Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master.
This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml.
Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators create tasks from the board UI.
> - The create form must show clear progress while it submits.
> - The form showed the same pending state twice.
> - One copy also used the old term "issue" instead of the UI term
"task."
> - This pull request keeps the pending state in the submit button and
removes the duplicate status.
> - The benefit is a clearer form with consistent task language.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public GitHub issue exists for this focused UI bug.
**What happened?**
The create-task form showed `Creating issue...` beside a submit button
that already showed `Creating...`. A low-trust notice in the same form
also used the old UI term `issue`.
**Expected behavior**
The submit button shows the pending state once. Visible UI copy uses
`task` for the work object.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the create-task dialog.
2. Enter a task title.
3. Select **Create Task**.
4. Observe the duplicate loading status beside the pending button.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced from upstream `master` at
`2c90cf0f2c60d3851880eca3c643c01313af9ffd`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development build.
## What Changed
- Removed the duplicate loading status beside the create-task submit
button.
- Kept inline create errors in the dialog footer.
- Changed the low-trust notice from `issue` to `task`.
- Added a regression test for the single pending-state presentation and
`aria-busy` state.
## Verification
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx`
— 24 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only removes duplicate pending copy and updates
one UI term.
- The regression test keeps the submit button pending indefinitely to
verify its accessible loading state.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose the
context-window size. The session used reasoning, repository tools, and
code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The decisions desk and queue help operators find work that needs a
human decision.
> - The current views use different grouping, sorting, and labels.
> - Repeated confirmation requests can also leave stale pending actions
in the queue.
> - Blocked-work attention can point at an intermediate issue instead of
the terminal blocker.
> - This pull request aligns the server contract and both user
interfaces.
> - The benefit is a smaller, clearer queue that ranks the decisions
with the largest impact.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related PR: #10774
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The decisions desk and queue currently use different triage rules. They
can show stale repeated confirmations and can rank blocked work by an
intermediate issue.
**Subsystem affected**
This change affects attention aggregation, issue thread interactions,
shared attention contracts, and the decisions user interface.
**Current behavior**
The desk uses a can-wait group that has no clear arrival meaning. The
queue has fewer controls than the desk. Repeated pending confirmations
remain actionable. Blocked-work rows do not always identify the terminal
actionable blocker.
**Proposed behavior**
Group desk items by arrival date, and reserve Decide now for explicit
due dates. Use one toolbar and shelf model on both pages. Supersede
older repeated pending confirmations. Aggregate blocked work under the
terminal actionable blocker and rank it by impact.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators get one consistent triage model. The badge reflects new and
overdue work. High-impact blockers move to the top. Duplicate
confirmation work no longer consumes attention.
**Breaking changes**
The attention summary field `decideNowCount` changes to
`deskBadgeCount`. Consumers must use the new field. Older repeated
confirmation interactions can now finish with the
`superseded_by_newer_request` outcome.
## What Changed
- Supersede older pending confirmation requests for the same issue and
record the mutation in activity history.
- Resolve blocked-work attention to actionable terminal blockers,
suppress live blocker trees, and rank rows by blocked-work impact.
- Group the decisions desk into New today and Earlier, and count new
plus overdue work in the desk badge.
- Share the decision toolbar and shelf components across the desk and
queue.
- Add queue grouping, sorting, filtering, aging, visible training
controls, and clearer recommendation copy.
- Add server, shared-contract, and user-interface tests for the new
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` (all
server, UI, CLI, shared, and catalog tests passed; one fixed five-second
DB timeout flaked under full-suite load)
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` (passed in isolation)
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- The attention summary field rename requires synchronized consumers.
- Terminal-blocker traversal uses cycle and depth guards. A malformed
dependency graph can stop at the last safe node.
- The new arrival grouping changes which items contribute to the
decisions badge.
- Superseding repeated confirmations changes the terminal state of older
pending interactions.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model
snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository
tools, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators talk to their agents on the issue detail page. An
experimental "Chat-Style Tasks" view (#10606) makes that page read as a
conversation instead of a ticket form.
> - The first release of that view shipped with a plain-text composer,
no visible narration while an agent works, and a desktop-only layout.
> - Users write formatted replies, paste screenshots, and follow long
agent runs from their phones. The experimental view should support all
of that before it can graduate.
> - This pull request is the next iteration of the same experiment: a
rich-text composer with attachments, live-turn narration on the status
line, cleaner settled-turn history, and a mobile layout.
> - The benefit is a chat view that feels alive while the agent works
and stays readable after it finishes, on desktop and mobile, still fully
behind the existing opt-in flag.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #49 (chat with agents is a much-wanted feature).
Refs #10606 (the merged first release of the experimental chat-style
task view; this PR iterates on it).
Related PRs found in the dedup search:
- #8228 — open PR that polishes the classic issue chat composer. It
targets the flag-off legacy path; this PR only changes the flag-on
experimental view.
- #10466 — merged blockquote-recovery fix in the shared MarkdownEditor.
This PR now reuses that editor inside the chat composer.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The experimental "Chat-Style Tasks" view on the issue detail page
(Settings → Experimental, `enableTaskChatRedesign`, default off).
**Subsystem affected**
UI (issue detail page, chat-style task view).
**Current behavior**
With the experiment enabled, the composer is a plain textarea with no
formatting, no attachment preview, and no mention support. While an
agent runs, the status line shows only a static label, and the agent's
narration text is hidden. Finished runs render one settled row per turn,
so a run with many short turns produces a long list of near-duplicate
"Worked" rows, and turns without a comment append at the bottom out of
order. On mobile, the desktop bounded-height thread makes the page
scroll poorly.
**Proposed behavior**
The composer uses the shared MarkdownEditor: markdown formatting,
mentions, image paste with thumbnail previews, and non-image attachment
chips. Sending posts on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter. While an agent runs, the status
line rotates playful status words and surfaces the agent's own narration
as short interstitial updates: each update holds for a minimum dwell, is
replaced only when superseded, and slides through a one-line viewport
with tokenized motion. Back-to-back settled turns coalesce into one
"Worked" row with summed durations and re-derived tool counts, and
comment-less settled turns insert chronologically at their run's start
time. On mobile, the thread renders in the document flow with window
auto-follow and a sticky safe-area composer; the desktop layout is
unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
The chat view is only convincing if it feels like a conversation with a
working agent. Rich text and screenshots are table stakes for chat
input. Live narration gives moment-to-moment feedback without opening
transcripts. Coalesced history keeps long-running tasks readable. Mobile
support lets operators follow runs away from their desks.
**Breaking changes**
None. Every change is gated behind the existing `enableTaskChatRedesign`
flag, which is off by default. The flag-off page is unchanged.
## What Changed
- `TaskChatComposer` swaps its textarea for the shared `MarkdownEditor`:
markdown formatting, mentions, image paste with object-URL thumbnail
previews (revoked on clear and unmount), and posting on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter.
- Non-image attachments render as chips on a new shared
`ui/attachment.tsx` primitive (adds the `@base-ui/react` dependency it
builds on).
- New `status-whimsy.ts`: deterministic rotation of playful status words
on the live status line.
- Live interstitial narration: the transcript adapter tags agent
self-talk, and the live status line shows it as ephemeral one-line
updates with a ~4s minimum dwell, hold-until-superseded replacement, and
a slide transition driven by new `--motion-line-scroll` tokens
(cataloged in `motion-tokens.ts`, which a test keeps 1:1 with
`index.css`). Hover affordance applies only to the status line, with no
leading icon.
- Settled-turn history: `coalesceSettledTurns` merges back-to-back
settled agent turns into one "Worked" row (summed per-run durations,
tool counts re-derived from the merged turn); `assembleThreadItems`
inserts comment-less settled turns chronologically at run start instead
of appending them at the bottom; settled turns render tool rows only
(the separate thinking block component is removed).
- The "Worked" summary attaches to the reply timestamp row, and thread
timestamps are always visible.
- Mobile layout: the thread renders with `scroll={false}` in the page
scroll, a new `useWindowAutoFollow` hook keeps the window pinned to new
content, the composer is sticky with safe-area padding, and the editor
uses 16px text so iOS does not zoom on focus. The desktop bounded chain
is untouched.
- New `TaskChatDescriptionBubble` renders the issue description as the
first chat bubble, and `McpIcon` gives MCP tools a distinct icon.
- `IssueDetail.test.tsx` stubs `TaskChatThread`: the composer's
`@mdxeditor` dependency cannot load under jsdom's CSSOM, and the suite
exercises the flag-off path.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN.
- `node scripts/check-task-chat-motion.mjs` — OK (30 files scanned,
seams present).
- `cd ui && npx tsc -b` — clean.
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` — 3,482 of 3,483 tests pass locally. The
one failure is the `IssueProperties.test.tsx` monitor-row
time-formatting test, which is timezone-sensitive: it fails identically
on unmodified `origin/master` in a non-UTC timezone and passes with
`TZ=UTC`. It is not related to this change.
- Manual: enable "Chat-Style Tasks" in Settings → Experimental and open
an issue with an assigned agent. Comment to start a run: the status line
rotates status words and shows the agent's narration as short held
updates. After the run, consecutive turns fold into one "Worked" row
under the reply timestamp. Paste an image into the composer to see a
thumbnail chip; attach a non-image file to see a file chip; send with
Cmd+Enter. Open the same issue in a narrow viewport to see the
document-flow layout with the sticky composer.
- Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated: per
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`, "Per-change snapshot verification
demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)".
## Risks
- The composer now loads the shared MarkdownEditor inside the chat view.
The editor is already used across the app (issue descriptions,
comments), so its behavior is well exercised; composer-specific handling
(paste, attachments, submit keys) is covered by new tests.
- The transcript adapter changes how live narration and settled turns
are derived from run logs. Malformed or legacy logs degrade to generic
rows rather than crashing, and the adapter suites cover the merge and
ordering rules.
- Object URLs for paste previews are revoked on send-clear and unmount
to avoid leaks; jsdom environments without `URL.createObjectURL` are
guarded.
- All changes are behind the default-off `enableTaskChatRedesign` flag.
Overall risk with the flag off is low.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5),
extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file editing, shell, test
execution) via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip tracks agent work for the team.
> - The startup timing path already emits detailed spans.
> - The run log repeats the same detailed timing.
> - That makes the event larger than it needs to be.
> - This pull request removes the redundant per-step timing fields from
the run-log payload.
> - The benefit is a smaller log with the same detail still available in
traces.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue or open pull request matches this change. I
described the enhancement below.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
`run.startup.step` event output.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Current behavior**
`run.startup.step` writes `roundTrips`, `providerExecMs`,
`providerGetMs`, `createRuntimeMs`, and `ensureSessionMs`. The same
detail already exists in the spans.
**Proposed behavior**
`run.startup.step` keeps only `step`, `durationMs`, and `outcome`. The
heartbeat lifecycle timestamps stay unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
This change removes redundant data from the run log. It keeps the useful
detail in trace spans. It also makes the payload smaller and easier to
read. The revert path stays clear because the removed data has one
producer chain.
**Breaking changes**
Yes. Consumers that read the removed fields must switch to span data or
the remaining event fields. The heartbeat lifecycle timestamps do not
change.
**Additional context**
I searched GitHub for related open PRs and issues. I found no match.
## What Changed
- Removed the redundant per-step timing fields from the run-log payload.
- Removed the now-dead producer chain that fed those fields.
- Kept the span-level timing data and the heartbeat lifecycle
timestamps.
## Verification
- `adapter-utils` typecheck clean
- `server` typecheck clean
- `startup-timing` suite: 30 passed
- `adapter-utils` `execute` suite: 99 passed
- `server` `environment-execution-target` suite: 21 passed
## Risks
- Consumers that still read the removed fields will need a code change.
- This is a one-way-door data removal for the run log.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The project workspace policy editor sets how agent runs share a
project's execution workspace.
> - The server now has a `sharedWorkspaceConcurrency` policy (Refs
#10759), but the UI had no control for it.
> - Users could not choose the concurrency mode without editing the API
directly.
> - This pull request adds a 3-option select (Auto / Serialize / Allow)
to the policy editor.
> - The benefit is that users set shared-workspace concurrency in the
UI, with clear helper text for each mode.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10759 (server contract this UI drives).
**Feature request**
- **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
The `sharedWorkspaceConcurrency` policy field shipped on the server, but
the project workspace policy editor had no control to set it. Users
could not pick a concurrency mode from the UI.
- **Describe the solution you would like.**
Add a 3-option select (Auto / Serialize / Allow) to the
execution-workspace policy editor, with helper text that explains each
mode. An unset value must show as Auto.
- **Describe alternatives you have considered.**
A set of radio buttons was considered. A select matches the compact
style of the other controls in the same editor (environment, base ref).
## What Changed
- Added a "Shared workspace concurrency" select to the project
execution-workspace policy editor
(`ui/src/components/ProjectProperties.tsx`).
- The select offers three options with helper text:
- **Auto** (default): "Concurrent runs on local/SSH runners; runs take
turns in cloud sandboxes."
- **Serialize**: "Runs always take turns in the shared project
workspace."
- **Allow**: "Runs never wait for the workspace; concurrent edits are
possible."
- An unset or absent value shows as **Auto**. The UI writes a value only
after the user picks one, so the policy round-trips as Auto until then.
- Added a `SharedWorkspaceConcurrency` type import and a new
`execution_workspace_shared_concurrency` save-state key.
- Added a stateful Storybook story so the controlled select can be
exercised.
### Screenshots
**Before** (light / dark) — the editor had no concurrency control:
**After** (light / dark) — the select shows Auto by default:
**Helper text updates per option** (Serialize / Allow):
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` passes.
- Rendered the editor in Storybook (light and dark). The select shows
Auto when the policy is unset. Selecting Serialize or Allow updates the
helper text and the stored value.
## Risks
- Low risk. UI-only change. The control is additive and only appears
when isolated task checkouts are enabled. An unset value keeps the
current Auto behavior, so existing projects are unaffected.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.8 (claude-opus-4-8), extended thinking, tool use / code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull requests to ship control-plane changes with
review and audit.
> - This change extends sandbox provider telemetry.
> - The first PR added startup and exec spans.
> - This PR adds provider spans for cache hits, plugin tracer flow, and
Daytona file sync steps.
> - The host must keep the trust boundary and reject unsafe span data.
> - The result is fuller OTel coverage with bounded labels and safe
parentage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Sandbox provider telemetry lacks an explicit cache-hit signal, plugin
span context, and file-sync pack and transfer spans.
The current proxy for a cache hit is fragile.
The plugin SDK also needs a safe tracer surface and a per-call parent
context.
**Proposed solution**
Add an explicit `cacheHit` flag from the Daytona sandbox handle lookup.
Expose `ctx.tracer` on the plugin context and pass a `traceparent`
string with each call.
Record provider spans on the host with allowlist clamping and capability
checks.
Wrap Daytona file sync pack and transfer steps in spans.
**Alternatives considered**
Keep the old `providerGetMs == 0` proxy.
Reject that path because the cache-hit decision belongs at the handle
lookup, not in a timing proxy.
The host stays the trust boundary for worker span data.
It clamps labels, rejects bad parent data, and gates the worker-to-host
span RPC by capability.
A security review completed before this PR opened.
## What Changed
- Added an explicit `cacheHit` flag from the Daytona sandbox handle
lookup.
- Added `ctx.tracer` on the plugin context and a `traceparent` field in
the per-call context.
- Added host-side span recording with attribute clamping and capability
checks.
- Wrapped Daytona file sync pack and transfer steps in spans.
- Added tests for the host trust boundary, the plugin tracer no-op path,
and the Daytona span paths.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-daytona exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
plugin-host-services environment-execution-target instrumentation
plugin-worker-manager`
- `tsc --noEmit` for server, plugin-sdk, and adapter-utils
## Risks
- Span data now crosses the worker boundary, so the host allowlist and
capability gate must stay strict.
- The `traceparent` path must stay valid and host-owned.
- Daytona file sync spans must not add new round trips.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked existing issues with `Fixes:` / `Closes:` /
`Refs:` or described the issue in the PR body
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The heartbeat service starts agent runs in local, SSH, sandbox,
plugin, or Kubernetes environments.
> - Runs can share one project working tree.
> - PR #10699 made every shared working tree single-file, including
trusted local and SSH hosts that support coordinated concurrent work.
> - Operators need a policy that keeps remote environments safe and
restores local multi-agent work.
> - This pull request adds an `auto`, `serialize`, or `allow`
concurrency policy and applies it to the final execution environment.
> - The benefit is safe serialization by default for sandboxed targets
and useful concurrency by default for persistent local targets.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related work: #10699 introduced the busy gate that this change makes
configurable. #7852 covers a separate environment-lease race and does
not provide this dispatch policy.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/` heartbeat orchestration and `packages/shared/` workspace
policy contracts.
**Problem or motivation**
The shared-workspace busy gate always defers a second run. This behavior
prevents local multi-agent projects from running concurrently even when
operators expect agents to coordinate through commits.
**Proposed solution**
Add `sharedWorkspaceConcurrency` with `auto`, `serialize`, and `allow`
values. Default `auto` permits local and SSH concurrency. It serializes
sandbox, plugin, and forced Kubernetes execution.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping unconditional serialization is too restrictive for persistent
host working trees. Always allowing overlap removes the protection that
sandboxed and remote targets need.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is a focused correction to the shipped cloud and sandbox execution
milestone. It does not add a new roadmap feature.
## What Changed
- Added the optional tri-state field to project policy and issue
override contracts and validators.
- Added a pure resolver with issue override, project policy, and `auto`
default precedence.
- Moved final environment and Kubernetes resolution before the
shared-workspace busy gate.
- Kept the existing deferral and retry behavior for every path that
resolves to serialization.
- Added a task-context warning and a structured log when a run
dispatches beside a live holder.
- Added policy and heartbeat coverage for all requested policy and
environment combinations.
- Documented the new policy and its default behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 32 tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false
PAPERCLIP_DATABASE_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false
PAPERCLIP_RESTORE_IN_PROGRESS=false pnpm test:run` — all 3,528 server
tests passed. The later UI/workspace phase passed 3,384 tests and hit
one unrelated `CompanyEnvironments` navigation timing failure.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx -t "opens the edit form on a
standalone page with existing values and closes after save"` — the
unrelated UI test passed in isolation.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
Policy matrix:
| Policy | Final target | Expected result | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `auto` | local | Dispatch with holder note | Passed |
| `auto` | sandbox | Defer with `workspace_busy` | Passed |
| `auto` | instance-forced Kubernetes | Defer with `workspace_busy` |
Passed |
| `serialize` | local | Defer with `workspace_busy` | Passed |
| `allow` | sandbox | Dispatch with holder note | Passed |
Existing serialization, retry, and stale-holder tests also pass.
## Risks
- `auto` changes the post-#10699 local and SSH behavior back to
concurrent dispatch. Concurrent agents can mutate the same working tree,
so each dispatched run receives an explicit coordination warning.
- `allow` is an operator override and can permit overlap in sandbox or
plugin environments.
- Unknown environment drivers serialize in `auto` mode. This keeps the
fallback conservative.
- There is no database migration. An absent field resolves to `auto`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 (Codex). The exact API snapshot and context-window size are
not exposed to the agent. Reasoning, repository editing, terminal tool
use, and local code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The applications page shows connected services and their status
> - The e2e suite covers the Connections row on that page
> - The server runs a periodic connection health sweep during the test
> - The sweep can change the connected row label and action after the
first render
> - This pull request accepts both connected states on that row
> - The benefit is the test checks the real user path without a sweep
race
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. This pull request fixes a race in the
applications Connections e2e test.
**Bug:** The test pinned the exact connected-state pill and action.
**Expected:** The test should accept both connected states for the same
connection row.
**Impact:** The health sweep can change the label between assertions.
**Fix:** The test now accepts either label and action on the connected
row.
## What Changed
- Allowed the connected row pill to match `Healthy` or `Needs
attention`.
- Allowed the connected row action to match `Open` or `Reconnect`.
- Kept the not-connected row exact.
## Verification
- `git diff --check
origin/master..origin/test/deflake-applications-crud-health-sweep`
- `git show --stat --summary --oneline
9785785a5d41cd13ee5a0f8aeb73f389cdbdac2e`
- Local Playwright e2e did not run in this worktree.
- CI on this pull request should provide the full proof.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only widens the expected labels for the connected
row.
- If the UI adds a new state, the test may need another update.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5, tool use, context window not exposed in this shell
session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [ ] 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 coordinates AI agent work and records execution data.
> - The sandbox startup path and the host-to-sandbox execution path need
clearer OpenTelemetry spans.
> - The trace data now shows wait time, critical path data, and bounded
labels.
> - This pull request adds bounded spans and closed attribute helpers
for sandbox startup and execution.
> - The result is better trace data with low cardinality and no secret
leakage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue exists for this branch.
- Related PR: #10536
- This PR extends the sandbox OpenTelemetry work with exec spans, root
timing, and bounded labels.
## What Changed
- Added a closed span-attribute contract for sandbox startup data.
- Added a bounded label helper for command and region values.
- Threaded the active step context into the execution path.
- Added a `sandbox.exec` span with true timestamps and bounded
attributes.
- Added skipped-step and root-span timing data with low-cardinality
context.
- Moved handshake sub-times and bridge batch data onto spans.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils run typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server run typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
environment-execution-target`
- `git log --oneline
origin/master..origin/feat/sandbox-startup-otel-spans`
- `git diff origin/master...origin/feat/sandbox-startup-otel-spans
--stat`
## Risks
- Span attribute rules could still miss a future field if new code skips
the shared helper.
- Low-cardinality labels may hide some detail, but that is the intended
tradeoff.
- Tracing stays fail-open, so a missing tracer still hides data rather
than stopping work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use enabled. The runtime did not expose the
context window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
The current head still has one failing required check: `e2e`. The PR
stays unready for board handoff until that check passes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip coordinates agent runs and checks required runtime
credentials before dispatch.
> - The push-capability preflight protects runs that use the GitHub PR
workflow skill.
> - PR #10659 also made issue title and description text trigger this
preflight.
> - That text heuristic blocks tasks that mention a pull request but do
not need a bound GitHub token at dispatch time.
> - This pull request removes the text heuristic and keeps the explicit
skill trigger.
> - The benefit is that ordinary task wording no longer causes a false
configuration failure.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #10659
**What happened?**
An issue title or description that said to open a pull request or push a
branch could trigger the push-capability credential preflight. The run
then failed before dispatch when no project-level or agent-level GitHub
token was bound, even when the task could proceed without that
preflight.
**Expected behavior**
The preflight must run only when the issue explicitly selects the GitHub
PR workflow skill. Issue prose alone must not enable the guard.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Assign a local Codex or Claude agent an issue that says to open a
pull request.
2. Do not attach the GitHub PR workflow skill to the issue.
3. Start the run without a project-level or agent-level GitHub token
binding.
4. Observe the false `push_write_credential_missing` failure before this
fix.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` after PR #10659.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with a git-sensitive local adapter.
## What Changed
- Removed `issueTextImpliesPrDeliverable` and its text-pattern matcher.
- Restored `requiresPushCapabilityPreflight` to use only explicit GitHub
PR workflow skill keys.
- Removed the obsolete issue-text tests while keeping coverage for the
explicit skill, adapter, and issue gates.
## Verification
- `PAPERCLIP_LOG_DIR=<run-owned-dir> pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — 134 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. A task that states a PR deliverable but does not select the
GitHub PR workflow skill will no longer receive the early credential
preflight. This is the intended temporary behavior.
- Tasks that explicitly select the skill still receive the existing
credential and checkout checks.
> This change does not add a core feature and does not overlap with
ROADMAP.md work.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose the
context-window size. The model used agentic reasoning, tool use, and
code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Inbox helps operators scan task state on desktop and mobile
screens
> - Read and unread rows must keep the same title and status alignment
> - The mobile unread control was a flex item, so unread rows gained an
extra leading column
> - Moving the control out of flex flow fixes the indent, but the tap
target must stay inside clipped row containers
> - This pull request reserves one mobile gutter for both states and
overlays the unread control inside that gutter
> - The benefit is stable mobile alignment without clipping the control
or blocking the parent-row chevron
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related merged work: Refs #9383, Refs #9685, and Refs #9767.
**What happened?**
On mobile screens, an unread Inbox row placed the mark-as-read control
in the flex layout. The extra flex item moved the status and title to
the right. A first overlay position could also place part of the control
outside a row that clips overflow.
**Expected behavior**
Read and unread rows must use the same title and status positions. The
unread control must stay tappable inside the row. A parent-row chevron
must remain independently usable.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the Inbox on a mobile viewport.
2. Compare read and unread rows with the same nesting depth.
3. Include an unread parent row with a collapse chevron.
4. Observe that the unread row content starts farther right than the
read row content.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The issue reproduced on the `master` parent of this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev (`pnpm dev`).
**Installation method**
Built from source.
