public PR branch name describes the change and contains no
internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining
unrelated AWS test failure is documented above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issue-thread interactions are how agents ask board users for typed
decisions and structured answers inside an issue thread
> - Confirmation interactions already become stale when a later
board/user comment supersedes the pending decision
> - Question interactions had the same workflow risk, because a
board/user could answer in a comment while the old question card stayed
pending
> - This pull request extends the supersede-by-comment lifecycle to
ask-user-question interactions and makes that status visible in the UI
> - The benefit is agents get a clear continuation signal and users do
not see stale question forms after the discussion has moved on
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No exact public GitHub issue was found.
Bug report:
**Pre-submission checklist**
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip, or can reproduce
on `master`.
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in
an agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration.
**What happened?**
Pending `ask_user_questions` interactions could remain open after a
later board/user comment changed or answered the request in-thread. That
left a stale form visible and kept the interaction in a pending state
even though the discussion had moved on.
**Expected behavior**
Question interactions should follow the same default
supersede-on-comment behavior as confirmation interactions, with an
explicit expired result that points to the superseding comment.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction on an issue.
2. Add a board/user comment created at or after that interaction.
3. Observe that before this change, the question interaction stayed
pending instead of expiring as superseded by the comment.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` before this PR.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server or local dev. The bug is in shared issue-thread
interaction lifecycle handling.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core issue-thread interaction bug.
**Database mode**
Applies to the normal Paperclip database-backed interaction lifecycle.
**Access context**
Board user comments supersede agent-created questions.
**Relevant logs or output**
No crash output. The stale pending interaction was visible in the issue
thread state.
**Relevant config (if applicable)**
None.
**Additional context**
Confirmation-style interactions already supported this stale-by-comment
behavior. This PR brings question interactions into the same lifecycle
model.
**Privacy checklist**
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and included no private
instance links, local ticket ids, secrets, logs, or screenshots.
## What Changed
- Added `supersedeOnUserComment` support to `ask_user_questions`
payloads, defaulting it to `true` during interaction creation.
- Expire pending question interactions when a later board/user comment
supersedes them, including a result with `expirationReason:
"superseded_by_comment"` and the superseding `commentId`.
- Updated interaction summaries and cards so expired question requests
show a clear amber state with a jump link to the comment and correct
singular/plural copy.
- Updated agent onboarding guidance to describe the new default and how
to opt out.
- Added shared, server, and UI test coverage for the new lifecycle
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 5
files, 73 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
--reporter=dot && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed
after the final type-safety cleanup.
- Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`.
- Confirmed the diff does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`,
`.github/workflows`, or database migrations.
## Risks
- Low-to-medium risk: `ask_user_questions` now defaults to expiring
after later board/user comments. Existing callers that need questions to
stay open through discussion can set `supersedeOnUserComment: false`.
- Expired question interactions store an empty `answers` array, so
downstream consumers should treat the explicit `expirationReason` as the
meaningful 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 Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder runtime,
with terminal and repository tool use. Exact context window 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions,
and approval-style handoffs.
> - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest
tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured
checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options.
> - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate
consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the
UI.
> - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract,
server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render
and submit structured selections.
> - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select
confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip
interactions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip
issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox
confirmation issue-thread UI component work.
- GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation /
issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found.
- Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup
work, so it is not linked as a related issue.
## What Changed
- Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for
`request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions.
- Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for
checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response
handling.
- Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can
create the new interaction shape consistently.
- Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox
confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target
states, and accept/decline flows.
- Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the
Paperclip skill/API reference.
## Verification
- Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into
`public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`:
```sh
NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links
NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts
```
Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed.
- CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green.
- Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check
shows all Greptile threads resolved.
## Risks
- Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared
validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK
helpers, and docs.
- No database migrations are included.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile
policy.
- UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested
not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the
work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access,
shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip
control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata
is not exposed inside this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta