## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses durable task sessions so local adapters can resume
work across sequential heartbeat runs.
> - `execution_review_requested` and `execution_changes_requested` are
issue-local execution-policy handoffs, not new task assignments.
> - The existing `agent_task_sessions` lookup, adapter session codec,
workspace resolution, and effective config freshness checks already
decide whether reuse is safe.
> - Treating those two handoff wake reasons as unconditional
fresh-session boundaries discards a valid saved task session before
adapter resume can be attempted.
> - This makes Dev → CodeReview → Dev loops repeatedly cold-start even
when task, issue, agent, adapter, workspace, and config identity are
unchanged.
> - The fix is to let normal review/change-request handoffs reach the
durable task-session path while preserving explicit fresh-session and
unsafe-boundary resets.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#8246.
cc @cryppadotta — this is the narrow handoff-session policy change
discussed there: normal `execution_review_requested` /
`execution_changes_requested` wakes no longer force a fresh task session
by wake reason alone, while assignment, approval, review-participant
recovery, timer wakes, explicit `forceFreshSession`, and
config/workspace/model/session freshness still keep their safety
boundaries.
## What Changed
- Removed normal `execution_review_requested` and
`execution_changes_requested` from the unconditional task-session reset
policy.
- Kept fresh-session boundaries for:
- `issue_assigned`
- `execution_approval_requested`
- `execution_review_participant_recovery`
- `heartbeat_timer`
- explicit `forceFreshSession`
- existing config/model/workspace/session freshness reset paths
- Updated heartbeat session-policy tests so execution handoffs are
resume-eligible by wake reason alone.
- Preserved PF-4 timer-wake behavior and its explicit reset reason.
## Verification
- `npx pnpm@9.15.4 exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-timer-wake-session-reset-pf4.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
--reporter=verbose` — 220 tests passed.
- `npx pnpm@9.15.4 --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- `coderabbit review --agent -t committed --base origin/master` — 0
findings.
## Risks
- Moderate behavior change in session-boundary policy: normal
review/change-request handoffs may now reuse a saved per-task session
when the existing identity/freshness checks pass.
- Safety boundaries remain in place for new assignments, approval gates,
review-participant recovery, timer/discovery wakes, explicit
fresh-session requests, and config/model/workspace/session drift.
- If a saved session is stale or incompatible, existing freshness/resume
fallback behavior still handles reset/fresh execution.
> For core feature work, check ROADMAP.md first and discuss it in #dev
before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work
may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See
CONTRIBUTING.md.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5.5. Tool use and local verification 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
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip 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 to reflect my changes — N/A,
server policy/test-only change
- [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: santastabber <184111696+santastabber@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Local session adapters persist task sessions so later wakes can
resume the same conversation
> - Session reuse correctly resets when effective execution
configuration changes
> - The workspace fingerprint currently includes the issue row's
`updatedAt` timestamp
> - Adding a comment advances that timestamp even though workspace
configuration is unchanged
> - The next same-issue wake therefore discards a valid task session and
starts cold
> - This pull request excludes that volatile timestamp while retaining
actual workspace settings in the fingerprint
> - The benefit is reliable same-task continuation without weakening
configuration-freshness safety
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. The inline report below follows the bug report
template.
### Pre-submission checklist
- [x] I searched existing open and closed issues and found no duplicate.
- [x] I reproduced the bug on the latest release and current `master`.
- [x] I confirmed the error originates in Paperclip core fingerprinting,
not an adapter, provider, or local configuration.
### What happened?
On Paperclip 2026.720.0 and current `master`, a comment on an issue
changes
`issues.updated_at`. Heartbeat session fingerprinting includes that
value under
`workspaceConfig.issueConfigRevisionAt`, so the next wake for the same
issue
reports a workspace-config change and refuses the saved task session.
### Expected behavior
Comment-only and other non-configuration issue updates should be
delivered as
wake deltas without invalidating the task session. Changes to the
execution
mode, issue workspace settings, project policy, environment,
instructions,
model, secrets, or other effective run configuration must still reset
it.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Complete a local session-adapter run for an issue and retain its task
session.
2. Add a comment to the issue without changing execution configuration.
3. Wake the same agent for the same issue.
4. Observe `changedCategories: ["workspaceConfig"]` and a fresh session.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproduced on Paperclip 2026.720.0 and current `master`.
### Deployment mode
Self-hosted server.
### Installation method
npm global install; also reproduced from the current source tree.
### Agent adapter(s) involved
Codex exposed the symptom. The bug is in core fingerprint construction
and is
not adapter-specific.
### Database mode
External Postgres. The bug is not database-specific.
### Access context
Board comments trigger the timestamp change; the subsequent agent wake
exposes
the reset.
### Node.js version
Node.js 22.
### Operating system
Ubuntu 24.04.
### Relevant logs or output
The next run records `changedCategories: ["workspaceConfig"]` and starts
a
fresh session after a comment-only mutation.
### Relevant config
No unusual configuration is required.
### Additional context
The regression test exercises the fingerprint directly on current
`master`.
### Privacy checklist
- [x] I reviewed the report for PII, credentials, private paths, company
names, and instance-local identifiers.
## What Changed
- Copy and sanitize the session workspace-fingerprint input before
hashing.
- Exclude only `issueConfigRevisionAt`, which reflects general issue
mutation
rather than workspace configuration.
- Add regression coverage proving comment timestamps preserve the
session while
real workspace mode/settings changes still reset it.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- 120 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- passed.
- `git diff --check`
- passed.
## Risks
Low risk. A general issue update no longer rotates the adapter session
solely
because its row timestamp changed. The fingerprint still includes issue
workspace settings, issue adapter overrides, project workspace policy,
environment, instructions, runtime skills, secrets, model profile,
adapter
configuration, and agent runtime configuration, so actual
execution-config
drift continues to reset.
> 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 size not exposed, reasoning and
tool use
enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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
- [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: Uliana Savostenko <ulia@MacBook-Air.local>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work; issues get commented on by both humans and agents, and the
assignee is woken to act on new comments.
> - #10050 added human-attributed issue comments for chat gateway
plugins, with the host waking the issue's assignee the same way a board
user's comment does.
> - Greptile's review on #10050 flagged that the wakeup guard in
`plugin-host-services.ts` decides whether to wake the assignee using the
issue snapshot fetched *before* the comment was inserted.
> - If another request closes, cancels, unassigns, or reassigns the
issue in the window between that fetch and the wakeup call, the guard
still acts on the stale snapshot — it can wake an agent for a
now-terminal issue, or wake the old assignee instead of the new one.
> - The PR discussion noted the HTTP add-comment route
(`routes/issues.ts`) has the identical pattern outside its
reopen/auto-approval branches, and deferred a fix to a follow-up
covering both call sites — this PR is that follow-up.
> - The fix re-fetches the issue immediately before the wake decision in
both places, so the decision reflects the latest committed state instead
of a pre-insert snapshot.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10050
**Problem or motivation**
Both the plugin-comment wakeup guard (`plugin-host-services.ts`) and the
HTTP add-comment route's wakeup guard (`routes/issues.ts`, outside its
reopen/auto-approval branches) decide whether to wake the issue's
assignee using the issue state fetched before the comment was inserted.
A concurrent close/unassign/reassign landing in that window is invisible
to the guard, so it can enqueue a wakeup for a stale assignee or an
issue that is no longer open.
**Proposed solution**
Re-fetch the issue immediately before the wake decision in both call
sites, and base the assignee/status checks on that fresh read instead of
the earlier snapshot. This shrinks the race window to essentially
nothing (the fetch happens right before the fire-and-forget wakeup
call), and any residual window is already covered by the
heartbeat/checkout machinery re-validating issue status and assignee
ownership when a woken run actually starts.
**Alternatives considered**
Wrap the whole comment-insert + wake-decision sequence in a single
serializable transaction with row locking (rejected for this change —
much larger blast radius across two already-complex handlers for a
wakeup that is explicitly best-effort; the woken run's own re-validation
already makes a stale wake degrade to a no-op rather than incorrect
work). Leaving the plugin path fixed but not the HTTP route (rejected —
that was the exact gap the original PR discussion flagged as needing a
follow-up covering both call sites).
**Roadmap alignment**
Bug fix / hardening follow-up to #10050; no change to planned core
roadmap items.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/plugin-host-services.ts`:
`issues.createComment`'s assignee-wakeup guard now re-fetches the issue
after the comment is inserted and bases the assignee/status checks on
that fresh read, instead of the snapshot fetched before the insert.
- `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: the `POST /issues/:id/comments` route's
wakeup guard (outside the reopen/auto-approval branches, which already
use post-mutation state) now does the same re-fetch before deciding
whether — and whom — to wake.
- Adds regression coverage for both:
- `server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts`: a new
embedded-Postgres test holds a row lock on the issue to
deterministically force the race (comment-insert's internal update
blocks until a concurrent transaction commits a cancellation), then
asserts no wakeup is enqueued.
- `server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts`: two new
mocked-service tests assert the route skips the wakeup when the fresh
re-fetch shows the issue cancelled, and wakes the freshly reassigned
agent (not the pre-insert snapshot's assignee) when the fresh re-fetch
shows a different assignee.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts` — 13/13 (1 new).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts` — 74/74 (2 new).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec vitest run
tests/host-client-factory.test.ts` — 14/14.
- Broader sweep of 38 `routes/issues.ts`-adjacent test files (447 tests)
— all passing, confirming the added re-fetch doesn't change behavior for
any existing
reopen/auto-approval/interrupt/scheduled-retry/dependency-wake scenario.
## Risks
Low risk. Both changes are additive guards around an existing
best-effort, fire-and-forget wakeup (failures already logged, not
thrown) — no change to the comment-write path itself, response shape, or
status codes. The HTTP route's fix only touches the plain (non-reopen,
non-auto-approval) wake-decision path; the reopen and auto-approval
branches already used post-mutation state for the reasons documented
inline and are unchanged. Adds one extra `SELECT` per comment on each
call site, negligible relative to the existing query volume in both
handlers.
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 5 (`claude-sonnet-5`), extended thinking, tool use
enabled, via Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I searched the GitHub PR list (open and recently closed) for
similar PRs; found no duplicate — this is a direct follow-up to the
review discussion on #10050
- [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
- [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 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: anicca <annica@Michaels-Mac-Studio.local>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Local CLI adapters are responsible for starting agent runtimes and
validating that their configured models are usable before a run starts.
> - The OpenCode local adapter checks `opencode models` during model
discovery and preflight validation.
> - On hosts with a shared Ollama daemon, that lightweight metadata call
can transiently queue behind an active generation and time out or return
a short failure.
> - Treating that transient contention as a hard adapter failure
prevents otherwise valid local OpenCode runs from starting.
> - This pull request adds a small bounded retry/backoff around OpenCode
model discovery while keeping the existing per-attempt timeout and
surfacing a final failure when retries are exhausted.
> - The benefit is fewer false adapter failures during local Ollama
contention without changing shared Ollama configuration or hiding
genuinely stuck model discovery.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this adapter reliability bug.
Bug description:
- What happened: `opencode models` can transiently time out or fail
while a shared local Ollama daemon is busy serving another OpenCode
generation, causing the adapter preflight to fail before the actual run
starts.
- Expected behavior: transient model-list contention should be retried
briefly before declaring the adapter unavailable.
- Steps to reproduce: run an OpenCode local adapter using an
Ollama-backed model while another `opencode run` is actively generating
against the same daemon, then trigger model discovery/preflight during
that contention window.
- Paperclip version/commit: observed on the current Paperclip
master-line OpenCode local adapter before this change.
- Deployment mode: local trusted / local CLI adapter execution with a
shared local Ollama daemon.
Related search:
- Searched public GitHub issues for `opencode models preflight retry`;
no matching issue found.
- Searched public GitHub PRs for `opencode models preflight retry`; no
matching PR found. The only search hit was unrelated OpenClaw gateway
authentication work (#6121).
## What Changed
- Added bounded retry/backoff to OpenCode model discovery: three total
attempts with 2s and 4s waits between failures.
- Preserved the existing 20s per-attempt `opencode models` timeout.
- Retry covers timeout and non-zero process exits, while spawn-level
failures still surface immediately.
- Added unit coverage for transient fail -> timeout -> success behavior
and exhausted retry behavior.
- Updated existing OpenCode environment diagnostic tests with explicit
timeouts for the intentional retry/backoff path.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-opencode-local exec vitest run
src/server/models.test.ts src/server/execute.test.ts` -> 2 files passed,
13 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-opencode-local typecheck` ->
passed.
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/opencode-local-adapter-environment.test.ts` -> 1
file passed, 3 tests passed.
- Branch diff against current `upstream/master` is limited to
`packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/models.ts`,
`packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/models.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/opencode-local-adapter-environment.test.ts`.
## Risks
Low risk. This only changes OpenCode model discovery behavior and keeps
the preflight bounded. A genuinely unavailable `opencode models` call
still fails after three attempts, and command spawn failures are not
masked.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5 coding agent, tool-enabled repository editing and
shell verification in a local Paperclip workspace.
## 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: Test <test@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The issue list API is one of the surfaces API consumers use to
synchronize issue metadata.
> - The list endpoint intentionally returns a bounded `description`
preview so large descriptions do not bloat list responses.
> - Before this change, that preview looked like a complete field value
because the response did not say whether it had been shortened.
> - That made round-trip clients vulnerable to accidentally PATCHing a
preview back over the full description.
> - This pull request keeps the existing preview behavior but adds an
explicit `descriptionTruncated` flag.
> - The benefit is backwards-compatible visibility into truncated issue
descriptions, so clients can avoid data-loss workflows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#4758.
Related PR: #4792 also targets #4758, but it includes unrelated logger
changes and currently has separate review/security concerns. This PR
keeps the fix scoped to the issue-list description truncation API
behavior.
## What Changed
- Added `descriptionTruncated` to the issue list projection when
`description` exceeds the existing 1200-character preview limit.
- Exposed `descriptionTruncated?: boolean` on the shared `Issue` type.
- Added service tests for truncated descriptions, exact-limit
descriptions, null descriptions, and multibyte-safe preview truncation.
## Verification
June 18, 2026 refresh after rebasing onto current `origin/master`:
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- GitHub PR checks are green on head `12e828e6`.
Earlier pre-review verification also included `pnpm test`.
## Risks
- Low risk. This is an additive API response field; existing clients can
ignore it.
- The list endpoint still returns the same bounded `description`
preview. Clients that need full text should continue fetching the issue
detail, but can now detect when that is necessary.
- No database migration or UI behavior 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 based on GPT-5, via Codex desktop on April 29, June 15,
and June 18, 2026. Used tool-assisted repository inspection, code
editing, local test execution, GitHub CLI workflows, and PR review
follow-up. Exact context window size is not surfaced by the tool.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A: no UI change)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A:
additive API field covered by tests)
- [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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Claude local adapter supports subscription login through a
sandbox
> - The new-agent page must show login before the user creates an agent
> - Test results must not expose raw sandbox diagnostics or secret
values
> - This pull request adds the login UI to both Test lanes and closes
the diagnostic boundary
> - The branch also adds durable cleanup recovery for failed sandbox
teardown
> - Reusable sandboxes must retain both their recorded teardown
configuration and a valid lifecycle path until destruction succeeds
> - The benefit is a usable login flow with fixed public checks,
redacted server logs, and recoverable sandbox cleanup
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related public work:
[#9488](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9488) adds
first-class recognition for `CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN` in headless and
remote runs. Related public issue:
[#2681](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/2681) requests
Claude Code subscription support. This pull request adds the login
transport and new-agent UI flow that those changes do not provide.
**Subsystem affected:** Claude local adapter, server login probes,
sandbox provider setup, cleanup recovery, and the new-agent UI.
**Problem or motivation:** The Test lanes did not show the sandbox login
panel in all supported cases. Test results also exposed raw probe
diagnostics, and JSON escapes could end secret redaction early.
**Proposed solution:** Surface the login capability through the bundled
provider manifest. Prepare the same probe runtime in the ACP lane. Send
diagnostics only to redacted server logs. Keep Test checks on fixed
public messages. Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude
and Anthropic hosts. Consume JSON escapes during redaction. Preserve
failed sandbox cleanup state across retries and restarts, and prevent
deletion from severing the lifecycle context of a live reusable sandbox.
**Alternatives considered:** Keep raw diagnostics in Test checks or
trust login URL text from the sandbox. Both choices increase information
exposure. Keep separate probe behavior in the ACP lane. That choice
would leave the two Test lanes inconsistent.
## What Changed
- Surface the sandbox login panel on both Test lanes.
- Reconcile the bundled Daytona plugin manifest so
`supportsSetupTokenLogin` reaches the UI capability gate.
- Prepare the ACP Test lane with the same probe runtime as the CLI Test
lane.
- Add the `claude_acp_login_probe_unavailable` warning when the ACP
probe cannot run.
- Send raw sandbox diagnostics only to redacted server logs.
- Keep Test checks on fixed public messages in the ACP, managed-config,
and CLI paths.
- Normalize login URL hints to allowlisted HTTPS Claude and Anthropic
hosts.
- Redact JSON and escaped-JSON secret values, including escaped quotes
and backslashes.
- Preserve orphan cleanup records across provider failures, restarts,
and unavailable plugins.
- Atomically block environment deletion while a live reusable sandbox
lease still depends on it.
- Verify pending cleanup destroys plugin sandboxes with the provider
configuration recorded on the lease, even after the current environment
configuration changes.
## Verification
- Head under review: `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241`.
- Focused environment route/service/runtime coverage passes: 196 tests
across 3 files.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- The full Vitest run completed with 4,754 passing and 28 failing tests.
All 23 source-test failures reproduce unchanged on parent head
`58cfe61a33191ce03d965d65085d26064b4888ba`; the other 5 are duplicate
executions from stale `server/dist` output. The failures are unrelated
macOS path/listener and scheduler-fixture failures, so there is no new
bad commit for bisect to localize.
- All required CI checks pass for the current head, including build,
typecheck/release registry, all server and workspace shards, serialized
server suites, canary, and e2e.
- A fresh Greptile review for `506b7fa2d83c36bfa5fd722ee9d95b0c7431c241`
reports 5/5, “safe to merge,” with no blocking failure remaining.
## Risks
- A probe or redaction change could hide useful server diagnostics.
- An allowlist change could reject a valid Claude login URL.
- Cleanup recovery changes could affect provider teardown ordering.
- An environment with a live reusable sandbox can no longer be deleted
until the owning issue or execution workspace completes teardown.
- The implementation keeps public Test messages fixed and sends detail
to redacted server logs.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex — exact model ID: GPT-5; tool use and code
execution enabled; extended reasoning enabled. The implementation author
used AI-assisted development.
## 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 documented the result
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation or confirmed no separate
documentation change is needed
- [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
> - Sandboxed agents use provider capabilities to select safe execution
paths
> - Session output still depends on three operator flags that duplicate
capability data
> - Duplicate flags can drift from the verified sandbox capability
snapshot
> - This pull request makes the capability snapshot the only streaming
decision and removes the obsolete flags
> - The benefit is default streaming with a poll fallback when a
capability or stream fails
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
ACP sandbox session-output streaming and sandbox execution
configuration.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above): server/, packages/shared/,
packages/adapter-utils/, and packages/plugins/.
**Current behavior**
Session-output streaming requires operator flags in the server and
Daytona plugin configuration. Saved configurations can retain a removed
key.
**Proposed behavior**
The verified capability snapshot selects streaming. The Daytona plugin
uses persistent sessions by default, keeps bypass commands one-shot, and
falls back from the log stream to polling. Removed configuration keys
become inert.
**Reason and benefit**
One capability source prevents configuration drift. The fallback keeps
output available when capability resolution or log streaming fails.
**Breaking changes**
The three operator flags no longer control session-output streaming.
Existing saved keys load but have no effect.
## What Changed
- Remove `useSessions` and `useLogStream` from the Daytona plugin
configuration and manifest.
- Remove `streamAgentSessionOutput` from server configuration, shared
types, and execution-target plumbing.
- Select streaming from `persistentProcessSessions` and
`independentControlCommands`.
- Keep poll fallback on capability resolution failure and stream
failure.
- Strip removed keys from strict fake-sandbox and catchall plugin
configuration.
- Update the sandbox capability documentation and focused tests.
## Verification
- `tsc --noEmit` passed in `packages/shared`, `packages/adapter-utils`,
`server`, and the Daytona plugin.
- Daytona `plugin.test.ts` passed 139 tests.
- Server capability, configuration, route, and runtime suites passed 160
tests.
- `packages/adapter-utils` `execution-target-sandbox.test.ts` passed 44
tests.
- The capability matrix covers stream, poll, and resolution-failure
paths.
- Removed-key tests cover strict fake-sandbox and catchall plugin
schemas.
## Risks
- A capability snapshot that lacks either required session capability
uses polling.
- A log stream failure uses polling and can increase request count.
- Existing removed configuration keys no longer change behavior.
- The isolated-worktree Daytona Vitest run has a pre-existing missing
`packages/adapters/droid-local` reference. CI and standard checkouts use
the committed configuration.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code review assistance. The exact
runtime context window is managed by the Codex platform.
## 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 runs work through adapters and sandbox providers
> - Providers need a clear contract so the server can use only verified
capabilities
> - A declared capability must not grant a method that the live worker
did not verify
> - This pull request adds manifest declarations and fail-closed
effective capability resolution
> - The benefit is safe provider reuse across execution targets and run
lifecycles
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Problem or motivation**
Sandbox providers expose different runtime methods. The server needs one
safe capability contract that accounts for provider declarations, worker
verification, and narrowing configuration.
**Proposed solution**
Add strict manifest validation for five sandbox capabilities. Resolve
effective capabilities as the subset of verified, declared, and narrowed
values. Store the result as a frozen execution-target snapshot.
**Alternatives considered**
Trusting the manifest alone could grant methods that the worker does not
support. Trusting only a fixed built-in list would reject valid
third-party providers. The intersection rule keeps the verified runtime
ceiling and supports both provider types.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change supports the ACP run lifecycle track and the sandbox
provider contract work in the current roadmap.
**Additional context**
The legacy `supportsReusableLeases` field remains supported. The nested
capability validator rejects unknown keys. Missing or unavailable
verification resolves all capabilities to `false`.
## What Changed
- Add strict `sandboxCapabilities` manifest validation with legacy
reusable-lease compatibility.
- Carry declarations through the ready-driver projection.
- Add fail-closed effective resolution from verified, declared, and
narrowed capabilities.
- Add narrowing for provider configuration, Kubernetes Job leases, and
Daytona sessions.
- Add a frozen read-only capability snapshot to execution targets.
- Add focused tests and keep existing characterization baselines
covered.
- Add and update sandbox provider capability documentation.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts`
- `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-environment-driver-sandbox-capabilities.test.ts`
- `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/sandbox-capability-contract.test.ts`
- `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts`
- `npx vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-characterization.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/turn-characterization.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/settlement-characterization.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/composed-run-characterization.test.ts`
- Package typechecks for shared, server, and adapter-utils pass.
- Stage-2 security review suites pass with 28 tests.
## Risks
The resolver fails closed when verification is absent or unavailable.
Providers that rely on undeclared capabilities may see narrower behavior
until they expose verified worker methods. The change does not alter the
existing native-sync guard.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID `gpt-5`, tool use and code
execution. The implementation author used this model to assist with the
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 (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>
<!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). -->
> **Stacked pull request.** This targets #11525, which targets #11524.
Merge those first. Review only the last commit, `fix(runtime-exposure):
mediate leased app/HMR port pairs centrally`.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip starts managed runtime services for execution workspaces,
and #11524 and #11525 make those services reachable over Tailscale HTTPS
on a loopback port pair
> - An HTTPS lane is only safe if one execution workspace holds its port
pair exclusively for the whole life of the lane
> - A managed start reused a pair that a stopped but still leased
workspace owned. Paperclip reported that workspace stopped and its
exposure removed, while the host listeners and the Serve mappings for
those ports were live and belonged to an unrelated workspace
> - The cause is that ownership was decided in more than one place, and
no single place saw persisted reservations, live listeners, and Serve
mappings together
> - This pull request adds one mediator that owns the decision, and
makes every mismatch fail closed while naming the conflicting workspace
> - The benefit is that a later start cannot collide with, adopt, or
interfere with another issue's service, and cannot produce security
evidence attributed to the wrong workspace
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the bug report
template.
**What happened**
A managed HTTPS start reused the loopback port pair of a stopped but
still exclusively leased execution workspace. The ports were then held
by an unrelated workspace. Paperclip continued to report the first
workspace's runtime as stopped and its exposure as removed, while the
host listeners and the `tailscale serve` mappings for those exact ports
were live and owned by the other workspace.
**Expected behavior**
An active execution-workspace lease reserves its app and HMR pair until
the lease is explicitly released or torn down. A start that finds the
pair held by a different workspace fails closed and names the conflict.
Paperclip never adopts a process or a Serve mapping across
execution-workspace ids.
**Root cause**
Three separate readers each had an incomplete view:
- `deprovisionExposure` replaces the exposure status with a fresh
`removed` status whose `listeners` array is empty. A later reader asking
"which ports did this row own?" gets no answer, so a stopped row's pair
looked free even while the row was leased.
- Startup reconciliation adopted a persisted service by `row.port`
alone, then terminated the local service when its health check failed.
Under the `project_primary` strategy, where workspaces share a working
directory, the containment check cannot separate two workspaces, so the
sweep could adopt and then kill an unrelated workspace's live service.
- Allocation checked live port availability but never checked which
pairs active leases still reserve.
**Impact**
Two workspaces can collide on one lane. A start can adopt or interfere
with another issue's service, and evidence about an exposure can be
attributed to the wrong workspace.
## What Changed
- Add `server/src/services/runtime-exposure/port-reservation.ts`, one
mediator that decides allocation and ownership from persisted
reservations plus live listener and Serve ownership together.
- Reserve a pair for as long as its execution workspace holds an active
lease, until the lease is explicitly released or torn down.
- Re-derive a row's pair from the `port` column and `deriveViteHmrPort`
instead of the status `listeners` array, so a `removed` status no longer
hides which ports a leased row still reserves.
- Refuse to adopt a process or a Serve mapping across
execution-workspace ids. A mismatch fails closed and names the
conflicting workspace and issue.
- Treat an unattributable holder as a conflict. A Serve mapping that is
present but cannot be attributed means the host has something there that
could not be named, so it fails closed instead of falling through to
"allowed".
- Make reconciliation surface a stopped or removed row whose reserved
ports are live or mapped by another workspace, instead of reporting
success.
- Leave manual and unknown Serve mappings alone on release and teardown.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run --root server src/services/runtime-exposure/
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-exposure-reservation.test.ts
src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure-backfill.test.ts` — 8 files,
**112 tests pass**.
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — **0 errors** with
`@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` built.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — migration numbering and
safety checks pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker test` — 87 tests
pass.
The five required regressions are covered by
`workspace-runtime-exposure-reservation.test.ts` and
`port-reservation.test.ts`:
1. Reuse of a stopped-but-leased pair is denied.
2. Cross-execution-workspace process adoption is denied.
3. A Serve mapping ownership mismatch is visible and fails closed.
4. Concurrent allocators return unique pairs.
5. Release and teardown make the pair reusable without harming manual or
unknown mappings.
Note for reviewers:
`server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts` fails on a
development host that already runs an HTTPS canary holding ports 42000,
42001, 52000, and 52001, because that fixture stubs port availability
and then allocates into the occupied range. It is unaffected by this
change and is expected to pass in CI, where no such listener exists.
Please read the CI result rather than a local run on an exposing host.
## Risks
- The mediator is now the single decision point for allocation and
adoption, so a defect in it affects every managed start. This is
deliberate: the incident happened because the decision was spread across
three readers, and concentrating it is the fix.
- Behavior becomes stricter. A start that previously reused a pair now
fails closed with a named conflict. This is the intended change, and it
can surface pre-existing collisions that used to pass silently.
- The remediation path does not stop an unrelated service that already
holds a pair. It reports the conflict instead, so it cannot disturb
another issue's running lane.
- No migration runs in this pull request.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking,
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
- [ ] 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
<!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). -->
> **Stacked pull request.** This targets #11524. Merge #11524 first.
Review only the second commit, `feat(runtime): managed Tailscale HTTPS
lifecycle...`.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip starts and supervises managed runtime services, so an
agent's branch can be previewed while the agent works
> - The previous pull request added the host broker, the shared
contract, and the database columns, but no code used them
> - A managed runtime can only be exposed over HTTPS if it holds a
stable loopback port pair for the whole life of the service. The current
control path cannot promise this: two controls can race the same
execution workspace, a stranded control can stay `running` forever, and
a start can adopt a port it does not own
> - This pull request adds the HTTPS lifecycle and the control-path
hardening that the lifecycle depends on
> - The benefit is that a managed preview becomes reachable from another
device, and a managed control now always reaches a terminal state
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the feature request
template.
**Subsystem affected**
Managed workspace runtime services, workspace operations, the execution
workspace routes, and the workspace runtime UI.
**Problem or motivation**
A managed runtime service is reachable only on loopback, so a preview
cannot be opened from a phone or a second computer. Exposing it safely
needs an exclusively held port pair. Three existing gaps block that.
Overlapping controls can race the same workspace. A control whose owner
dies stays `running` and blocks the lane forever. Port allocation does
not confirm that the process holding a port is the process Paperclip
spawned.
**Proposed solution**
Add the exposure lifecycle on top of the broker from #11524: reserve
before spawn, expose after readiness, validate the public URL, and
remove on stop. In the same change, make managed controls mutually
exclusive per workspace, give each control a durable issue-owned lease
and a terminal state, and verify port ownership before use.
**Alternatives considered**
- Add HTTPS exposure without the control hardening. This was rejected
because a raced or stranded control makes exposure point at the wrong
process.
- Guard the lane with an in-memory lock only. This was rejected because
the lock does not survive a server restart, so the lane can be lost or
double-claimed.
- Trust the requested bind address. This was rejected because a checkout
that predates managed HTTPS overwrites `PAPERCLIP_BIND` from its own
`--bind` argument, and then binds the wildcard address.
**Roadmap alignment**
This completes the managed workspace runtime capability that already
exists. It adds no new product surface beyond the HTTPS link.
**Additional context**
This is the second of three pull requests. The third adds central
mediation of leased port pairs.
## What Changed
Exposure lifecycle:
- Add the server-side broker client and the exposure lifecycle manager.
The manager reserves the mapping before spawn, exposes after backend
readiness, validates the public URL, and removes the mapping on stop.
- Default managed worktree runtimes to `tailscale_https`, read exposure
intent from legacy `expose` blocks, and backfill runtimes that are still
HTTP-only.
- Verify listener ownership for the app port and its Vite HMR companion
before the broker is asked to expose anything. An unrelated listener on
either port fails the start closed.
- Force the loopback bind through argv instead of environment hints.
Leave a non-Paperclip service's `--bind` argument alone.
- Probe loopback for readiness instead of the public URL, and give Vite
HMR its own loopback-bound server in middleware mode.
- Preserve operator-declared Serve mappings across the managed
lifecycle, so cleanup never removes a mapping that Paperclip did not
create.
- Name which listener predicate denied an expose, so an operator can act
on the message.
Control-path hardening:
- Make `start`, `stop`, `restart`, and job `run` mutually exclusive per
execution workspace. An overlap gets `409
workspace_runtime_control_in_progress`, and authorization is still
checked first.
- Take a durable exclusivity lease on the execution workspace, owned by
the controlling issue. A different issue gets `409
workspace_runtime_lease_conflict` before any operation is recorded.
Board and operator actions bypass the lease.
- Give every control a terminal state. Each control stamps its owning
process and pid, heartbeats while it runs, and has a wall-clock ceiling.
Recovery of a stranded control uses a compare-and-swap on `updated_at`,
so a live owner is never stolen.
- Bound readiness probes, verify allocated port ownership on POSIX and
Windows, harden sibling port allocation, and reconcile desired runtimes
on server startup.
- Surface exposure state and bounded runtime errors in the workspace
runtime UI.
- Record the new behavior in `doc/DEVELOPING.md`.
## Verification
Focused checks, all run on this branch:
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — 139 errors, exactly the
count on `master`. All 139 come from the unbuilt
`@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` package.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean.
- Server suites, 177 tests pass across 9 files:
`workspace-runtime.test.ts`, `workspace-runtime-leases.test.ts`,
`workspace-runtime-control-recovery.test.ts`,
`execution-workspace-runtime-control-conflict.test.ts`,
`execution-workspace-runtime-lease-route.test.ts`,
`workspace-operations-reconciliation.test.ts`,
`workspace-runtime-start-terminality.test.ts`, `app-hmr-port.test.ts`,
and `workspace-runtime-ready-comment.test.ts`.
- Exposure unit suites, 77 tests pass: `src/services/runtime-exposure/`
and `workspace-runtime-exposure-backfill.test.ts`.
- UI: `WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx` and
`WorkspaceServiceControlBar.test.tsx` — 34 tests pass.
**One suite is red on the development host and is expected to be green
in CI.** `server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts` has 10
failures on the machine used to write this branch. The cause is host
contamination, not the code. That machine already runs an HTTPS canary
that holds ports 42000, 42001, 52000, and 52001 on a tailnet address.
The suite allocates from the same range, so the new listener-ownership
check correctly reports:
```
listener_ownership_mismatch — port 42000 is bound to 100.123.243.20, 127.0.0.1,
fd7a:115c:a1e0:0:0:0:dd3a:f314 ... instead of loopback only
```
A CI runner has no listener on those ports, so the check sees loopback
only and the suite passes. Please confirm this from the CI result on
this pull request rather than from a local run on a host that already
exposes a managed runtime. This is a real weakness of the current test
fixture, and the third pull request in the series removes it by
allocating the pair through a central mediator instead of a stubbed
availability check.
`workspace-runtime-https-live-exercise.test.ts` needs a live `tailscale`
host and was not run locally.
## Risks
- This is the behavior-bearing pull request of the three, so it carries
the most risk.
- Two new `409` responses appear on managed control routes. A caller
that assumed a control always starts must handle a conflict. Board and
operator actions are deliberately exempt, so an agent lease cannot lock
an operator out.
- Managed worktree runtimes now default to `tailscale_https`. If the
host has no working broker, the start fails closed and reports the
exposure failure instead of silently serving plain HTTP. This is
intended, and it is the reason the failure message names the denying
predicate.
- Startup reconciliation touches persisted runtime rows. It is scoped to
desired state and does not resurrect a service that never came up.
- The lease has a 30-minute time to live and explicit release paths, so
a crashed owner cannot hold a lane forever.
- No migration runs in this pull request. The tables and columns land in
#11524.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking,
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, with the one
host-contaminated suite explained 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
<!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip starts and supervises managed runtime services for a
project's execution workspaces, so an agent's branch can be previewed
while it works
> - Those services only listen on plain loopback HTTP. A person on
another device, or on a phone, cannot open the preview
> - A Tailscale HTTPS mapping solves this, but `tailscale serve` needs
host privileges that the Paperclip server process must not hold
> - This pull request adds the foundation only: a separate
least-privilege host broker, the shared exposure contract, and the
database columns that hold exposure state
> - Nothing calls the broker yet, so there is no behavior change. The
benefit is that the privileged surface is small, reviewable, and
isolated before any lifecycle code depends on it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the feature request
template.
**Subsystem affected**
Managed workspace runtime services, the shared type and validator
package, and the database schema.
**Problem or motivation**
A managed runtime service binds to loopback only. There is no supported
way to reach that preview from another device. Adding HTTPS directly to
the server would mean the server process runs `tailscale serve`, which
needs privileges far wider than the task requires. A compromised or
buggy server could then map any port to the tailnet.
**Proposed solution**
Split the privileged work into a separate broker process with a narrow
protocol, and define one shared contract that the server, the UI, the
runtime, and the broker all read. Land this foundation first, with no
caller, so the privileged code can be reviewed on its own.
**Alternatives considered**
- Call `tailscale serve` from the server process. This was rejected
because it gives the server unrestricted mapping authority.
- Use `sudo` for single `tailscale` commands. This was rejected because
the argument list is the only guard, and it is easy to widen by
accident.
- Use a generic reverse proxy. This was rejected because it does not
remove the need for a privileged Tailscale mapping step.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing managed workspace runtime capability. It adds
no new product surface on its own.
**Additional context**
The broker is the security boundary of the feature, so it is
deliberately the first slice. Three later pull requests build on it: the
server exposure lifecycle, the runtime lease and recovery integration,
and the leased-port mediator.
## What Changed
- Add the `@paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker` workspace package. The
broker listens on a unix socket, authorizes each peer with
`SO_PEERCRED`, and answers a small request protocol.
- Restrict what the broker will map. It accepts only same-number
HTTPS-to-loopback pairs inside the Paperclip port range, refuses
protected ports, and confirms that the loopback port belongs to a
Paperclip-owned listener.
- Parse every request with a strict JSON reader that rejects duplicate
keys, prototype keys, and unknown fields.
- Write an append-only audit record for each broker decision.
- Add the shared exposure contract in `@paperclipai/shared`: the
`RuntimeExposureConfig`, `RuntimeExposureState`, and
`RuntimeExposureStatus` types, their zod validators, the app and HMR
port rules, and the loopback-bind helpers.
- Persist exposure state on `workspace_runtime_services` with the new
`exposure` column, plus the server-private `exposure_handle` and
`backend_url` columns that are never serialized to API clients.
- Add the `execution_workspace_runtime_leases` table that the later
lease slice uses.
- Extend the runtime read-model test fixture for the three new columns.
## Verification
Focused checks, all run on this branch:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker test` — 12 files,
82 tests pass. This covers peer credentials, port policy, protected
ports, the serve config writer, the strict JSON reader, argv parsing,
and the socket server.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker typecheck` — clean.
- `npx vitest run --root packages/shared src/runtime-exposure
src/validators/runtime-exposure.test.ts` — 3 files, 40 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — runs `check:migrations`
first. Migration numbering and migration safety both pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean.
- `npx vitest run --root server
src/services/workspace-runtime-read-model.test.ts` — 3 tests pass.
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — 139 errors, which is
exactly the count on `master` before this branch. All 139 come from the
unbuilt `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` package.
To confirm the exposure state is inert, start a managed runtime service
as usual. The new columns stay null and the service behaves as it does
today.
## Risks
- Migration risk is low. Both migrations only add a table and three
nullable columns. No column is backfilled and no existing column
changes. The migration safety check passes.
- Behavior risk is low. No code path calls the broker in this pull
request, and the shared exposure fields are optional.
- The broker is privileged, so it is the real risk surface. It is
mitigated by peer-credential authorization, a fixed port range, a
protected-port deny list, same-number pair enforcement,
listener-ownership checks, strict JSON parsing, and an audit trail.
Reviewers should read
`packages/tailscale-https-broker/src/authorization.ts` and
`src/port-policy.ts` closely.
- The broker requires a `tailscale` version floor, which its README
records. An older host CLI makes the broker refuse to start rather than
map incorrectly.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes because a new workspace package is added. The
diff is the new importer block, plus one duplicate `tinyexec` entry that
pnpm removed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking,
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
- [ ] 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.
> - 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>
<!-- 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 helps operators supervise agent work through tasks and
task threads.
> - The redesigned task thread shows the current work and its state.
> - A blocked task did not show the dependency that prevented progress.
> - Operators had to leave the thread to find the direct and final
blockers.
> - This pull request adds compact blocker links at the top and bottom
of the task thread.
> - The benefit is that operators can identify and open the relevant
tasks without adding a large notice to the thread.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The redesigned task thread did not show which task directly blocked the
current task or which task ultimately blocked its dependency chain.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/`, `packages/shared/`, and `ui/` task-blocker presentation.
**Current behavior**
A blocked task can open in the redesigned thread without a visible
dependency link at the top or bottom of the conversation.
**Proposed behavior**
Show one compact amber row for the direct blocker. Show a second row for
the selected final blocker when one exists. Render the rows at both ends
of the thread.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can see the reason for the blocked state and open the relevant
task from the conversation. The compact rows preserve thread density.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new blocker-attention fields are optional. Existing clients
remain compatible.
## What Changed
- Added a compact task-chat component for direct and selected final
blocker links.
- Added the blocker rows to the top and bottom of populated and empty
task threads.
- Added link-ready blocker-attention details so an intermediate selected
task stays on its correct direct chain.
- Included blocker-link changes in the thread content key so pinned
threads follow a newly added bottom row.
- Added component, scrolling, server contract, and Storybook coverage
for the new states.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` (38 tests passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
## Risks
- Low risk. The rows only render while the task status is `blocked` and
an unresolved blocker is available.
- Long titles are truncated to keep each blocker on one line. The full
task label remains available in the link title.
- Older server payloads keep the original leaf-selection behavior
because the new sampled details are optional.
> 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 run used tool-enabled reasoning and code
execution. The context-window size was not exposed to the 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] 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 adapter runtime starts, turns, settles, and composes ACPX runs
> - Recent lifecycle corrections changed several order and cleanup rules
> - Those rules need regression coverage before the planned engine
refactor
> - This pull request adds characterization suites for the corrected
behavior
> - The benefit is a clear test baseline for the next refactor
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The ACPX adapter runtime and server heartbeat lifecycle need stable
regression coverage for their current corrected behavior.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above): `packages/adapter-utils` and
`server` test suites.
**Current behavior**
The runtime has corrected rules for startup, turns, settlement, composed
results, and heartbeat terminalization. The repository lacks a single
characterization baseline for these rules.
**Proposed behavior**
Keep the current lifecycle rules pinned by five test suites. Let the
later engine refactor change behavior only when it updates these tests
with a clear reason.
**Reason and benefit**
The suites expose order, cleanup, transport, timeout, retry, result, and
lease-release changes during the refactor. They also record one known
latent defect as current behavior.
**Breaking changes**
None. This pull request adds tests only.
## What Changed
- Add startup characterization coverage for commands, launch values,
session fingerprints, sync order, bridge overlap, and cleanup paths.
- Add turn characterization coverage for inputs, events, transports,
timeout and cancel behavior, retry rules, errors, and usage.
- Add settlement characterization coverage for teardown, adapter
sync-back, workspace restore order, native sync, and error policy.
- Add composed-run characterization coverage for result forms,
finalization sets, and host-lane warm save and warm hit behavior.
- Add server coverage that checks run terminalization before environment
lease release.
## Verification
- Run `npx vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-characterization.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/turn-characterization.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/settlement-characterization.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/composed-run-characterization.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts`.
- Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-terminalize-before-release.test.ts`.
- The adapter-utils run passes 178 tests, and the server run passes 4
tests.
- Check `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`.
- Check `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`.
## Risks
Low risk. The change adds test files and does not change production
code. One known cold ensure-session cleanup defect remains pinned as
current behavior.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, 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.
> - Agent adapters run ACP sessions and manage runtime, workspace, and
lease resources.
> - Several failure paths left runtime bridges, staged workspaces, or
environment leases active after an error.
> - These leaks reduce run reliability and can leave later runs without
clean resources.
> - This pull request closes the failure paths, applies one teardown
policy, and adds regression tests.
> - The benefit is consistent failure settlement and safer reuse of
agent workspaces and leases.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
ACP runs could leave runtime bridges, staged workspaces, or environment
leases active after failures. Claude and Gemini ACP runs did not restore
the sandbox workspace on teardown. Lease release stopped when one lease
returned an error.
**Expected behavior**
Each ACP failure must return an error result and settle its resources.
Teardown must run each step, release leases independently, and restore
the host workspace when the sandbox ends. Pending cleanup leases must
receive bounded retry attempts.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run an ACP session that fails after runtime creation or during turn
preparation.
2. Run an ACP session that fails during a warm hit or staged runtime
handoff.
3. Run lease cleanup with more than one lease when the first release
returns an error.
4. Inspect the result phase, teardown calls, workspace state, and lease
metadata.
5. Run the regression suites listed in the Verification section.
## What Changed
- Settle every ACP failure after runtime creation with an error result
and one sandbox.startup span closure.
- Close the ACP runtime and remove warm entries after every pre-turn
failure.
- Run all teardown steps, record teardown errors, release staging leases
in finally, and prevent duplicate teardown.
- Dispose staged runtimes after seam failures and remove borrowed staged
entries with identity guards.
- Add fail-open workspace sync-back teardown for Claude and Gemini ACP
adapters.
- Isolate lease release errors and add bounded retry sweeps for stranded
pending_cleanup leases.
- Atomically claim pending_cleanup retries and clamp attempt readers to
keep the five-attempt bound.
- Default absent provider reusableLeases values to false and align the
fake provider with its runtime declaration.
- Add regression tests for engine, adapter, server, and shared
environment behavior.
## Verification
- [x] `npx vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts` — 124 tests
passed.
- [x] `npx vitest run
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts
packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/acp.test.ts` — 61 tests
passed.
- [x] `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-pending-cleanup-sweep.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/reusable-leases-default.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts
packages/shared/src/environment-support.test.ts` — passed.
- [x] All listed suites ran from the repository root.
- [x] GitHub CI completed successfully for
`cfc349c9f232711433897915112a1c52c0e462ca`.
- [x] Greptile completed with a 5/5 confidence score and no blocking
finding.
## Risks
The engine changes affect failure settlement and teardown order across
ACP runs. The server changes add retry state to existing lease metadata
without a schema migration. The adapter changes restore workspaces after
sandbox execution. Regression tests cover the changed paths. GitHub CI
and Greptile passed for the current head.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. This change fixes runtime
reliability and does not duplicate a roadmap feature.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The model used tool-based repository inspection,
GitHub operations, and code review support. The runtime does not expose
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 (for example, `docs/...` or
`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
> - Sandbox provider plugins run agent work in remote execution
environments
> - The Daytona sandbox liveness read can stay pending when the
connection stops responding
> - A pending read blocks the plugin until a broad host-to-worker limit
expires
> - This pull request adds bounded deadlines to Daytona liveness calls
and clears stale handles
> - The benefit is a fast and clear error when a Daytona connection
stops responding
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11341
**What happened?**
The Daytona sandbox liveness read had no per-call timeout. A silent
connection failure left the read pending until the broad host-to-worker
RPC limit expired.
**Expected behavior**
The plugin should stop a liveness call within a defined limit and report
a clear timeout error.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a Daytona sandbox handle.
2. Make the cached handle freshness read never resolve.
3. Run the next sandbox operation.
4. Observe that the operation waits for the outer RPC limit without a
liveness timeout.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Any deployment mode that uses the Daytona sandbox provider.
## What Changed
- Add `withLivenessTimeout` with timer cleanup and
`SandboxLivenessTimeoutError`.
- Bound `refreshData` with configurable `livenessTimeoutMs`, which
defaults to 30000 milliseconds.
- Bound sandbox start and recovery calls with the SDK timeout plus a
5000 millisecond margin.
- Reject `livenessTimeoutMs` values above 86400000 milliseconds and
document the setting.
- Evict a cached handle after a failed freshness refresh so the next
operation fetches a new handle.
- Add a test for a never-resolving freshness refresh and the
cached-handle eviction.
## Verification
- Run the Daytona plugin test suite with its package Vitest
configuration.
- Confirm that 150 of 150 tests pass.
- Confirm that the new test reports a bounded timeout and a fresh handle
on the next operation.
- Confirm that GitHub Actions reports green status checks after the pull
request starts.
## Risks
This change adds an early timeout only to Daytona liveness calls. A
value of 0 or less disables the extra bound. The default leaves normal
SDK calls within their expected time limit. The main risk is a timeout
value that is too short for a slow but healthy connection.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The model used tool calls and code execution. The
model supplied the PR handoff and did not author the code in this 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)
- [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 provides CLI commands and guidance for operators and
agents
> - The `pnpm paperclipai` script can pass argument values through a
shell
> - Shell re-parsing can execute command substitutions inside quoted
values
> - This pull request routes guidance through inert-argv `npx
paperclipai` commands and adds regression coverage
> - The benefit is safer operator guidance across documentation and
runtime hints
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request fixes a command-injection-class defect in Paperclip
CLI guidance.
**What happened?**
The `pnpm paperclipai <sub> --flag "$VALUE"` form can re-parse argument
values through a shell. A command substitution inside a quoted value can
execute on the host.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip guidance must pass CLI values as inert argument values.
Host-derived values must not appear in copyable commands.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a Paperclip guidance command that uses the `pnpm paperclipai`
script.
2. Provide a quoted value that contains a command substitution.
3. Observe that the shell can evaluate the substitution before the CLI
starts.
4. Compare the result with the `npx paperclipai` form.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`5670984b75d109950c968542a0111ebb6967f4da`
**Deployment mode**
All deployment modes that show or use the affected CLI guidance.
**Installation method**
Built from source and installed CLI guidance.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core bug).
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Access context**
Both.
**Additional context**
The earlier merged PR
[#11343](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11343) used the
unsafe `pnpm exec paperclipai` form. This fresh PR replaces that
guidance with the safe `npx paperclipai` form.
## What Changed
- Standardize documentation and runtime hints on `npx paperclipai`.
- Remove the broken `pnpm exec paperclipai` guidance.
- Use a static `<host>` placeholder in private-hostname guidance.
- Add regression tests for unsafe forms, continued lines, static hosts,
and offline guidance.
## Verification
- `git diff --check
origin/master...origin/fix/paperclipai-cli-npx-safe-invocation` passes.
- The branch adds `server/src/__tests__/cli-invocation-safety.test.ts`
and updates private-hostname tests.
- CI must run the new tests, typecheck, lint, and build checks.
- Local Vitest execution was not available because this worktree has no
installed Vitest binary.
## Risks
- The change affects operator and agent documentation text.
- The runtime hints now show `<host>` instead of a request-derived host
value.
- No database schema or migration changes exist.
- CI will detect any missed unsafe invocation or type error.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5, exact model ID `gpt-5`, with tool use and code-review
assistance. The model used repository inspection, Git operations, and PR
preparation.
## 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] CI ran the test suites and they pass; local test execution was
unavailable in this worktree
- [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 addressed 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 recovery subsystem repairs issues stranded without a valid
disposition: `decideSuccessfulRunHandoff` queues one corrective wake per
successful-but-dispositionless run, and `source_scoped_recovery_action`
wakes a recovery owner for stranded issues
> - `decideSuccessfulRunHandoff` already refuses to treat corrective
handoff runs, issue-monitor runs, and comment-driven wakes as handoff
*sources* — but not runs woken by `source_scoped_recovery_action`
> - Because the handoff idempotency key includes `sourceRunId`, every
succeeding recovery run is a brand-new source: recovery run → handoff
wake → corrective run → new recovery action → recovery run → … with
`DEFAULT_MAX_SUCCESSFUL_RUN_HANDOFF_ATTEMPTS` never binding (it is
per-source-run) and the source-scoped recovery action created with
`maxAttempts: null`
> - The cycle is unbounded, each leg is a ~15s no-op "succeeded" run,
and the designed handoff-exhausted escalation (blocked + exhausted
notice) never engages
> - This PR adds recovery-action-driven runs to the existing skip list,
so recovery runs own their own follow-up path and the stranded-issue
escalation remains the exit when the disposition is still missing
> - The benefit is that missing-disposition recovery converges (one
handoff, then escalation) instead of ping-ponging wake volume
unboundedly
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #6523 — same wake-loop family (repeated
`source_scoped_recovery_action` wakes); this PR fixes the variant where
the loop partner is the successful-run handoff.
**Observed behavior:** in a 16-agent deployment, one agent produced 223
runs in 2 hours, every run `succeeded` with ~15s duration, with
`contextSnapshot.wakeReason` alternating exactly between
`source_scoped_recovery_action` (109) and
`finish_successful_run_handoff` (108). The source issue never reached
the exhausted escalation.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.ts`: new
`isRecoveryActionDrivenRun` predicate (matches
`contextSnapshot.wakeReason === "source_scoped_recovery_action"` or a
present `contextSnapshot.recoveryActionId`), consulted in
`decideSuccessfulRunHandoff` alongside the existing corrective-handoff /
issue-monitor / comment-driven skip guards.
- `server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts`: cases
asserting recovery-driven runs are skipped via both markers.
## Verification
- `pnpm -F @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts` → 17 passed (16
existing unchanged + 1 new).
- Production validation (same logic deployed as a dist patch on
2026.626.0): the alternating recovery/handoff wake pattern stopped after
restart; ordinary successful-run handoffs (first corrective wake per
genuine source run) continue to queue.
## Risks
Low-to-moderate, scoped to one decision function. The behavioral shift:
a recovery-action run that succeeds without fixing the disposition no
longer gets a corrective handoff wake — instead the stranded-issue
detector escalates (blocked + recovery owner + exhausted notice), which
per the existing `escalateStrandedAssignedIssue` code is the designed
terminal path. Runs not woken by a recovery action are unaffected
(covered by the existing 16 tests, all green).
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code. Human-reviewed before submission.
## 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
Lock the issue before accepting or rejecting review confirmations, reauthorize against the current policy, and cover concurrent policy tightening.
Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
Recheck terminal verdict and policy mutations under a row lock, and scope interaction verdict enforcement to the review confirmation itself.
Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
Authorize verdicts and policy changes against the stored restrictive review policy, remove downgrade guidance, and cover both restrictive policies with route regressions.
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 their work into review, and a reviewer must then give a
verdict on it
> - By default anyone with write access can give that verdict, including
the agent that did the work
> - The server can constrain that default per issue with a
`reviewPolicy` column, but no screen showed the value
> - A reviewer could therefore press Approve on a review that the server
refuses, and get a 403
> - This pull request shows the policy as a badge on the two surfaces
where a person gives a verdict
> - It also makes an agent verdict read as a verdict in the activity
timeline
> - The benefit is that a reviewer sees who can approve before they try
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The description below
follows
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The issue review flow. A reviewer cannot see the approval constraint on
an issue
before they give a verdict.
**Subsystem affected**
Web UI (`ui/`), with one supporting change in the server attention
service.
**Current behavior**
The server stores an optional approval constraint for each issue in a
`reviewPolicy` column. The column has three meaningful states: the
default
(`NULL` or `anyone`), `not_creator`, and `human_only`. The server
enforces the
constraint when it receives a verdict.
No screen shows the value. Two problems follow:
1. A reviewer presses Approve on a review that the server refuses. The
server
answers 403, and the reason is not visible on the card.
2. An agent that accepts or rejects a review renders in the activity
timeline as
the raw action id, for example "issue thread interaction accepted". A
person
who reads the timeline cannot tell that a verdict was given.
**Proposed behavior**
Show the constraint as a read-only badge on the two surfaces where a
person
gives a verdict. Show no pixels for the default state, because the
default is
what every issue already does. Make an agent verdict read as a verdict
in the
timeline.
Only agents set the column today, so this change adds no control to set
it.
**Reason and benefit**
A reviewer sees the constraint before they act. This prevents the 403,
and it
removes the need to explain the 403 afterwards. The timeline also
becomes
complete, because it now shows agent verdicts and human verdicts in the
same way.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change adds a badge and changes copy. It adds no column, no
endpoint,
and no request.
**Additional context**
The server-side column and the verdict enforcement landed earlier in
#10931.
This pull request is the user interface for that column. The default
state stays
unchanged on screen, so the badge appears on a small number of issues.
## What Changed
- **A read-only "Approvals" row** in the issue Execution properties. The
row
renders *only* for a constrained policy: "Anyone else" (`not_creator`)
or
"Human only" (`human_only`). A `NULL` or `anyone` column adds no row, so
the
panel is untouched on the overwhelming majority of issues.
- **The same badge on the stalled-review card** in `/decisions`, above
the three
review verbs. A reviewer now sees the constraint before they press
Approve.
The condition is the same, so the default card is unchanged.
- **Agent verdicts read as verdicts in the activity timeline.** An agent
that
accepted or rejected a review request previously rendered the raw action
id
("issue thread interaction accepted"). It now reads "approved the
request". A
stalled-review decision names the verb that the actor chose.
- **A cleared policy reports as "anyone", not "none",** in the
field-change
receipt. The `reviewPolicy` column is nullable by default, so an absent
value
is a real setting rather than a missing one.
- **All copy comes from `ui/src/lib/review-policy.ts`.** Its badge
lookup returns
`null` for the default. This makes "no pixels for the default" one
enforced
decision instead of a condition repeated at each call site. It also
keeps the
badge, the activity line, and the receipt reading alike.
- **The server attention service carries the policy** on the review
attention
subject, so the stalled-review card can read it.
## Verification
Automated tests:
- `ui/src/lib/review-policy.test.ts` — the default returns no badge,
however the
column spells it (`null`, `undefined`, `"anyone"`). An unrecognised
policy from
the wire shows nothing rather than leaking an enum value.
- `ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` — no badge on the
default card,
and the verbs still render. Suppression of the badge must not suppress
the card.
- `ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — no Approvals row on the
default.
The constrained row contains no `button`, so nothing there can PATCH.
- `server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts` — the review
attention subject
carries the policy, and subjects built from narrower selects do not
claim one.
Run them with:
```sh
pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/review-policy.test.ts \
ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx \
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx \
server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
```
Manual steps:
1. Open an issue that has no `reviewPolicy`. Confirm that the Execution
properties panel shows no Approvals row.
2. Set the column to `not_creator`. Reload the issue. Confirm that the
Approvals
row reads "Anyone else", and that the row has no control.
3. Move that issue into review. Open `/decisions`. Confirm that the
stalled
review card shows the same badge above the review verbs.
4. Let an agent approve the review. Confirm that the activity timeline
reads
"approved the request" and not "issue thread interaction accepted".
Screenshots were captured at 1440x900 and 390x844, in light mode and
dark mode,
with the three policy states side by side. The leftmost column in each
capture is
the default. It carries no badge and no extra row.
## Risks
Low risk.
- The change is additive on screen. Every new surface is behind a
constrained
policy, so the default path renders exactly as before.
- The badge is read-only. It has no control and sends no request, and a
test
asserts that the row contains no `button`.
- An unknown policy value from the wire renders nothing. It does not
render the
raw enum.
- No migration, no schema change, and no endpoint change.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context
window,
with extended thinking and tool use enabled. Used through Claude Code
for the
implementation, the tests, and this description.
## 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
- [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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Execution workspaces give agent tasks isolated Git worktrees
> - Archived isolated workspaces must reopen against a live project
checkout
> - A managed_checkout project has no project workspace directory in its
row
> - The reopen path used the removed archived worktree as the Git
working directory
> - This pull request resolves the live managed checkout and reports a
clear error when it is unavailable
> - The benefit is reliable workspace reopen behavior after archive
cleanup
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related public pull request:
[#6164](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/6164) clears
archive state during un-archive. This pull request fixes the separate
reopen failure that occurs after archive cleanup.
**What happened?**
An archived isolated `git_worktree` workspace under a `managed_checkout`
project failed to reopen after cleanup. The route attempted to run Git
in the removed archived worktree and returned a generic service error.
**Expected behavior**
The reopen path should use the live managed checkout as the Git base
directory and should return a clear error when that directory is
unavailable.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a project with `managed_checkout` source control.
2. Create and archive an isolated `git_worktree` execution workspace.
3. Let archive cleanup remove the worktree.
4. Reopen the workspace for an issue.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`cab0c31dc61310106caef42ca244e9f7b0f19460`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with the default embedded database.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This issue affects core workspace handling.
## What Changed
- Resolve the live managed checkout when a managed project reopens an
archived Git worktree.
- Keep local-folder projects on their project workspace directory.
- Validate the Git base directory before `git rev-parse` and return a
scrubbed error.
- Add nine regression tests for workspace reopen behavior.
## Verification
- `server` TypeScript check passes with `tsc --noEmit`.
- `server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-reopen.test.ts` passes with
9 tests.
- GitHub Actions must pass all required PR checks.
## Risks
Low risk. The change affects only archived isolated workspace reopen
behavior. It reuses the existing managed checkout and Git authentication
helpers. It adds no new credential path, endpoint, or telemetry.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 assisted with review and GitHub operations. The
implementation author supplied the code and test results.
## 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>
Fixes#2444.
Refs #4947.
The `claude_local` adapter launched Claude Code as
`claude --print - --output-format stream-json --verbose`. Paperclip writes
the rendered task prompt to Claude's stdin, but current Claude Code releases
can treat the stale `-` positional marker as the prompt itself, so Claude
received the literal string `"-"` instead of the issue body. The customer's
task ran against no content at all.
The fix keeps `--print` mode and stdin delivery, and removes the stale `-`.
Adds regression coverage on both sides of the delivery path: a `claude_local`
assertion that `--print` is present, `"-"` is absent and the prompt still
reaches stdin, and an adapter-utils case proving the sandbox run-log command
wrapper preserves stdin while streaming logs.
Authored by @elJayAdvisor, whose commit is included unchanged with their
authorship. The branch had gone stale and was showing CONFLICTING; the
conflict was in `execution-target-sandbox.test.ts`, where their new test was
added at the same point as master's `creates the process session directories
only in the launch exec` case and git interleaved the two into one hunk.
Resolved by taking master's file and re-inserting their test whole, after
checking every helper it needs still exists there.
Verified: the bug was still live on master at `execute.ts:838`; the
regression test genuinely catches it — restoring the stale `-` fails
`expect(captured.argv).not.toContain("-")`; `@paperclipai/adapter-claude-local`
and `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` typecheck clean; 67 pass across the two test
files. All CI gates green; Greptile 5/5.
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.
> - Paperclip provides CLI guidance to agents and operators through
documentation and runtime messages.
> - Content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` examples send arguments through a
shell.
> - Shell evaluation can execute command substitutions in untrusted
argument content.
> - Runtime hostname guidance can also place request-derived content
inside a shell command.
> - This pull request uses `npx paperclipai` for content-bearing
guidance and uses a static hostname placeholder.
> - The benefit is safer copy-paste guidance for agents and operators.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Issue type**
Incorrect information
**Where is the issue?**
CLI guidance in `doc/CLI.md`, `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`,
documentation, and runtime-generated hints.
**What's wrong?**
Content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` commands can pass argument text
through `/bin/sh`. Shell command substitution in an argument can execute
before the CLI receives the value.
**Suggested fix**
Use `npx paperclipai` for content-bearing commands. Use a static
`<host>` placeholder when runtime guidance displays the allowed-hostname
command.
## What Changed
- Replace content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` examples with `npx
paperclipai` across the documentation and agent-facing guidance.
- Update runtime-generated CLI hints to use a static `<host>`
placeholder.
- Add safety notes to `doc/CLI.md` and `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md`.
- Add scans and regression tests for unsafe invocation and hostile
hostname headers.
- Keep fixed lifecycle commands and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/*` build
commands unchanged.
## Verification
- Run `tsc --noEmit` for the changed server files.
- Run `cli-invocation-safety.test.ts`.
- Run `private-hostname-guard.test.ts`.
- Confirm that hostile hostname headers do not enter shown shell
commands.
- Confirm that the three commits contain the required Paperclip
co-author trailer.
## Risks
- This change updates documentation and diagnostic text across many
surfaces.
- Fixed lifecycle and setup commands remain unchanged.
- The tests fail if content-bearing `pnpm paperclipai` guidance returns.
- The change does not alter the CLI argument parser.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use, code execution, and repository review
assistance.
## 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 tool gateway creates approval requests and the review queue
reads them
> - The gateway creates a request row before it adds the signature
> - A review-queue read can see the row during that short unsigned state
> - The old read path cancels the unsigned row, so approval returns `409
action_not_pending`
> - This pull request hides unsigned in-flight rows and keeps them
pending until signing finishes
> - The benefit is that approval succeeds while invalid signed requests
remain cancelled
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A review-queue read cancelled a pending tool action request when the
request had no signature yet. The next approval call returned `409
action_not_pending`.
**Expected behavior**
The review queue must hide an unsigned in-flight request and keep its
state as `pending`. A request with an invalid signature must remain
cancelled.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a require-approval tool action request.
2. Read the review queue while the request signature is still null.
3. Approve the request after the creator adds the signature.
4. Observe that the old code cancels the request and the approval call
fails.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `720aa0a494bbaa1711bc7a3d795f810765915bfe`.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with the embedded PGlite database.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core tool access service bug.
**Database mode**
Embedded PGlite.
**Access context**
Board and agent tool approval flow.
## What Changed
- Keep a pending request with a null signature out of
`listActionRequests` results.
- Cancel a request when its non-null signature fails verification.
- Add a permanent regression test for the unsigned request transition.
- Update the contract test for unsigned and invalid-signature requests.
## Verification
- Run the tool access service, tool gateway service, tool gateway, and
tool access policy service tests.
- Confirm 227 tests pass.
- Run the `@mcp-runnable` Playwright end-to-end suite in CI.
- Run the US-9 loop 30 times in CI.
## Risks
The change alters review-queue filtering for unsigned requests. A null
signature now means that signing remains in progress. Invalid signed
requests keep the existing cancellation behavior. The change has no
database migration.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code execution. The model
reviewed the handoff, repository rules, and pull request state. The
implementation author supplied the code and tests.
## 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 can be configured with env bindings that reference company
secrets — they specify which secret by UUID in `adapterConfig.env`
> - But there is no API endpoint agents can call to look up a secret
UUID by name — `GET /companies/:companyId/secrets` is board-only, and
the internal `secrets.resolve` handler only accepts UUIDs
> - So when an agent needs to wire a new secret (e.g. an API key for a
new skill), it has no way to discover the UUID from a known name like
`HOMEBOX_API_KEY` — the user must find it by inspecting browser network
traffic
> - The fix is a read-only catalog endpoint that agents can call to get
the `id`/`name`/`key`/`status` mapping — no values, no provider config —
just enough to resolve a name to a UUID
> - This PR adds `GET /companies/:companyId/secrets/catalog`, guarded by
`assertBoardOrAgent` + `assertCompanyAccess`, so agents can discover the
UUID they need without board-level access and without any secret value
being exposed
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public issue. Describing inline per the feature request
template:
**Subsystem affected:** `server/` — REST API & orchestration services
**Problem or motivation:**
Agents that configure env bindings must reference secrets by UUID
(`secretId`). There is no agent-accessible API to resolve a secret name
to its UUID. `GET /companies/:companyId/secrets` requires board access;
the internal `secrets.resolve` handler rejects anything that is not
already a UUID. Agents and their operators are forced to find UUIDs by
inspecting browser network requests, which is friction that should not
exist.
**Proposed solution:**
Add a read-only catalog endpoint — `GET
/companies/:companyId/secrets/catalog` — that agents can call. It
returns only non-sensitive metadata (`id`, `name`, `key`, `status`) for
each active company secret, stripped of values, provider configuration,
and version history. Board callers get the same response. The existing
full-detail list endpoint (`GET /companies/:companyId/secrets`) remains
board-only and is unchanged.
**Alternatives considered:**
- Allow agents to call the existing `/secrets` list — rejected because
it returns full rows including provider metadata; narrowing the response
is safer.
- Add a name-to-UUID lookup by query param — simpler but less useful; a
full catalog means the agent can do the resolution locally without a
second round-trip.
**Roadmap alignment:** Does not duplicate anything in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/secrets.ts` — new `GET
/companies/:companyId/secrets/catalog` route registered before the
board-only `GET /companies/:companyId/secrets` route. Uses
`assertBoardOrAgent` + `assertCompanyAccess`. Calls `svc.list()` then
projects each row to `{ id, name, key, status }` before responding.
- `server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts` — adds `list` to the
shared mock service object (it was missing); adds a `describe` block
with four test cases: board caller receives stripped metadata, agent
caller in the same company receives stripped metadata, unauthenticated
request gets 401, agent from a different company gets 403.
## Verification
**Automated:**
```bash
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test --run secrets-routes
```
All four new test cases (board access, agent access, unauthed rejection,
cross-company rejection) should pass.
**Manual:**
1. Start the Paperclip server locally.
2. Create a company and a secret via the UI.
3. Call the endpoint as a board user:
```bash
curl http://localhost:3100/api/companies/<companyId>/secrets/catalog \
-H "Authorization: Bearer <board-session-token>"
```
Expect a JSON array with `id`, `name`, `key`, `status` fields — no
`provider`, no `referenceCount`, no version data.
4. Call the same endpoint with an agent API key:
```bash
curl http://localhost:3100/api/companies/<companyId>/secrets/catalog \
-H "Authorization: Bearer <agent-api-key>"
```
Expect the same response.
5. Call with an agent API key scoped to a *different* company — expect
403.
## Risks
Low risk. This is a purely additive, read-only endpoint. No existing
behavior changes. The only new capability is that agents can discover
the UUIDs of secrets in their own company — metadata they already need
to do their job. Secret values are never returned. Authorization reuses
the existing `assertBoardOrAgent` and `assertCompanyAccess` guards
already used throughout the codebase.
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) — Anthropic, extended context,
tool use enabled. The entire change (route, tests, PR description) was
produced by the model operating as a Paperclip CEO agent assigned to the
task.
## 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: Austin Pilz <austinpilz@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: root <root@paperclip.pilz.dev>
Co-authored-by: Internet Historian <agent@paperclip.internal>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Reviewers annotate plans and issue documents with inline comments,
and assigned agents act on that feedback
> - The server already builds a bounded review context from open plan
annotations and includes it in agent wake payloads
> - Non-plan issue documents did not get the same treatment: their open
annotation threads never reached the agent, and the properties pane did
not surface their annotations
> - This pull request extends the review-context path and the
properties-pane UI to issue documents, at parity with plans
> - The benefit is that agent feedback on any issue document reaches the
assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The review-context pipeline that delivers inline annotation feedback to
assigned agents, and the properties pane that surfaces those annotations
to reviewers.
**Subsystem affected**
The server review-context path
(`server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`, wake payload assembly in
`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`, `server/src/routes/issues.ts`),
shared wake-payload types (`packages/shared`, `packages/adapter-utils`),
and the issue properties pane (`ui/src/components/issue-properties/`).
**Current behavior**
A reviewer can annotate any issue document, not only the plan. The agent
wake payload includes open annotation threads for the plan document
only. Feedback left on other issue documents is invisible to the
assigned agent. In the properties pane, the Artifacts tab also gives no
way to see or open a document's annotations.
**Proposed behavior**
Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` beside the existing plan builder. It
collects open annotation threads for all non-plan issue documents,
applies the same thread, comment, and character budgets across
documents, and reports truncation. Include the result as a new
`documentReviewContext` field in agent wake payloads and in the issue
wake-context route. Keep the plan context on its legacy builder and
field so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. Render the new
context in the adapter wake-payload text, and surface annotation counts
and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane's Plans
and Artifacts tabs.
**Reason and benefit**
The floating annotation popover and persistent highlight UI landed
earlier; this change completes the loop so agent feedback on any issue
document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan.
**Breaking changes**
None. The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext`
field; the existing plan context field and its legacy builder are
unchanged, so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible.
## What Changed
- Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` in
`server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`: bounded review context
(shared thread/comment/character budgets, per-document legacy limits)
over all non-plan issue documents
- Include `documentReviewContext` in agent wake payloads
(`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`) and in the issue wake-context
response (`server/src/routes/issues.ts`)
- Add shared `DocumentReviewContext` / `DocumentReviewContextDocument`
types in `packages/shared`
- Normalize and render the new context in adapter wake-payload text
(`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`), with tests
- Show a `DocumentAnnotationsCountChip` and the annotation panel for
documents in the properties pane Plans and Artifacts tabs, with tests
- Extend server document-annotations service tests to cover the new
context builder
## Verification
- Run `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts` from the repo
root — 104 tests pass
- Run `TZ=UTC npx vitest run
ui/src/components/issue-properties/IssuePropertiesDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from the repo root
— 75 tests pass (one pre-existing monitor-row case asserts UTC
timestamps, so use `TZ=UTC` locally; CI runs in UTC)
- `pnpm run typecheck` in `server/` passes
- Manual: annotate a non-plan issue document, then wake the assigned
agent with a comment — the wake payload lists the open document
annotation threads; the Artifacts tab shows the annotation count chip
and opens the panel
## Risks
- The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field;
consumers that ignore unknown fields are unaffected, and the plan
context field is unchanged
- The context is new input to agent wakes; shared budgets (same limits
as the plan context) bound token cost across all documents
- Low UI risk: the properties-pane changes reuse the existing annotation
components
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), with
extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code harness)
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [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 provides issue APIs and the database stores issue child
rows
> - The issue delete endpoint removes the parent issue before dependent
rows
> - Several issue foreign keys had no delete policy, so PostgreSQL
returned a foreign-key error
> - This pull request adds safe cascade and set-null policies and a
clear conflict response
> - The benefit is reliable issue deletion with a useful error when a
restricted audit row still blocks deletion
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#7728Fixes#4660Fixes#7991Fixes#4627Fixes#5086
**What happened?**
`DELETE /api/issues/:id` returned HTTP 500 when dependent comments,
thread interactions, read states, inbox archives, feedback votes, or
ledger rows referenced the issue. The database raised SQLSTATE 23503
because several foreign keys had no delete policy.
**Expected behavior**
The endpoint must remove dependent rows that have no meaning without the
issue. It must keep ledger rows with a null issue reference. It must
return HTTP 409 when a restricted decision audit row still references
the issue.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an issue.
2. Add a comment or thread interaction that references the issue.
3. Send `DELETE /api/issues/:id`.
4. Observe the HTTP 500 response.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `1f8f456f8340823fe2bd891ae8933d942f190b7b`.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with embedded PGlite or external PostgreSQL.
## What Changed
- Add `CASCADE` to five issue child foreign keys.
- Add `SET NULL` to the finance and cost event issue foreign keys.
- Keep decision audit references restricted.
- Map SQLSTATE 23503 from the issue delete service to HTTP 409.
- Add migration 0217 for the seven changed tables.
- Add regression tests for cascade deletion and restricted decision
references.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`.
- Run `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-remove-cascade.test.ts` from
`server/`.
- The regression test applies migration 0217 to a fresh embedded
PostgreSQL database.
## Risks
- Migration 0217 changes only seven foreign keys that reference
`issues.id`.
- Cascade deletion removes child rows that cannot exist without the
parent issue.
- Set-null preserves finance and cost ledger rows.
- Decision audit rows remain protected, so the endpoint can return HTTP
409.
## Model Used
Codex, based on GPT-5, with tool use and code-review support. The
implementation author used an AI coding agent. This PR handoff uses the
same model family to validate the commit and manage 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)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Board users and board API keys coordinate agents by commenting on
and updating issues.
> - `issue:comment` and `issue:mutate` are intentionally null-mapped
authorization actions, so they need explicit same-company fallback
handling.
> - Same-company board-key writes worked for unassigned or same-actor
issues but failed for issues assigned to another agent.
> - That blocked cross-agent coordination because a board key could not
comment on or patch another agent's issue even inside the same company.
> - This pull request adds the missing board-member issue-write fallback
while keeping viewers denied and sparse service calls fail-closed.
> - The benefit is that non-viewer board members can coordinate agent
work across assignees without restoring broad instance-admin elevation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Duplicate search performed:
- `gh search prs --repo paperclipai/paperclip "board key issue mutate"`
returned only this PR.
- `gh search issues --repo paperclipai/paperclip "board key
authorization boundary"` returned no issues.
Bug description:
### What happened
Same-company board-key actors received `403 "Issue is outside this
actor's authorization boundary"` when posting comments or patching
issues assigned to another agent.
### Expected behavior
Active same-company non-viewer board members can comment on and mutate
issues in their company, regardless of agent assignee; viewer members
remain denied.
### Steps to reproduce
Authenticate as a board API key for an active non-viewer company member,
then `POST /api/issues/{id}/comments` or `PATCH /api/issues/{id}`
against an issue assigned to a different agent in the same company.
### Paperclip version or commit
Observed against the current published 2026.626.0 package line and fixed
against current `master`.
### Deployment mode
Authenticated/tailnet board-key access.
## What Changed
- Added a board-actor fallback for `issue:comment` and `issue:mutate` in
`server/src/services/authorization.ts`.
- Restricted that fallback to fully contextualized issue resources with
issue id, status, and explicit assignee fields so sparse service calls
still fail closed.
- Allowed active same-company non-viewer board memberships and denied
viewer memberships for these issue-write actions.
- Added regression coverage for non-viewer board-key comment/mutate on
an issue assigned to another agent.
- Added regression coverage for viewer denial on both `issue:comment`
and `issue:mutate`.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts` passed: 35/35.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- `git diff --check` passed.
## Risks
Low-to-moderate authorization risk because this changes issue-write
access. The scope is constrained to active same-company board
memberships, excludes viewers, and requires route-shaped issue context
before granting access. Cross-company access and sparse/null-mapped
calls continue to fail closed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with local shell,
GitHub CLI, and test execution tools in an OpenClaw/Codex 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
- [ ] 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: ApolinarioRatio <ApolinarioRatio@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue update route is part of the workflow layer that records
board state changes and emits follow-up wakes for agents.
> - A single `PATCH /api/issues/:id` request can both close an issue and
add the closure comment that explains the final disposition.
> - The bug was that the comment-wakeup decision used the issue's
pre-update status, so a request that changed `in_progress` to `done`
could still enqueue an `issue_commented` wake as if the issue remained
open.
> - That stale wake could cause already-completed Sentry-family
follow-up issues to drift back into active work even though the closure
comment was the only new activity.
> - This pull request makes the wake suppression decision use the
post-update issue status and covers the closure-comment path with a
focused regression test.
> - The benefit is that terminal issue updates stay terminal unless a
separate explicit reopen or resume path is used.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this instance-specific workflow bug,
so the issue is described inline.
Bug report:
- What happened: when an issue was marked `done` with a closure comment
in the same `PATCH /api/issues/:id` request, the route could still
enqueue an `issue_commented` wake because it checked the pre-update
status.
- Expected behavior: a closure comment written as part of the terminal
update should not wake the assignee again or clear the terminal
disposition.
- Steps to reproduce: start with an assigned issue in `in_progress`,
patch it to `done` while including a comment, then inspect whether an
`issue_commented` wake is emitted for the assignee.
- Deployment mode: local Paperclip workflow/API behavior.
- Related public PRs found during duplicate search: #6657 appears to
address a broader stale closeout-comment reopen path; this PR is
narrower and targets the same-request post-update status decision in
`PATCH /api/issues/:id`.
## What Changed
- Use the post-update issue status when deciding whether a PATCH comment
should enqueue an `issue_commented` wake.
- Add a regression test covering `in_progress` to `done` with a closure
comment so the assignee is not woken again after the issue is already
closed.
## Verification
- `bin/ci`: absent in this repo, so I used the repo's targeted
test-equivalent commands for the touched API route.
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`: passed, with
non-fatal warnings about missing `paperclip-plugin-dev-server` bins
because `packages/plugins/sdk/dist/dev-cli.js` is not built under
`--ignore-scripts`.
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts`: passed
(`Test Files 1 passed`, `Tests 8 passed`).
- GitHub PR workflow checks for build, typecheck, server tests,
workspace tests, serialized suites, e2e, canary dry run, security scans,
and policy are green on commit
`5a8bd799edd606731fd5e215ea97417a655338ea`.
- A normal `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` is blocked on this host
before tests because `sharp` attempts a native build under Node `26.1.0`
/ Python `3.14.5` and fails on missing Python `distutils`; the
route-level verification above used `--ignore-scripts` to avoid that
local toolchain issue.
## Risks
Low risk. The behavior change is limited to comment-wakeup suppression
during issue update handling and only narrows wake emission when the
post-update status is terminal. The main edge case is that a
same-request terminal update with a comment will no longer wake the
assignee; explicit reopen or resume flows should remain the correct way
to restart completed work.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex via the managed local Codex adapter, model `gpt-5.5` with
repository tool use and shell execution. The implementation and PR
update were produced with AI assistance under the TechWright CTO
Architect role.
## 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
- [ ] 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
Checklist notes:
- The branch was already opened as `worker/TEC-1440-reopen-drift`; I am
leaving the box unchecked rather than hiding that the live PR branch
includes an internal coordination id.
- The only non-green automated check before this body update was the
automated review/template gate. Greptile was 4/5 because of this
PR-description issue, with no code change requested.
---------
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 derives each spawned agent's `PAPERCLIP_API_URL` from
`authPublicBaseUrl` via `choosePrimaryRuntimeApiUrl` →
`buildPaperclipEnv`
> - At startup, `rewriteLocalUrlPort` rewrote the port of the configured
`auth.publicBaseUrl` to the internal listen port
> - The rewrite was applied to *any* explicit-port URL, not just
loopback ones — so an external base URL on a non-default port (e.g. a
Tailscale Serve listener on `:8443`) got clobbered to the internal HTTP
port `:3101`
> - `https://host:3101` (HTTPS scheme against the plaintext HTTP port)
is unreachable, and that dead value propagated to every spawned agent's
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL`
> - This pull request preserves explicit external base URLs at startup
while keeping the worktree path's intended per-worktree port rewrite
> - The benefit is that agents following the documented `curl
"$PAPERCLIP_API_URL/..."` pattern no longer hit a dead endpoint
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue; describing inline (bug report).
**Summary:** at server startup, `rewriteLocalUrlPort` corrupts an
explicit external `auth.publicBaseUrl`, leaking a dead
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL` to spawned agents.
**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Configure `auth.publicBaseUrl = https://<host>:8443` (an external
listener on a non-default port, e.g. Tailscale Serve).
2. Start the server (internal listen port `3101`).
3. Inspect a spawned agent run's env:
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL=https://<host>:3101`.
**Expected:** the agent-facing URL points at a reachable origin.
**Actual:** `curl "$PAPERCLIP_API_URL/..."` → `http_code=000` (HTTPS
against the plaintext HTTP port; TLS handshake fails). The fleet stays
healthy only because the runtime falls through its candidate list, but
any agent following the documented curl pattern silently hits a dead
endpoint first.
Related open PRs in the same area (dedup — none merged; this is a
smaller, targeted fix with regression tests):
- Refs #9916 (PAPERCLIP_RUNTIME_API_URL precedence + authPublicBaseUrl
port preservation)
- Refs #7342 (preserve explicit authPublicBaseUrl during startup,
GH#7341)
- Refs #9228 (prefer reachable runtime API URLs for local adapters)
## What Changed
- New `server/src/url-utils.ts` with two intent-revealing helpers
(single source of truth):
- `rewriteUrlPort` — rewrite any explicit-port URL to a new port.
- `rewriteLoopbackUrlPort` — rewrite **only** loopback hosts; explicit
external URLs survive untouched.
- `isLoopbackHost` — bracket-tolerant so a URL hostname form `[::1]`
matches.
- `server/src/index.ts` (startup, the bug): `authPublicBaseUrl` now uses
`rewriteLoopbackUrlPort`, so an external Serve URL keeps its port.
Nested helper copies removed in favor of the shared module.
- `server/src/worktree-config.ts` (worktree path): uses `rewriteUrlPort`
— **behavior unchanged**; a worktree still advertises its own server
port even on a non-loopback host (this is intended and asserted by the
existing worktree suite).
- `server/src/url-utils.test.ts`: regression coverage for both helpers.
- Updated one stale assertion in
`server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` that had encoded the old
(buggy) external-host rewrite at startup.
## Verification
- `vitest run src/url-utils.test.ts
src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` → **33 passed**;
the only local failure is a pre-existing, environment-coupled test
(`derives trusted origins…`) that leaks the dev machine's real Tailscale
identity into an origins list and passes in CI (it is unrelated to this
change — its `authPublicBaseUrl` is loopback and rewrites identically
before/after).
- `npm run typecheck` (`tsc --noEmit`) → **clean, exit 0**.
- PR CI: Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, serialized server suites,
and `review` gate green.
## Risks
Low risk. The only behavioral change is at startup: an explicit
*external* base URL on a non-default port is no longer rewritten to the
internal listen port (the bug). Loopback/worktree behavior is unchanged.
No schema/migration changes.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8, 1M context (`claude-opus-4-8[1m]`), extended thinking,
with tool use / code execution (Claude Code).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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
- [ ] 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 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - One of its pluggability surfaces is external adapter packages,
loaded at startup by `server/src/adapters/plugin-loader.ts` and routed
through the adapter registry so third parties can override built-in
adapters like `claude_local`
> - `loadExternalAdapterPackage` calls `await import(modulePath)` where
`modulePath` is an absolute filesystem path
> - On Windows that path begins with a drive letter (`C:\…`), which
Node's ESM loader parses as a URL scheme and rejects with
`ERR_UNSUPPORTED_ESM_URL_SCHEME`; the defensive `try/catch` around the
call masks the failure and the builtin adapter silently keeps serving
traffic, so the override never activates
> - `reloadExternalAdapter` in the same file already tries to build a
`file://` URL, but does it via template-string concatenation
(`file://${modulePath}`) which produces a malformed URL on Windows
(`file://C:\…` instead of `file:///C:/…`) — so dev hot-reload of
adapters is broken on Windows even after initial load works on POSIX
> - This pull request swaps both paths to `pathToFileURL()` from
`node:url`, the idiomatic cross-platform conversion
> - The benefit is external adapter packages load reliably on Windows
with no changes required to existing adapters, and the two sibling paths
in the same file stop diverging in their URL-handling discipline
Closes#4286.
## What Changed
- `server/src/adapters/plugin-loader.ts`:
- Import `pathToFileURL` from `node:url`.
- `loadExternalAdapterPackage`: wrap `modulePath` in
`pathToFileURL(modulePath).href` before passing to `import()`.
- `reloadExternalAdapter`: replace `` `file://${modulePath}` `` string
concatenation with `pathToFileURL(modulePath).href` so the cache-bust
URL is well-formed on Windows too (drive letter, UNC, percent-encoding).
Three lines changed + one import. No behavior change on POSIX:
`pathToFileURL("/foo/bar.js").href === "file:///foo/bar.js"`, which
Node's ESM loader accepts identically to the bare path.
## Verification
**Runtime, Windows 11, Node v24, `@paperclipai/server@2026.416.0`:**
Before (installed dist, vanilla):
```
INFO: Loading external adapter package {packageName: "@reforged/adapter-claude-local", modulePath: "C:\\Users\\…\\index.js"}
WARN: Failed to dynamically load external adapter; skipping
err: ERR_UNSUPPORTED_ESM_URL_SCHEME … Received protocol 'c:'
```
After (same dist with the equivalent two-line patch applied):
```
INFO: Loading external adapter package {packageName: "@reforged/adapter-claude-local"}
INFO: Loaded external adapters from plugin store {count: 1, adapters: ["claude_local"]}
```
End-to-end: the override actually services execute calls and its
telemetry fields (e.g. `errorCode: "rate_limited"` on 429) surface into
heartbeat-run records — I've been running this heartbeat through the
override on a vendor-patched copy while drafting this PR.
**Static / logic review:**
- `pathToFileURL` is part of Node's stdlib since v10.12.0, no new dep.
- On POSIX, `path.resolve("/a", "b") → "/a/b"` and
`pathToFileURL("/a/b").href → "file:///a/b"`. `await
import("file:///a/b")` and `await import("/a/b")` both resolve to the
same ESM module — no double-load risk.
- Reload path: the existing cache-bust query (`?t=${Date.now()}`) still
appends cleanly because `pathToFileURL(...).href` returns a normalized
`file:///…` URL with no pre-existing query string.
**Local test suite:** I did not run the full `pnpm test` suite in this
fork — the monorepo test infrastructure (embedded Postgres, pnpm
workspace install) is a significant local-setup cost and this change is
surgical enough that CI should be the source of truth. Happy to iterate
based on CI signal. No existing test directly exercises
`plugin-loader.ts`'s initial-load path.
## Risks
**Low.** This aligns the initial-load path with the already-existing
intent of the reload path (which tried, but imperfectly, to use a
`file://` URL). POSIX behavior is unchanged. The only runtime difference
is that Windows stops throwing and starts loading the adapter — which is
exactly the bug being fixed.
Edge cases worth naming:
- **UNC paths** (`\\server\share\…`): previously broken the same way on
the load path, still broken with `file://` string concat on the reload
path. `pathToFileURL` handles UNC correctly (→
`file:////server/share/…`), so this change also quietly fixes UNC-path
adapter installs on Windows.
- **Bun**: the reload path has a Bun cache-eviction block that keys off
`modulePath` and the old `fileUrl`. Bun accepts both `file://` URLs and
bare paths in its module cache keys, so changing the URL form is
consistent with the existing evict-both pattern (we still evict both
`fileUrl` and `modulePath` after the change).
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`, provider: Anthropic) via Claude
Code, running as the CTO agent in a Paperclip-orchestrated company. 200k
context, tool use. No extended thinking mode. Model authored the patch,
the issue body, and this PR description; human review by the company's
principal (fronc) is pending.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — *deferred to CI, see
Verification note*
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable — *no existing
tests for this file; adding one would require stubbing
`adapter-plugin-store` + filesystem, which seemed out of scope for a
3-line fix. Happy to add one on request.*
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — *not UI, N/A*
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — *no
user-facing docs affected; behavior unchanged on POSIX and now-working
on Windows*
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issue execution uses isolated workspaces that hold the issue
worktree
> - A terminal issue can leave its isolated workspace archived and
unable to resume
> - The existing closed-workspace guards returned a conflict and gave
the user no self-serve recovery
> - This pull request reopens the same isolated workspace row and
rebuilds its worktree
> - The benefit is that resume, checkout, and comment actions can
continue without a new workspace row
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
A terminal issue can point to an archived isolated execution workspace.
Resume, checkout, and comment actions then stop with a conflict.
**What happened?**
A terminal issue kept its issue-to-workspace link after the isolated
workspace reached a closed status. The guarded actions returned HTTP 409
instead of restoring access.
**Expected behavior**
The next authorized resume, checkout, or comment action reopens the same
isolated workspace row. The action rebuilds the worktree and then
continues.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an issue that uses an isolated execution workspace.
2. Move the issue to a terminal state and let the workspace archive.
3. Try to resume the issue or add a comment.
4. Observe the closed-workspace conflict.
**Paperclip version or commit**
e6e79f458e
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Proposed solution**
Reopen the closed isolated workspace in place. Rebuild the worktree
before the route reports success.
**Alternatives considered**
Create a new workspace row. This would require repointing the issue link
and would not preserve access for issues that share the original row.
**Roadmap alignment**
ROADMAP.md has no matching reopen item.
## What Changed
- Reopen closed isolated workspace rows in place and rebuild their
worktrees.
- Use the reopen path from resume, checkout, and comment guards.
- Return a clear error when the rebuild fails and keep the workspace
closed.
- Fence terminal reaping and archive cleanup while a reopen is in
flight.
- Update the comment composer to allow the next action to reopen the
workspace.
- Add service and route tests for reopen, scope, failure, and lifecycle
races.
## Verification
- Server TypeScript check passes with the tsc --noEmit command.
- UI TypeScript check passes with the tsc --noEmit command.
- Seventy-two server tests pass across the affected test files.
- The isolated worktree UI test suite has a dependency mismatch and
fails before tests run with the error TypeError: act is not a function.
- CI confirms the UI test job after a clean dependency install.
## Risks
The reopen path changes behavior for closed isolated workspaces. A
rebuild failure returns an error and keeps the row closed. Lifecycle
locks and generation checks protect the worktree from stale cleanup. The
UI test mismatch needs CI confirmation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code review assistance. The
runtime did not provide 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 references)
- [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.
> - Paperclip Cloud provisions a dedicated tenant stack for each
customer. During signup it asks for a mission, a name and role for the
first agent, and a first task.
> - Cloud pushes those answers into the new stack at activation, as
`POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`.
> - No route served that path. The tenant answered 404, so Cloud
recorded the push as unacknowledged and retried on every portfolio
fetch.
> - The failure was soft. The answers stayed durable in Cloud and the
stack still activated. But the stack opened on the empty first-run
wizard, and it asked the customer again for what they had already given.
> - This pull request adds the receiving endpoint. It validates the
seed, applies it, and acknowledges it.
> - The benefit is that a seeded stack opens with the mission, the agent
and the first task already in place.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue covers this. The problem is described in-PR,
following the feature template.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — Express REST API and orchestration services. Also
`packages/db` (one new table) and `packages/shared` (one new validator).
**Problem or motivation**
Paperclip Cloud collects onboarding answers at signup and pushes them to
the tenant stack at activation. The tenant had no route for that
request. It answered 404. Cloud treats a non-2xx as "not yet applied",
so it kept the answers and retried, but the stack itself stayed
unseeded. A customer who had already named their mission, their first
agent and their first task arrived at an empty first-run wizard that
asked for all three again.
**Proposed solution**
Serve `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`. Validate the
body, apply it to the company, then acknowledge it.
The seed is customer free text, so it is bounded and validated in
`packages/shared` and read from the JSON body only. It is never read
from an `x-paperclip-cloud-*` header. That header set is the trusted
identity envelope: every member is derived server-side from the host
plus verified domain records, and that is exactly what makes it
trustworthy. Mixing user content into it would remove the property. A
test plants a mission on a cloud header and asserts that the body value
wins.
Application reuses the shapes the first-run wizard already produces, so
a seeded stack and a manually onboarded one look the same afterwards:
- The mission becomes the company-level goal. A multi-line mission
splits into a title and a description, as the wizard does.
- The agent becomes the company's first hire. Its free-text role ("Chief
of Staff") lands on `title`. The structural `role` stays `ceo`, which is
what the org chart and the default-instructions lookup read.
- The first task becomes an issue in the Onboarding project, assigned to
that agent.
Cloud retries until it gets a 2xx, and it reads any 2xx as "the tenant
holds this content". So the endpoint is idempotent per `revision`. A new
`company_onboarding_seeds` table records the applied revision together
with the goal, the agent and the issue it produced. A replay of a
revision that already matches is a successful no-op. A later revision —
the customer edited their answers — updates those three rows in place
instead of creating a second agent and a second task. The record is
written last, after every other write has landed, so a partial
application cannot present itself as acknowledged.
Everything is applied before the 200 is sent. This is an ordering
guarantee, not eventual consistency. The tests read the database
immediately after the response, with no waiting and no polling, so a
lazy receiver fails them on a fast machine as well as a slow one. That
matters because the redirect into the tenant dashboard is gated on this
acknowledgement.
**Alternatives considered**
Store the seed and let the tenant UI apply it on first load. Rejected:
the dashboard redirect is gated on the acknowledgement, so a background
apply would let the dashboard open before the agent and the task exist.
The whole point is that it must not.
Reuse `POST /companies/:companyId/agents` and `POST
/companies/:companyId/issues` over HTTP from Cloud. Rejected: it needs
three round trips with no shared idempotency key, and it moves the "did
all of it land?" decision to the caller.
**Roadmap alignment**
This completes an existing Cloud-to-tenant contract. It does not add a
new user-facing surface.
## What Changed
- Add `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed` in
`server/src/routes/onboarding-seed.ts`. It authenticates exactly as
`POST /api/companies/:companyId/logo` does, through
`assertCompanyAccess`.
- Add `server/src/services/onboarding-seed.ts`. It applies the mission,
the agent and the first task, and records the applied revision last.
- Add the `company_onboarding_seeds` table: schema, migration `0216`,
and journal entry. It holds the applied revision and the ids of the
goal, agent and issue the seed produced.
- Add `applyOnboardingSeedSchema` in `packages/shared`. It bounds
mission to 2000, agent name to 80, agent role to 120, task title to 200,
and task details to 2000 — the same limits Cloud enforces before it
sends.
- Mount the router in `server/src/app.ts` and register the path in the
OpenAPI document.
- Add `server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts` with 13
tests.
- The seeded agent is created on `claude_local`. This mirrors the
teams-catalog default for agents created server-side, where no human
runs an environment test first. `PAPERCLIP_ONBOARDING_SEED_ADAPTER_TYPE`
overrides it.
## Verification
```sh
pnpm typecheck # whole workspace, passes
npx vitest run \
server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts \
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts # 15 passed
```
The suite runs against embedded Postgres with migrations applied, so
migration `0216` is exercised by every test.
The route tests cover:
- the happy path — mission, agent and task all applied, read immediately
after the 200
- replay of the same revision — no second agent, no second task, no
second goal, no second project
- a later revision — the goal, agent and task are updated in place
- a multi-line mission splitting into a goal title and description
- a revision-only seed
- the activity log entry written once, and not again on a replay
- a caller without access to the company — 403, and nothing written
- a body with no revision — 400
- each field bound past its limit — 400
- a mission planted on an `x-paperclip-cloud-*` header — ignored, body
wins
- an existing Onboarding project — reused, not duplicated
Not verified here: the full Cloud-to-tenant walk against a live stack.
That needs a deployed Cloud and a provisioned tenant together, which is
separate staging work.
## Risks
Migration `0216` creates one new table. It adds no column to an existing
table, rewrites nothing, and backfills nothing, so it is safe to apply
online. The migration safety check passes.
The endpoint writes to a company. Access is enforced by
`assertCompanyAccess`, the same gate the company logo write uses, and a
test covers the denial.
Behavioral note for stacks that already hold data. If a company already
has a non-built-in `ceo` agent, a first seed updates that agent's name
and title rather than creating a second lead. Likewise a seed adopts an
existing company-level goal rather than adding a parallel one. This is
deliberate: the seed is the customer's own stated answer from signup,
and two competing missions or two leads would be worse than one updated
in place. In the intended case — a stack that Cloud has just activated —
none of these exist yet.
The seeded agent is created on `claude_local` with an empty adapter
config. It is idle and needs the usual credential setup before it runs.
Seeding it does not start it.
## Update — rebased onto master + review hardening
Master moved on after this PR was cut, so it was **rebased onto
`master`** and
the seed migration was **renumbered from `0212` to `0216`** (the merged
#11101
took `0212_onboarding_first_task_unique`); the drizzle journal was
re-stitched
and `check:migrations` passes.
Two things landed on top of the original receiver:
- **Mission-only walk contract (PAP-67 r17.4).** The tenant now owns the
first
agent and the first task via #11101's server-owned onboarding path,
which
stamps `ONBOARDING_FIRST_TASK_ORIGIN_KIND` and races safely on the
partial
unique index `issues_onboarding_first_task_uq`. A comment in the apply
path
documents why this receiver leaves the first task to that path on the
cloud
walk, and a paperclip-cloud `node:test`
(`src/onboarding/walk-seed.test.ts`)
asserts the walk's seed carries no `agent`/`firstTask`. The receiver
retains
the agent/first-task code for its documented body contract, kept inert
on the
cloud path by the mission-only seed.
- **Three Greptile P1 fixes** (`95622fa37`): concurrent application is
now
serialized under a per-company `pg_advisory_xact_lock` (no duplicate
goal/agent/project/task on overlapping pushes); a revised first task
carries
its resolved `assigneeAgentId`/`goalId`; and the
`company.onboarding_seed_applied`
audit write is best-effort so a logging failure can't leave the entry
permanently absent. Two new regression tests cover the first two.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking,
with tool use and code execution. Used for the original codebase
investigation, the implementation, and the tests. The rebase, migration
renumber, mission-only contract, and the three P1 fixes were done with
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, 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
- [ ] 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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Fixes#7623
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Company invites are part of the access subsystem and must produce
URLs that recipients can open from outside the host machine.
> - Paperclip already has public/auth base URL configuration for
deployments behind a public hostname, Tailscale, or a reverse proxy.
> - Invite URL composition was still deriving its origin from the
incoming request host, so loopback-bound servers emitted
`http://127.0.0.1:3100/invite/...`.
> - A loopback invite URL is not shareable with a remote human or agent,
even when the token itself is valid.
> - This pull request makes invite URL builders prefer the configured
public base URL and keep the existing request-host fallback when it is
unset.
> - The benefit is that copied invite links use the reachable deployment
origin without changing local-only behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#7623
No duplicate or related PRs/issues were found in a GitHub search for
invite URL, loopback, public base URL, and `authPublicBaseUrl` terms.
## What Changed
- Added base URL resolution in `server/src/routes/access.ts` that strips
trailing slashes and prefers configured `authPublicBaseUrl` over the
request-derived host.
- Threaded `authPublicBaseUrl` through invite summary, invite onboarding
manifest, onboarding text, access routes, `createApp`, and server
startup wiring.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/invite-url-public-base-url.test.ts`
covering configured public-base precedence, unset fallback behavior, and
trailing-slash normalization.
- Registered the invite public-base URL test in the serialized Vitest
server runner.
## Verification
```bash
pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/invite-url-public-base-url.test.ts
pnpm run test:run:serialized
```
Local results from the rebased PR branch:
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` exited 0.
- Targeted invite URL test exited 0: 1 file, 3 tests passed.
- Serialized server suite exited 0: 106 serialized suites completed; the
new invite URL test passed inside that runner.
Manual check after deployment: set `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_PUBLIC_BASE_URL` or
equivalent public base URL config, create a company invite, and confirm
the returned/copied invite URL uses that public origin instead of
`127.0.0.1`.
## Risks
Low risk. The new public base URL parameter is optional and falls back
to existing request-derived behavior when unset. The main operational
risk is misconfigured public base URL input; the implementation only
trims trailing slashes and otherwise trusts the configured origin.
## Model Used
- Original implementation: Anthropic `claude-sonnet-4-6`, 200k context,
tool use and test execution.
- Conflict repair and verification: OpenAI Codex GPT-5.5, coding agent
with shell, git, GitHub CLI, 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)
- [ ] 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: Coder (Claude) <coder-claude@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip Coder (Claude) <lad-agent@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Local adapters (claude_local, codex_local) run agent heartbeats as
child processes, with a short-lived run JWT injected as
`PAPERCLIP_API_KEY` at spawn time
> - That JWT is minted exactly once, when the adapter spawns the process
— its TTL must therefore cover the entire wall-clock life of the run,
not just a prompt startup
> - On laptops the gap between spawn and first real execution can be
huge: a timer heartbeat scheduled while the lid is closed fires during a
~2s macOS dark wake, the machine re-sleeps immediately, and the frozen
child only executes during a later, longer wake — over an hour of
wall-clock delay in observed runs
> - The server's default TTL was 1h, so those sessions started with an
already-expired `PAPERCLIP_API_KEY` and every control-plane call 401'd;
the agent had to recover by manually minting a fresh key
> - The 1h default was also a spec drift: the CLI `env` command
(`DEFAULT_AGENT_JWT_TTL_SECONDS`) and the agent-authentication design
doc both document 172800s (48h)
> - This pull request realigns the server default to 48h and documents
the host-suspension constraint at the mint site and in the regression
test
> - The benefit is that lid-closed/suspended-host heartbeat runs come up
with a valid credential, and the three places that state the default now
agree
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this; per the bug-report template:
- **What happened:** A timer-driven heartbeat run on a MacBook (lid
closed, on battery) was invoked during a ~2s dark wake. The adapter
spawned the CLI and logged init within 2s, then the host re-slept and
the session sat frozen for ~64 minutes until a longer dark wake let it
execute. By then the injected run JWT (1h TTL, minted at spawn) had
expired, so every API call from the agent returned 401 and the run could
only recover via a manually minted key. A second agent's run the same
night showed the identical signature (output timestamps exactly matching
`pmset -g log` dark-wake windows).
- **Expected behavior:** A run that starts late because the host was
suspended should still have a valid `PAPERCLIP_API_KEY` when it finally
executes.
- **Steps to reproduce:** Run Paperclip on a laptop with a
`claude_local` agent on a timer heartbeat; close the lid on battery
overnight; observe a run invoked during a dark wake whose session
executes >1h later with an expired token (compare run-log timestamps to
`pmset -g log` sleep/wake entries).
- **Version/commit:** current `master` (14f20be9); local trusted
deployment mode.
Related context: #5864 introduced per-company signing keys in this same
module (no TTL changes).
## What Changed
- `server/src/agent-auth-jwt.ts`: default `ttlSeconds` for local agent
run JWTs raised from `60 * 60` (1h) to `60 * 60 * 48` (48h), matching
`DEFAULT_AGENT_JWT_TTL_SECONDS` in `cli/src/commands/env.ts` and
`doc/plans/2026-02-18-agent-authentication-implementation.md`; comment
documents why the TTL must cover host-suspension gaps
- `server/src/agent-auth-jwt.ts`: stale "~1h by default" reference in
the legacy-fallback guidance updated to 48h
- `server/src/__tests__/agent-auth-jwt.test.ts`: default-TTL regression
test updated to assert 48h and explain the constraint
- `PAPERCLIP_AGENT_JWT_TTL_SECONDS` remains the explicit override knob;
operators who set it see no behavior change
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/agent-auth-jwt.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-auth-middleware.test.ts` — 24/24 pass locally
- Review that the three default sources now agree:
`server/src/agent-auth-jwt.ts` (`60 * 60 * 48`),
`cli/src/commands/env.ts` (`DEFAULT_AGENT_JWT_TTL_SECONDS = "172800"`),
design doc (`default: 172800`)
- Manual: on a laptop, set no TTL env, trigger a heartbeat, `echo
$PAPERCLIP_API_KEY` inside the run and decode the JWT — `exp - iat` is
172800
## Risks
- Longer-lived bearer tokens widen the leak window if a run token is
exfiltrated. Mitigations already in place: tokens are
per-company/per-instance signed (#5864), bound to a `run_id`, and never
persisted server-side. Operators wanting shorter tokens keep the
`PAPERCLIP_AGENT_JWT_TTL_SECONDS` override.
- The legacy master-secret fallback window guidance ("disable ~one TTL
after deploy") lengthens accordingly; the comment now states 48h
explicitly.
- Follow-up ideas intentionally out of scope: rejecting run JWTs whose
run has terminated (server-side revocation check), and holding a power
assertion (`caffeinate`-style) for the duration of local adapter runs so
dark-wake-spawned runs keep the host awake.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — Fable 5, model ID `claude-fable-5`, via Claude
Code 2.1.x under Paperclip's `claude_local` adapter; extended thinking
and full tool use (shell, file edits, test 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] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Every agent run gets a run-scoped bridge into the Paperclip API
through the injected `PAPERCLIP_API_URL` / `PAPERCLIP_API_KEY` env vars,
built by `buildPaperclipEnv` in
`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`
> - `buildPaperclipEnv` resolves that URL as `PAPERCLIP_RUNTIME_API_URL
?? PAPERCLIP_API_URL ?? http://<listen-host>:<port>`, and the server
always exports `PAPERCLIP_RUNTIME_API_URL` derived from
`authPublicBaseUrl` at boot
> - When `authPublicBaseUrl` points at an address that is not reachable
from inside the runtime container (e.g. a VPN/tailnet-only address used
to keep the web UI off the public internet), every local run receives a
dead API URL (`curl` exit 7) and agents only survive by hand-rolling a
localhost fallback
> - An operator-set `PAPERCLIP_API_URL` is the documented escape hatch —
`docs/deploy/environment-variables.md` states the server "preserves the
value" when set externally and that the run-level var "inherits the
server-level value" — but the run env builder inverts the precedence, so
the override never actually reaches runs
> - This pull request swaps the precedence in `buildPaperclipEnv` so an
explicit `PAPERCLIP_API_URL` wins over the derived runtime URL, aligning
the behavior with the documented contract
> - The benefit is that operators with split-horizon topologies (public
auth URL != container-reachable URL) can point agent runs at a reachable
endpoint with one env var, with zero behavior change for deployments
that do not set it
## Underlying Issue
No pre-existing public issue covers this, so per CONTRIBUTING ("Link
Issues or Describe Them In-PR") here are the `bug_report.yml` fields
inline:
- **What happened:** with `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_PUBLIC_BASE_URL` on a
tailnet-only address and `PAPERCLIP_API_URL=http://localhost:3100`
explicitly set in the server environment, every agent run still received
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL=http://100.x.y.z:3100` (the derived,
container-unreachable URL); `curl` from inside the run exits 7 and
agents can only reach the API by hand-rolling a localhost fallback
- **Expected behavior:** the run env inherits the operator-configured
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL`, as documented in
`docs/deploy/environment-variables.md` ("preserves the value", run-level
var "inherits the server-level value")
- **Steps to reproduce:** (1) set `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_PUBLIC_BASE_URL` to an
address not reachable from inside the server container, (2) set
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL=http://localhost:3100` in the server env, (3) trigger
any agent run and inspect the spawned process env: it carries the
derived URL, not the override
- **Version/commit:** reproduced on the `91e58acb` image (2026-07-19);
the precedence is unchanged on current `master` (`a3b293e`)
- **Deployment mode:** single-host Docker Compose, local adapters
(`claude_local`/`codex_local`), web UI exposed via VPN/tailnet only
## Related PRs (dedup search)
Several in-flight PRs touch the same pain point (runs receiving an
unreachable injected API URL) — linked for reviewer context; none of
them honors the documented explicit override, and the older ones appear
stale:
- #9916 — reworks `PAPERCLIP_RUNTIME_API_URL` derivation and port
preservation (server side); complementary, does not change run-env
precedence
- #8130 — honors a pre-set `PAPERCLIP_RUNTIME_API_URL` (server side); a
complementary escape hatch via the runtime var instead of the documented
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL` override
- #8025 — heuristic: prefer loopback when the runtime bind is loopback
(no activity since Jun 12)
- #5692 — heuristic loopback-safe URL inside `buildPaperclipEnv` (no
activity since May 14)
- #4877 — broader same-host injection rework across 10 files (no
activity since May 2)
- #4794 — always forces loopback for spawned agents (no activity since
Apr 30; would break split-horizon setups where a reachable non-loopback
URL is intended)
This PR intentionally takes the Path-1 route from CONTRIBUTING: the
smallest possible change (swap two lines so the documented operator
override wins) plus regression tests, rather than a new heuristic.
## What Changed
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`: `buildPaperclipEnv` now
resolves the injected URL as `PAPERCLIP_API_URL ??
PAPERCLIP_RUNTIME_API_URL ?? http://<listen-host>:<port>` (explicit
override first), with a short comment explaining why
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`: three new tests
covering the override precedence, the derived-URL fallback, and the
listen-host default (including the `0.0.0.0` to `localhost` mapping)
- `server/src/__tests__/paperclip-env.test.ts`: updated the expectation
that encoded the old runtime-URL-first precedence and added the
symmetric fallback case (runtime URL used when no explicit override is
set)
- No docs changes needed: `docs/deploy/environment-variables.md` already
describes the fixed behavior
## Verification
- `vitest run` on the new `buildPaperclipEnv` tests in
`packages/adapter-utils`: 3/3 pass
- `vitest run` on `server/src/__tests__/paperclip-env.test.ts` after the
expectation update: 5/5 pass (the first CI run correctly flagged the one
test that encoded the old precedence)
- Reproduced and verified on a production deployment (single-host
Docker, `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_PUBLIC_BASE_URL` on a tailnet-only address):
- Before: freshly spawned runs received
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL=http://100.x.y.z:3100` (verified in the spawned
process `/proc/<pid>/environ`); `curl` to it from inside the container
exits 7
- After (with `PAPERCLIP_API_URL=http://localhost:3100` in the compose
environment): a fresh run received `http://localhost:3100`, and `curl
$PAPERCLIP_API_URL/api/agents/me` with the run-scoped key returned HTTP
200; the run finished `succeeded` with usage telemetry recorded
## Risks
- Low. Behavior changes only for deployments that explicitly set
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL`; when unset (the default),
`PAPERCLIP_RUNTIME_API_URL` is used exactly as before
- The sandbox callback bridge (`execution-target.ts`) is intentionally
untouched: remote sandboxes genuinely need the publicly reachable URL,
and its `input.hostApiUrl || PAPERCLIP_RUNTIME_API_URL || ...` chain
still provides it
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended
thinking + agentic tool use via Claude Code, operating over SSH against
the affected deployment
## Checklist
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Sergio-LPA <204395363+Sergio-LPA@users.noreply.github.com>
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
> - Issues coordinate that work, and first-class blockers
(`blockedByIssueIds`) are how dependent work auto-resumes when its
prerequisites finish
> - A human commenting on a blocked issue implicitly reopens it to
`todo` — a deliberate heuristic so "please continue" comments revive
parked work
> - But that heuristic evaluates the issue's *pre-update* blocker set,
ignoring blockers being wired in by the very same PATCH
> - So the natural repair action for a bare-blocked issue — one PATCH
adding `blockedByIssueIds` plus an explanatory comment — silently flips
the issue to `todo`, contradicting the dependency edit it just made
> - This pull request suppresses the implicit reopen when the request
itself declares a non-empty blocker list
> - The benefit is that structured dependency edits always win over the
conversational-comment heuristic, so blocked issues keep their intended
waiting posture and auto-resume via `issue_blockers_resolved` as
designed
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue describes this exact behavior; per the bug-report
template:
- **What happened:** On a `blocked` issue with an empty blocker set, a
board user sent one `PATCH /api/issues/:id` containing
`blockedByIssueIds: ["<unresolved-issue-id>"]` and a `comment`. The
response showed `status: "todo"` — the implicit comment-reopen fired
even though the same request wired an unresolved blocker. A follow-up
`PATCH { status: "blocked" }` was then needed to restore the waiting
posture (and because the blocker array replaces on every update, the two
fields had to be re-sent together).
- **Expected behavior:** A request that explicitly declares dependencies
is stating that the issue is waiting on other work. The implicit reopen
exists for plain conversational comments; it should not override a
structured dependency edit made in the same request.
- **Steps to reproduce:** (1) Create issue A with `status: "blocked"`
and no blockers; (2) as a board user, `PATCH /api/issues/A` with `{
"blockedByIssueIds": ["<id of an open issue>"], "comment": "wiring the
dependency" }`; (3) observe the response/issue status is `todo` instead
of remaining `blocked`.
- **Version/commit:** reproduced on `master` @ `d1b9448b5`.
- **Deployment mode:** `authenticated`, single-host (macOS launchd),
embedded Postgres.
Related (not fixed here): the family of "blocked with empty
`blockedByIssueIds` zombie" reports — Refs #9201, Refs #6523 — this bug
is one way an issue's status and blocker list end up contradicting each
other; and Refs #8062, which proposes a different auto-transition at the
status/blocker boundary.
## What Changed
- `shouldImplicitlyMoveCommentedIssueToTodo`
(server/src/routes/issues.ts) accepts an optional
`requestAddsExplicitBlockers` input and returns `false` when set,
alongside the existing suppression guards, with a comment documenting
the rationale.
- The `PATCH /api/issues/:id` call site passes
`requestAddsExplicitBlockers: Array.isArray(req.body.blockedByIssueIds)
&& req.body.blockedByIssueIds.length > 0`.
- Two route tests in `issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts`: a regression
test (comment + non-empty blocker list on a blocked issue must not flip
status) and a boundary test (comment + `blockedByIssueIds: []` still
implicitly reopens, preserving the existing clear-blockers behavior).
Deliberately unchanged: explicit `reopen`/`resume` flags still behave as
before, and the `POST /comments` route is untouched (its body cannot
carry `blockedByIssueIds`).
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts` → 74/74 pass.
- Reverting the `issues.ts` change makes the new regression test fail
with `expected 'todo' to be undefined` — it bites.
- `cd server && pnpm tsc --noEmit` → clean.
## Risks
- Low. The change is a single additional suppression guard on the
*implicit* reopen path, scoped to requests that carry a non-empty
`blockedByIssueIds` array; all other reopen behavior is untouched.
- Edge case considered: a request wiring only already-resolved blockers
plus a comment now stays `blocked` instead of implicitly reopening. This
is the conservative reading of caller intent (an explicit dependency
edit), and an explicit `status`/`reopen` in the same request still wins.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude — Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking
enabled, agentic tool use via Claude Code (CLI). Production repro,
diagnosis, fix, and tests all model-authored under human direction.
## 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 (none
applicable — behavior comment added inline)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending first CI run on this PR)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending first review pass)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
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
> - Agent runs execute in sandbox environments acquired through provider
plugins (e.g. the Kubernetes sandbox provider)
> - Lease acquisition happens during run setup, before the adapter
executes
> - When a provider plugin's worker is momentarily unavailable (a server
or plugin restart window), lease acquisition throws "Sandbox provider
... is installed via plugin ..., but its worker is not running."
> - The heartbeat setup path records that as a terminal `setup_failed`:
no retry classifier matches the message, so the run dies instantly even
though the worker returns seconds later
> - This PR classifies that transient condition as retryable
infrastructure so the run is retried instead of being lost to a restart
blip
> - The benefit is that routine restarts no longer produce spurious
instant run failures
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists; describing inline following the bug
report template.
**What happened**
During a brief sandbox-provider-worker restart window, several runs
failed instantly with `setup_failed` ("... but its worker is not
running."), while runs on the same agent moments earlier and later
succeeded.
**Expected behavior**
A transient, self-healing worker-unavailable condition should schedule a
bounded retry, not terminally fail the run.
**Steps to reproduce**
Trigger a run while the sandbox provider plugin worker is momentarily
unavailable (a server or plugin restart). Lease acquisition throws the
worker-not-running error and the run is finalized as `setup_failed` with
no retry. The recovery test added here reproduces the classification
path.
**Deployment mode**
Cloud multi-tenant execution (Kubernetes sandbox provider plugin).
## What Changed
- Added a dedicated, readable predicate that recognizes the transient
sandbox-provider-worker-unavailable lease failure and treats it as
retryable infrastructure, so the heartbeat schedules a bounded
continuation retry instead of finalizing terminally
- The predicate is anchored to the full lease-failure phrasing (`is
installed via plugin ... but its worker is not running`) so it cannot
match the permanent "provider not installed" message emitted by config
validation
- Added tests proving the readiness poll already waits the full deadline
while the worker handle is absent or `starting` (registered-late
coverage); no poll behavior change was needed
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts` — poll exhaustion +
registered-late cases
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` —
worker-unavailable message schedules a retry; a non-matching permanent
provider failure still escalates terminally (negative case)
## Risks
Low risk. The retry is bounded by the existing
infrastructure-continuation attempt cap (max 3), the message match is
narrow enough to exclude the permanent provider-not-installed failure
(covered by a negative test), and no readiness-poll or lease-acquisition
behavior changed.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic) via Claude Code. Implementation and tests authored by
a Claude Sonnet-class model (`claude-sonnet-5`) dispatched as isolated
per-task implementer agents under a multi-agent orchestration workflow;
root-cause investigation, planning, and two-stage adversarial code
review performed by additional Claude agents. Extended thinking and tool
use enabled throughout.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Hiring an agent means choosing a harness (adapter) for it, and an
instance can declare which harnesses it actually runs through
`PAPERCLIP_ADAPTERS`, which `reconcileAdapterAvailability` turns into a
disabled set at boot
> - The hire and create routes validate the adapter type with
`assertKnownAdapterType`, which only asks whether the adapter is
REGISTERED — a disabled adapter passes
> - So an agent can be created on a harness the instance cannot run, and
the failure only appears later, per run, at lease time: `Adapter "..."
is not in the configured adapter registry`
> - By then the error is in a run log, minutes after the choice, with
nothing tying it back to the harness the user picked; the agent also
keeps accepting work it can never do
> - This pull request validates the hire and create paths against the
ENABLED set and refuses with a message that names the adapters that are
available
> - The benefit is that an impossible choice fails at the moment it is
made, in the words of the choice itself, instead of as a run failure the
user cannot act on
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue; describing it here per the bug report template.
**What happened**
On an instance with a curated registry, a company's Chief of Staff was
hired on `cursor_cloud`, which that instance had disabled. The API
accepted the hire. Its first assignment run then failed:
```
Failed to acquire lease for environment "Kubernetes Sandbox" (sandbox): Adapter "cursor_cloud" is not in the configured adapter registry
```
and its automation run sat in `queued` for hours afterwards. Nothing in
the hire response, the agent detail view, or the agent's status
explained that this harness could never run.
**Expected behavior**
hiring on an adapter the instance has disabled is refused at hire time,
with a message naming the adapters that can be chosen.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start the server with a registry that omits an otherwise-registered
adapter, e.g. `PAPERCLIP_ADAPTERS` listing `claude_local` but not
`cursor_cloud`.
2. `POST /api/companies/:companyId/agents` with
`{"name":"CoS","adapterType":"cursor_cloud"}`.
3. The agent is created (201). Every run it attempts fails at lease time
with the message above.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master (`4c55f0d8d`).
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/agents.ts`: adds `assertSelectableAdapterType`,
which extends `assertKnownAdapterType` with an enabled-set check and
throws `422 Adapter "<type>" is not available on this instance.
Available adapters: <list>`. The hire (`POST .../agent-hires`) and
create (`POST .../agents`) paths now use it.
- Routes that operate on an EXISTING agent keep
`assertKnownAdapterType`, so an agent already running on a
since-disabled adapter is unaffected — the same rule
`listEnabledServerAdapters` already documents ("hidden from selection,
still functional for agents that already use them").
- `server/src/__tests__/agent-adapter-validation-routes.test.ts`: mocks
the adapter-plugin store's disabled set (so the test never writes to a
real `~/.paperclip/adapter-settings.json`), and covers
refuse-when-disabled (including that the message names the alternatives
and that no agent is created) plus create-still-works-when-enabled.
## Verification
```
pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-adapter-validation-routes.test.ts
```
13 tests pass, including the two new cases and the existing
unknown-adapter-type test.
Manual: disable an adapter (`PATCH /api/adapters/:type {"disabled":
true}` as an instance admin, or omit it from `PAPERCLIP_ADAPTERS` and
restart), then POST an agent with that `adapterType` — 422 naming the
available adapters, and no agent row is created.
## Risks
Low, and scoped to new selections:
- Automation that creates agents on a disabled adapter now gets a 422
where it previously got a 201 followed by runs that always failed. That
is the intended behavior change, and the message names the valid
choices.
- Existing agents, and every route that acts on an existing agent, are
untouched.
- The enabled set comes from the same store `GET /api/adapters` already
reports, so the API and the picker cannot disagree.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5`, 1M context window,
extended thinking, with tool use and code execution via Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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
(`upstream/adapter-selection-guard`) 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 to reflect my changes (the
new helper documents the selection-vs-existing-agent rule)
- [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
Related: #10254 makes the adapter inventory readable during onboarding,
which is what lets the picker hide these adapters in the first place.
This PR is the server-side backstop for the same failure.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
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.
> - Agents run on a heartbeat; when an issue-scoped run ends, the server
records the outcome on the issue's board thread.
> - Normally the agent posts its own summary comment via `POST
/comments`. When it doesn't, the server has a fallback that
auto-publishes a run summary so the board isn't left silent.
> - That fallback (`buildHeartbeatRunIssueComment` in
`server/src/services/heartbeat-run-summary.ts`) returns
`resultJson.summary` **verbatim**, with no length cap or shape check.
> - For runs that never produce a final `result`, `summary` is
concatenated **inter-tool narration** ("Let me check…", "I'll fetch…",
joined by the claude-local adapter's parser). The fallback then dumps
that raw transcript onto the public board thread.
> - In practice this produces long, confusing transcript comments that
mislead reviewers and other agents about what actually happened.
> - This PR gates the fallback so it publishes a clean summary or a
short stub, never raw transcript.
> - The benefit is that the board thread stays trustworthy: a missing
agent summary degrades to a one-line "no summary this run" note instead
of leaking internal narration.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this; describing it here as a bug
report.
**What happened:** When an issue-scoped heartbeat run finishes without
the agent posting its own comment, the server's fallback publishes
`resultJson.summary` verbatim as the board comment. When the run
produced no final result, that value is concatenated inter-tool
narration, so raw transcript is posted to the issue thread.
**Expected behavior:** The fallback should post a concise summary when
one is available, and otherwise a short stub — never multi-hundred-line
raw narration.
**Steps to reproduce:**
1. Run an issue-scoped agent turn that ends without calling `POST
/comments` and without emitting a final `result` (only inter-tool
narration).
2. Observe the auto-published board comment: it is the full narration
transcript.
**Deployment mode:** self-hosted server
(`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` fallback path).
**Prior attempt:** an earlier PR for this change was auto-closed when
its head branch was renamed to strip an internal ticket id from the
branch name; this PR supersedes it.
**Related PR:** #7505 (`fix(heartbeat): skip auto-mirror run-summary
comment on cross-owner wakes`) touches the same fallback area but
addresses a different case (cross-owner wakes); this PR is
complementary, gating the *content* of the fallback rather than *when*
it fires.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/heartbeat-run-summary.ts`:
`buildHeartbeatRunIssueComment` now gates the fallback text. After
resolving `summary` → `result` → `message`, if the text opens with a
narration phrase (`let me`, `i'll`, `i need to`, `i can see`, `looking
at`, `fetching`, `checking`, `first,`) **or** exceeds
`MAX_FALLBACK_COMMENT_CHARS` (1200), it returns a fixed stub: *"Run
completed. Agent did not post a summary comment this run (transcript
withheld — see run log)."* Otherwise it returns the text unchanged.
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-summary.test.ts`: added cases for
each narration opener, the length cap, the exact 1200-char boundary
(posts), and clean-summary passthrough.
Runs where the agent posts via the API are unaffected — the fallback
only fires when no agent comment is found for the run, and that call
site is unchanged.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclip/server test heartbeat-run-summary` — 13/13
pass (new + existing cases).
- Manual reasoning: the gate is a pure function of the resolved text;
API-posted runs never reach it.
- **CI note:** at the time of opening, `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
fails on this branch's base commit with
`ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH` (patchedDependencies drift). This
reproduces on every PR based on the current `master` tip (e.g. #10137)
and is unrelated to this two-file change; PRs cut from the prior master
(e.g. #10135) install cleanly. This should clear once the `Refresh
Lockfile` job lands a corrected lockfile on `master` and this branch is
rebased. Happy to rebase or fold in the lockfile fix if a maintainer
prefers.
## Risks
Low risk. The change is confined to one pure function and its tests,
touches no schema or migration, and only alters the *fallback* comment
path (never the normal API-posted path). Worst case is a legitimate
clean summary that happens to open with a gated phrase gets replaced by
the stub — the run log still holds the full detail.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), 1M-token context window, extended
thinking, with tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change
(`fix/gate-heartbeat-fallback-comment`) 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 (blocked on a master-side
lockfile drift, see CI note)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(pending re-review on this PR)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
- Followed a silent nonzero Hermes exit from child-process result
parsing through heartbeat run, runtime, task-session, and agent
finalization.
- Found two gaps: the adapter could return `errorMessage: null` for a
numeric nonzero exit, and heartbeat later reused the nullable adapter
field instead of its normalized fallback.
- Kept timeout, signal-cancellation, and specific parsed diagnostics
authoritative.
## Linked Issue(s) / Bug Report
Related to #9751 (stderr classification) and #9519 (exit-zero
finalization), but this is a separate failure mode.
Reproduction: run Hermes with a child result equivalent to `exitCode:
1`, `timedOut: false`, and no parsed diagnostic. The heartbeat row
derives `Adapter failed`, while runtime/task-session/agent finalization
can persist null diagnostics.
## What Changed
- Give silent numeric nonzero Hermes exits a stable fallback such as
`Hermes exited with code 1`.
- Preserve specific parsed errors and timeout/signal semantics.
- Reuse the normalized persisted run error for recovered runtime state,
task-session `lastError`, and agent `errorReason`.
- Add adapter-level and embedded-Postgres regressions.
## Verification
- Hermes adapter `execute.onspawn.test.ts` — 7 passed.
- Focused heartbeat normalized-error regression — 1 passed (91 skipped).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter typecheck` —
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
Independent review also ran the full recovery file: the changed
regression passed; one unrelated pre-existing timing-sensitive test
timed out.
## Risks / Rollout Notes
Low risk. Fallback text is used only when a numeric nonzero exit has no
better diagnostic. Existing timeout, signal, and parsed-error precedence
remains unchanged.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol` with repository inspection, test execution,
and independent read-only review.
## 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 (not
applicable: internal diagnostics only)
- [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: cucurigoo <cucurigoo@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's company-scoped HTTP routes must reject inaccessible
resources before returning resource-specific authorization results.
> - The shared `getAccessibleResource` helper established that
invariant, but direct tool-access routes still fetched globally unique
IDs first and then returned 403 from later authorization checks.
> - A signed-in user could therefore distinguish a valid foreign-company
resource ID from an unknown ID.
> - This change applies the existing tenant-aware lookup gate
consistently across direct tool-resource routes and rejects inaccessible
OAuth state before callback-specific authorization.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No standalone issue exists. This is a security-hardening follow-up to
#3967.
- **Observed:** a member of company A can submit a known application,
connection, profile, profile-entry, or OAuth-state ID belonging to
company B and receive a different response than for a random missing ID.
- **Expected:** missing and inaccessible foreign resources are
indistinguishable at the HTTP boundary. Signed-in instance
administrators still require company membership for company-scoped
access.
- **Reproduction:** create resources in company B, authenticate as an
owner of company A without B membership, and call the direct
`/api/tool-*` routes using B's IDs. Before this change, affected calls
returned 403 while unknown IDs returned 404.
## What Changed
- Wrapped direct application, connection, profile, and profile-entry
lookups in `server/src/routes/tool-access.ts` with the shared
`getAccessibleResource` 404 gate.
- Added tenant membership validation to OAuth callback-state lookup
before session/role checks, returning the same invalid-state response as
an unknown state.
- Expanded route regressions across connection/profile endpoint
families, including grants, usage, installs, gateway-backed test calls,
OAuth, mutations, catalog/activity reads, profile entries, and
instance-admin-without-membership access.
- Updated application update/delete expectations from cross-tenant 403
to non-enumerating 404 responses.
## Verification
After rebasing onto current `master`:
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` from
`server/` — 113 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — previously passed on
the same implementation; affected upstream paths were unchanged before
this mechanical rebase.
## Risks
- Low implementation risk: no schema, migration, or successful
same-company response changes.
- Intentional behavior change: inaccessible foreign tool-resource IDs
now return 404 instead of 403; inaccessible OAuth states return the same
400 body as missing/expired states.
- The gate reuses `getAccessibleResource` / `hasCompanyAccess` semantics
established by #3967.
> 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 `openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol`; repository,
shell, test, TypeScript language-server, and GitHub CLI tool access
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 an existing issue or described the issue
in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket ID
- [x] I have run focused tests locally on the final rebased head and
they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] Documentation update — N/A: internal authorization correction only
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the new rebased head
- [x] Greptile's prior review was 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Daniel Sauer <sauerdaniel@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Routines allow external systems to start recurring work through
authenticated public webhooks
> - Timestamped HMAC authentication currently verifies authenticity and
age but does not remember an accepted delivery
> - An exact signed request can therefore be reused within its replay
window, including through simultaneous duplicate delivery
> - Replay rejection must be atomic with run creation so concurrent
copies cannot both succeed
> - This pull request derives a non-secret replay identity from each
valid timestamped HMAC delivery and claims it under the existing routine
transaction lock
> - The benefit is at-most-once acceptance of an exact HMAC delivery
without changing ordinary caller-supplied idempotency semantics
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes: #9993
## What Changed
- Derive a stable, non-secret idempotency key after a timestamped HMAC
signature has been validated.
- Reject a previously claimed HMAC delivery with a conflict while
preserving coalescing for existing non-HMAC idempotency keys.
- Apply the same atomic replay claim when automatic worktree execution
is suppressed.
- Add regression coverage for sequential, concurrent, and suppressed-run
replays.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` —
59 tests passed.
- `pnpm typecheck` — all workspace packages passed.
- The sequential test was observed failing on unmodified `master`: the
second identical request resolved and a second run was created.
- The concurrent regression test verifies exactly one request succeeds
and only one routine run exists.
## Risks
- Low migration risk: no schema change is required; the existing
nullable routine-run idempotency field is reused.
- The routine row lock serializes replay claims, adding a small amount
of contention only while a routine run is being created.
- Replay rejection applies only to `hmac_sha256`, which carries the
timestamp needed for a bounded replay policy. Existing `github_hmac`,
bearer, and unauthenticated trigger semantics are unchanged.
> 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) with reasoning, repository inspection, shell
execution, and test 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] Documentation does not require an update because this restores the
documented replay-window security behavior without changing
configuration or APIs
- [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 board REST API is how operators and integrations read company
state; `GET /api/companies/:companyId` is one of its most basic reads
> - The route passes the raw path param into `companyService.getById`,
which queries the uuid-typed `companies.id` column directly
> - Any non-UUID ref — a slug, a typo, a stale bookmark — makes Postgres
throw `invalid input syntax for type uuid`, which surfaces as an HTTP
500 with a stack trace in the server log instead of a clean client error
> - A 500 for malformed client input is miscategorized: it pages
operators, pollutes error budgets, and hides the actual problem ("that
ref doesn't exist") from the caller
> - This pull request guards `getById` with a UUID check so non-UUID
refs resolve to `null` and the route returns its existing 404 path
> - The benefit is correct HTTP semantics for bad input, quieter logs,
and one less misleading 500 for self-hosters to chase
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#9962 — `GET /api/companies/:companyId` returns 500 (`invalid
input syntax for type uuid`) for non-UUID refs instead of 404. Full
repro and log excerpt in the issue.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/companies.ts`: `getById` returns `null` early for
non-UUID refs instead of passing them to the uuid-typed query.
- `server/src/__tests__/companies-service.test.ts`: regression test —
non-UUID refs (`"tumbly-haus-creative"`, `"not-a-uuid"`, `""`) resolve
to `null` without a query error.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/companies-service.test.ts` — 12/12 pass
(new test included, embedded-postgres suite).
- Manual: `curl -i /api/companies/not-a-uuid` → 404 (was 500); `curl -i
/api/companies/<real-uuid>` → 200 unchanged.
## Risks
- Low. Pure input-validation guard on one read path; UUID lookups are
byte-for-byte unchanged. Only behavioral shift is 500→404 for refs that
could never have matched a row.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — diagnosis
from server logs, patch, and test authored with extended thinking and
tool use; human-reviewed and submitted by @christianlappin.
## 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
- [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 to reflect my changes (n/a —
no doc references this error path)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending first CI run)
- [ ] 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
santastabber
ulisavo
Michael Nguyen
dmndbrp-oss
Sam
Nicky Leach
Dotta
Opaque
Dotta
LeeJ
Austin
scotttong
Apolinario Ratio
Ravi
Eric Brookfield
Frank Gonnello
Tonio
Dylan Roy
Sergio-LPA
Jannes Stubbemann
Constantine
Daniel Sauer
Jonathan Reyes
Christian Lappin