## What Changed
- Reserve a mobile leading gutter whenever an Inbox row participates in
unread state.
- Position the mark-as-read control absolutely inside that gutter so it
does not add a flex column.
- Keep read and unread rows on the same mobile padding path.
- Keep the control inside overflow-clipping row containers and separate
from the parent-row chevron.
- Update the `IssueRow` regression test to verify absolute placement,
the internal gutter, and the absence of `order-first` layout.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 16 tests
passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates passed across 722 files.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — the general server shard passed 3,448 tests and the
UI shard passed 3,362 tests. The CLI shard had one host-environment
failure because inherited temporary AWS access-key variables changed an
AWS doctor assertion from `pass` to `warn`.
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY -u
AWS_SESSION_TOKEN pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` — the affected file passed 8 tests in
an isolated environment.
- Mobile QA at 402 × 874 confirmed equal read/unread title positions, no
shift after marking a row as read, and an independently usable parent
chevron.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects only `IssueRow` mobile presentation and
its focused regression test.
- The main risk is breakpoint-specific placement. The component test
covers the responsive classes, and mobile QA covers the rendered
interaction.
- No API, schema, dependency, telemetry, or documentation contract
changes.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with reasoning, repository tools, command
execution, and test execution. The runtime did not expose the exact
deployment ID or context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Repo-only project workspaces are materialized by a server-side
managed `git clone` into a per-project directory (#10720 added
credentials for private repos)
> - Two issues on the same project routinely wake seconds apart, and
both runs race the same clone target
> - The loser fails with "destination path already exists", and its
failure cleanup removes the directory out from under the winner's
in-progress clone — both runs then fail every round
> - This pull request serializes materialization per target directory
and makes the clone land atomically via a temp sibling + rename, so the
shared target is never partial and never removed
> - The benefit is that concurrent runs on the same project converge:
one clone happens, everyone adopts it, and unrelated failures no longer
blame the GitHub credential
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
With isolated workspaces enabled on a project whose only workspace is
repo-only, unblocking two issues at once produced lockstep mutual
destruction (observed live, two consecutive rounds): both runs called
the managed-checkout materialization concurrently; one clone created the
target directory, the other's `git clone` failed with `fatal:
destination path '…' already exists and is not an empty directory`, and
that run's failure cleanup deleted the directory while the first clone
was still writing into it (`fatal: could not set 'core…'`). Both runs
failed `workspace_validation_failed`; their staggered retries could race
again. The failure message also wrongly claimed the GitHub credential
"was rejected or lacks access" — the collision had nothing to do with
auth.
**Expected behavior**
Concurrent materializations of the same project checkout share one
clone; a completed checkout is never removed by a failing sibling; the
credential is only blamed for auth-shaped failures.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Project with a repo-only workspace (private repo, isolated workspaces
on).
2. Move two issues on that project to `todo` at the same time so both
runs start within seconds.
3. Both runs fail workspace validation with "destination path already
exists" / "could not set 'core…'" instead of one clone succeeding.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` (75f6256b76).
## What Changed
- `ensureManagedProjectWorkspace` serializes in-flight materializations
per target cwd (a module-level promise map): concurrent callers share
one attempt.
- The clone lands in a `<target>.clone-XXXXXX` temp sibling created with
`mkdtemp`, then moves into place with an atomic `rename`. Clone failure
removes only the temp directory; the shared target is never created
partially and never deleted. If the target appears between the emptiness
check and the rename (another process won), the completed checkout is
adopted instead of failing the run.
- `describeGitAuthFailure` attributes the GitHub credential only when
the error matches the auth-failure pattern; unrelated failures (path
collisions, network errors) no longer claim the token was rejected.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-managed-clone-credentials.test.ts
src/__tests__/git-credentials.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — 169 tests pass,
including new cases: concurrent materializations of the same checkout
succeed with one shared result and no temp litter; failed clones leave
neither target nor temp directories; an authenticated clone failing for
non-auth reasons does not blame the credential.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — clean.
## Risks
- Low risk. The serialization is in-process and keyed by exact target
path; the temp+rename pattern stays on the same filesystem (sibling
path) so the rename is atomic. Single-run behavior is byte-identical
apart from the temp-dir intermediate.
- The rename-conflict adoption path accepts a checkout another
materialization completed; the pre-existing `gitDirExists` adoption
semantics are unchanged.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code CLI).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - #10719 and #10720 both hardened credential scrubbing for server-side
git operations
> - #10719 defined `scrubGitCredentialText` locally in `heartbeat.ts`;
#10720 imported the identical function from the new `git-credentials.ts`
> - The two merged cleanly textually, but together they leave
`heartbeat.ts` with an import that conflicts with a local declaration
(TS2440)
> - This pull request keeps the `git-credentials.ts` copy as canonical,
drops the heartbeat-local duplicate, and re-exports the import so
existing importers are unchanged
> - The benefit is that master typechecks, builds, and produces Docker
images again
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
After #10719 and #10720 merged, master fails typecheck, the server
build, and both Docker image builds with
`src/services/heartbeat.ts(76,3): error TS2440: Import declaration
conflicts with local declaration of 'scrubGitCredentialText'`. The
canary release run for e0c2448267 failed for the same reason, so no
`@paperclipai/db` canary carrying migrations 0201/0202 can publish.
**Expected behavior**
Master typechecks and builds; one canonical `scrubGitCredentialText`
lives in `git-credentials.ts`.
**Steps to reproduce**
`pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` on e0c2448267.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` (e0c2448267).
## What Changed
- Removed the heartbeat-local `scrubGitCredentialText` definition
(byte-identical to the `git-credentials.ts` copy).
- Re-exported the imported function from `heartbeat.ts` so existing
importers, including `heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`, keep
working.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — clean.
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
src/__tests__/git-credentials.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-managed-clone-credentials.test.ts` — 167 tests
pass.
## Risks
Low risk — deletes one of two identical implementations and preserves
the public import surface via a re-export.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code CLI).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Repo-only project workspaces are materialized by a server-side `git
clone`, and isolated `git_worktree` runs refresh their base ref with
server-side `git fetch`
> - Both operations run outside the agent process with no credentials,
so private GitHub repositories can never be cloned or refreshed —
agent-scoped credential env bindings do not reach them
> - The company secret store already has a well-known GitHub token
convention (`GITHUB_TOKEN` / `GH_TOKEN` / `PAPERCLIP_GITHUB_TOKEN`,
consumed by the external-object provider for API reads), but nothing
server-side consults it for git
> - This pull request resolves that token per run and authenticates the
managed clone and every base-ref refresh with it through an ephemeral
credential helper
> - The benefit is that isolated workspaces work on private repositories
with one company secret, while public repositories and self-hosted
ambient git configuration keep working unchanged
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Server workspace materialization (`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`)
and execution-workspace realization
(`server/src/services/workspace-runtime.ts`).
**Problem or motivation**
A project workspace configured with only a private GitHub `repoUrl`
cannot be used for isolated `git_worktree` runs: the managed `git clone`
runs with a sanitized, credential-less environment, and plain git cannot
consume a bare token env variable without a credential helper. There is
no way to give the server a git credential — storing a `GH_TOKEN`
company secret has no effect on server-side git, and a credential-less
private clone hangs on a terminal prompt until the ten-minute clone
timeout. Base-ref refreshes (`git fetch`) during worktree realization
have the same gap.
**Proposed solution**
A `git-credentials` module resolves a token per run — company secret by
well-known name (`GITHUB_TOKEN`, `GH_TOKEN`, `PAPERCLIP_GITHUB_TOKEN`),
then `GITHUB_TOKEN`/`GH_TOKEN` in the server process environment for
self-hosted deployments, then none — and builds a git invocation that
authenticates via an inline credential helper. The token travels in an
env variable; it never appears in argv, URLs, or on disk. Only
`https://github.com` remotes are authenticated; everything else keeps
ambient behavior. The provider is a single factory seam so a future
brokered credential source can replace it without touching call sites.
**Alternatives considered**
- A GitHub OAuth "connect your account" flow: heavier product surface,
needs app registration and callback custody; out of scope for a server
credential and better served by a dedicated connector later. The
provider seam keeps that path open.
- `gh auth setup-git`: writes helper configuration to disk and requires
a global token env; rejected in favor of per-invocation config with no
persistent state.
- Embedding the token in the clone URL: leaks into argv, error messages,
and `.git/config`; rejected.
## What Changed
- New `server/src/services/git-credentials.ts`:
`createGitRemoteAuthProvider` (memoized per run, one secret resolution
and one audit event), `buildGitAuthInvocation` (helper-reset + inline
helper, `x-access-token` username, `GIT_TERMINAL_PROMPT=0`),
`isGitHubHttpsRemoteUrl` host gating (rejects ssh/GHES/http/other
hosts/userinfo URLs), `describeGitAuthFailure`, and the canonical
`scrubGitCredentialText`. Secret resolutions pass a `system` consumer
access context so they are recorded as secret access events.
- `ensureManagedProjectWorkspace` (now exported) accepts an optional
auth provider; the clone env spreads the token after
`sanitizeRuntimeServiceBaseEnv` (which strips `PAPERCLIP_*`), always
sets `GIT_TERMINAL_PROMPT=0`, distinguishes "credential rejected" from
"no credential configured — add a GITHUB_TOKEN or GH_TOKEN company
secret" in the error, and removes the partially created directory on
clone failure so a timeout-killed clone cannot be adopted as a broken
checkout by the next run.
- `refreshRemoteTrackingBaseRef` (now exported) captures the remote URL
it already looked up, asks the provider for an invocation, and
attributes failed authenticated fetches to the credential in a scrubbed
warning. The optional provider threads through `detectDefaultBranch`,
`resolveAuthoritativeBaseRef`, `inspectExecutionWorkspaceBaseDrift`,
`realizeExecutionWorkspace`, and
`ensurePersistedExecutionWorkspaceAvailable`; heartbeat builds one
provider per run for both the anchor-resolution clone path and workspace
realization/restore.
- `github-external-object-provider.ts` imports the shared secret-name
list; `isGitHubDotCom` is exported from `github-fetch.ts`.
- Docs: "Private repositories and repo-only project workspaces" section
in the execution-workspaces guide, cross-linked from the secrets deploy
doc.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/git-credentials.test.ts` —
resolution chain order and precedence, env fallback, memoization,
audited access context, host-gating matrix, invocation shape (token
absent from argv), scrubber, failure descriptions, and a real-git `git
credential fill` round trip that proves the helper executes and answers
with the env-carried token (no network).
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-managed-clone-credentials.test.ts` — clones
behave byte-identically with no provider or a null-returning provider
(local repos, no network), authenticated-failure errors name the
credential, non-auth failures do not mention credentials, partial clone
directories are removed, pre-existing non-git directories keep the
"Using it as-is" path, and the sanitizer spread order keeps the token
env alive.
- `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`
— new `refreshRemoteTrackingBaseRef` cases: provider offered the remote
URL and null keeps behavior identical; failed authenticated fetch
warning names the credential; unauthenticated failure warning stays
credential-free.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` is clean.
- Manual (optional, networked): store a `GH_TOKEN` company secret,
configure a repo-only project workspace pointing at a private GitHub
repository, run an isolated-workspace issue — the managed clone succeeds
and the worktree run proceeds.
## Risks
- Every new parameter is optional; with no provider the git invocations
are byte-identical to before. Public repos and ambient credential
helpers keep working whenever no token resolves.
- Precedence change when a token exists: a stored company secret now
wins over ambient helpers for `https://github.com` remotes (the helper
list is reset for that invocation). The rejected-credential error names
the secret so an operator can fix or remove it.
- `GIT_TERMINAL_PROMPT=0` on the managed clone is the one always-on
change: a credential-less private clone now fails fast with a clear
message instead of hanging until the ten-minute timeout (it could only
ever "succeed" interactively on a TTY dev server).
- The token is scoped to the git process env for one invocation; it is
never written to agent env, run context, disk, or logs, and error text
is scrubbed of URL userinfo.
- No migrations, no image changes (git ships in the image).
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code CLI).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The board UI is a React SPA served by the paperclip server; the
standard local dev flow is `pnpm dev`, which runs vite in dev mode with
HMR and an unbundled module graph
> - The unbundled dev bundle is hundreds of MB of JS across many
requests, which is fine on a local machine but unusable from a phone or
tablet on slow/lossy links (airplane wifi, mobile data, distant tailnet
peers)
> - Contributors who want to iterate on the board from a mobile device
today have no supported way to preview a small production-shaped bundle
without stopping the dev server and running a one-off `vite preview`
with manual proxy plumbing
> - This pull request adds `pnpm dev:mobile` — build the UI and serve
`ui/dist` via `vite preview` on port 3101, with `/api` proxied to the
running dev server on 3100 — plus `pnpm dev:both` to run both flavors
together
> - The benefit is a supported second flavor of the dev server for
phones/tablets that runs alongside the normal one, without touching the
primary `pnpm dev` flow
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
ui/ — React + Vite board UI
**Problem or motivation**
The vite dev server serves an unbundled module graph, which is fine on
localhost but unusable from a phone or tablet on a slow link.
Contributors testing responsive behavior on mobile devices have no
supported way to serve a small production-shaped SPA against the running
dev API. Running `vite preview` directly does not work either — the
server's board mutation guard checks that the browser's Origin matches
the request Host, and a preview on a second port would fail every
mutation.
**Proposed solution**
Add two root scripts:
- `pnpm dev:mobile` — build `ui/dist` and serve it via `vite preview` on
port 3101, with `/api` proxied to the API server on 3100.
- `pnpm dev:both` — run `pnpm dev` and `pnpm dev:mobile` together in a
single terminal with prefixed output and shared signal handling.
The vite preview config binds `0.0.0.0`, sets `allowedHosts: true` so it
accepts arbitrary hostnames (LAN, tailnet, ngrok, etc.), and the shared
`/api` proxy forwards the client's original Host header as
`x-forwarded-host`. The paperclip server's mutation guard already
prefers `x-forwarded-host` over `host` when computing trusted origins,
so the browser's Origin becomes trusted automatically.
**Alternatives considered**
- Bespoke node proxy script — works but duplicates what vite preview
already does.
- Loosen the mutation guard to accept arbitrary origins — reduces
security for the primary server for the sake of a dev-only workflow.
- Second server config that binds a second port from the paperclip
server itself — much larger change and mixes runtime concerns with a
dev-tooling convenience.
## What Changed
- New `pnpm dev:mobile` script — build UI then run `vite preview` on
port 3101.
- New `pnpm dev:both` script — run `pnpm dev` and `pnpm dev:mobile`
together via `scripts/dev-both.mjs`, which prefixes each child's output,
propagates SIGINT/SIGTERM, and exits when either child exits.
- `ui/vite.config.ts` — add a `preview` block (port 3101, host
`0.0.0.0`, `allowedHosts: true`, shared `/api` proxy).
- New `ui/src/lib/vite-api-proxy.ts` — extracts the `/api` proxy factory
shared by dev and preview, and forwards the client Host as
`x-forwarded-host` (plus `x-forwarded-proto`).
- New unit test `ui/src/lib/vite-api-proxy.test.ts` covering the
header-injection behavior and the pass-through when no Host is present.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/vite-api-proxy.test.ts` — 3 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — clean.
- Manual: ran `vite preview` against an echo listener and confirmed the
request arrives with `x-forwarded-host` set to the client Host header
and `x-forwarded-proto: http`. Then ran `pnpm dev:mobile` against the
live dev server and verified board mutations (mark issue read, resolve
recovery action, run routine) succeed from a second-port browser session
that previously 403'd.
## Risks
Low risk. Changes are limited to dev tooling — no runtime code paths, no
server changes, no schema/migrations. The `apiProxy` refactor is a no-op
behaviorally for the existing dev server (same target, same `ws: true`);
the only new behavior is the two `x-forwarded-*` headers, and the server
side already prefers those headers when trusting origins. `dev:mobile`
and `dev:both` are additive; existing `pnpm dev` is untouched.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context), extended thinking, tool use (bash, file
edits).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue properties panel can show external objects such as GitHub
pull requests.
> - Those objects are resolved by external-object providers and then
displayed as compact status labels.
> - A GitHub pull request could remain in the fallback `unknown` state
and appear as `Not yet resolved`.
> - That label is confusing when the object is known but has not been
refreshed yet.
> - This pull request refreshes due external objects from the heartbeat
scheduler and improves the unknown-status copy.
> - The benefit is a properties panel that moves from pending refresh to
the real pull request state without a manual refresh.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. I searched for related
public issues and pull requests using the terms `Not yet refreshed`,
`external objects refresh`, and `external PR status`, and did not find a
duplicate implementation.
**What happened?**
The issue properties panel could show a GitHub pull request as `Not yet
resolved` even when the referenced pull request was valid. The object
stayed stale unless a manual refresh path ran.
**Expected behavior**
A known external object should show pending-refresh copy while it waits
for provider data. When the scheduler refreshes it, the properties panel
should show the provider status such as open, merged, or closed.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create or view an issue that references a GitHub pull request.
2. Open the issue properties panel.
3. Observe the external object row before a manual refresh has run.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev and self-hosted server.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Access context**
Board view.
**Privacy checklist**
I reviewed this description and did not include logs, credentials,
private URLs, internal issue IDs, or PII.
## What Changed
- Added a heartbeat scheduler tick that refreshes due external objects
for active companies.
- Kept manual external-object refresh behavior on the same service path.
- Changed display copy so known provider objects use liveness labels
such as `Not yet refreshed`, while fresh unknown provider statuses show
`Status unavailable`.
- Added server and UI tests for scheduled refresh and label behavior.
## Verification
- `corepack pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- GitHub PR checks passed on head `0e7fcd30`
- Greptile reported 5/5 on head `0e7fcd30` with no unresolved review
threads
Notes:
- I ran recursive typecheck and build first. Both hit container resource
limits with exit 137 during concurrent package work, so I reran the
affected server and UI targets separately.
- An unrelated workspace-runtime auto-port test fails in this container
with a PID ownership mismatch. It is outside the files changed here.
## Risks
Low to medium risk.
The scheduler does more periodic external-object work, so the main risk
is extra provider refresh load. The implementation bounds the work to
active companies, due non-terminal objects, and 50 objects per company
per tick. The path also stays behind the external-objects experimental
setting.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Codex execution environment, with shell and
GitHub CLI tool use. The runtime did not expose a more specific internal
model ID or context window.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Heartbeat runs prepare an execution workspace for each issue; with
isolated workspaces (or low-trust runs), the `git_worktree` strategy
needs a real git checkout as its base
> - For repo-only project workspaces, the server materializes the
checkout with a managed `git clone`; when that clone fails, the resolver
drops the error and silently falls back to the agent home directory with
`source: "project_primary"`
> - The pre-dispatch guard then reports
`git_worktree_base_not_git_checkout`, which hides the real cause; if the
fallback directory happens to be a git checkout, the run silently builds
worktrees off the wrong repository
> - This pull request records materialization failures on the resolved
workspace, marks the fallback explicitly, and fails the guard with a
truthful `git_worktree_base_materialization_failed` reason that carries
the clone error
> - The benefit is that operators see the real cause (a failed clone) in
the run error, the blocked-issue comment, and the recovery next action,
instead of a misleading symptom
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An issue configured for isolated `git_worktree` execution on a project
whose only workspace is repo-only (a `repoUrl` with no local path) fails
every run with `workspace_validation_failed` and reason
`git_worktree_base_not_git_checkout`, pointing at the agent home
directory. The message does not mention that the managed `git clone` of
the project repository failed (for a private repository the clone can
never succeed without credentials). The recovery flow then blocks the
issue with the same misleading explanation. Run warnings claim "Project
workspace has no local cwd configured" even though the workspace is
configured and the clone failed.
**Expected behavior**
The run failure, the blocked-issue comment, and the recovery next action
should state the real cause: the project workspace checkout could not be
prepared, including the clone error, so the operator can repair the
repository URL, clone access, or configured local cwd. A fallback
directory that happens to be a git checkout must not let the run proceed
against the wrong repository.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a project whose primary workspace has a `repoUrl` pointing at
a private GitHub repository and no local path.
2. Enable the Isolated Workspaces experimental setting (or use a
low-trust run, which forces isolation).
3. Run any issue in that project.
4. The run fails with `git_worktree_base_not_git_checkout` on the agent
home directory; the clone failure appears nowhere.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` (bd86dbe41b).
## What Changed
- `resolveAnchorWorkspaceForRun` collects every failed project-workspace
materialization attempt (previously the error was dropped unless the row
was the preferred workspace) and returns two new fields on
`ResolvedWorkspaceForRun`: `baseCwdFallback` and
`materializationFailures`. The `source` label is unchanged because
session migration keys off `source === "project_primary"`.
- `assertGitWorktreeBaseWorkspaceReady` accepts the anchor facts and
fails with the new reason `git_worktree_base_materialization_failed` —
checked before the git-checkout probe, so a fallback directory that
happens to be a git repo can no longer host worktrees for the wrong
repository. The message carries the first scrubbed clone error and
remediation, and lands in `run.error`, the persisted
`workspaceValidation` payload, and the blocked-issue comment.
- New `scrubGitCredentialText` masks URL userinfo (a `repoUrl` can
legitimately embed credentials today) before errors reach warnings or
persisted payloads.
- Fallback warning assembly moved into the pure helper
`buildAnchorFallbackWorkspaceNotes`; a clone failure now produces
"Failed to prepare the project workspace checkout: …" instead of the
false "no local cwd configured", with the existing warning texts
preserved byte-for-byte when nothing failed to materialize.
- The workspace-validation recovery comment and the recovery service's
next action explain the new reason specifically.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — new cases: the new
reason takes precedence over the git-checkout probe (fallback cwd is a
real git repo), payload carries the scrubbed failures, anchor-absent
legacy behavior unchanged, scrubber unit tests, and warning-assembly
unit tests that pin the existing texts.
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` — recovery surfaces
still pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` is clean.
## Risks
- Additive persisted-payload fields and a new reason string; recovery
reason handling falls through to generic text for unknown reasons, and
no UI consumes the `git_worktree_base_*` strings.
- Intentional behavior change: a repo-only project whose clone fails and
whose agent-home fallback happened to be a git checkout previously ran
in that unrelated repository; it now fails with the truthful reason. A
test locks this.
- Runs without isolated workspaces (the default) never reach the guard;
their fallback behavior is unchanged.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, agentic tool use
via Claude Code CLI).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Inbox helps operators scan issues that need attention.
> - Inbox search can add supplemental sections for archived matches and
other matches.
> - The supplemental search section builder still sent empty sections
into the grouped render path.
> - That made the Archived and Other results dividers appear even when
those sections had no rows.
> - This pull request drops empty supplemental sections before
rendering.
> - The benefit is a cleaner near-empty inbox search view.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this report. Public GitHub search
found no duplicate or related open issues or pull requests for this
inbox search behavior.
**What happened?**
Inbox search could show Archived and Other results divider headers even
when those supplemental sections had no rows.
**Expected behavior**
Empty supplemental search sections should not render divider headers.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the Inbox.
2. Search in a near-empty inbox with no archived matches and no
outside-inbox matches.
3. Observe that empty supplemental divider headers can appear.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source.
## What Changed
- Dropped empty supplemental inbox search sections before they reach the
grouped inbox render path.
- Added a unit regression test for empty Archived and Other results
sections.
- Refreshed the branch against current `master` to clear the merge
conflict.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed.
- Public diff is limited to `ui/src/lib/inbox.ts` and
`ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts`.
- Local focused Vitest could not run in this execution checkout because
dependencies are not installed and `corepack pnpm exec vitest ...`
reports `Command "vitest" not found`.
- Pull request CI is green for typecheck, build, server tests, e2e,
security checks, policy checks, canary dry run, and aggregate verify.
- Greptile Review passed on commit `dc2e224` with confidence score 5/5
and no comments.
## Risks
Low risk. The Inbox change only filters empty supplemental search
sections. Normal inbox sections and non-empty archived or other search
results keep their current behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, reasoning-enabled with terminal tool use and code
execution. The runtime context-window size is not exposed.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [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 codex-local adapter runs Codex agents through the ACP lane and
offers a "Test" button on the agent configuration page to validate the
environment
> - The environment test used its own ad-hoc credential probe, while
real dispatch uses the shared `evaluateCodexCredentialReadiness`
predicate in `codex-home.ts`
> - The two paths disagreed: a user with valid Codex subscription auth
in the shared, server-visible Codex home still saw "No Codex ACP
credentials were detected"
> - The old warning also suggested `codex login` without explaining that
a `/login` in a separate Codex or chat session does not authenticate the
Paperclip server process
> - This pull request makes `testCodexAcpEnvironment` use the same
shared readiness predicate as real dispatch and rewords the warning to
name the server credential boundary
> - The benefit is that the Test button now agrees with what dispatch
will actually do, and the warning tells the user exactly which process
needs the credentials
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Related credential-handling
work, not duplicates: Refs #10160 (classifies OpenAI invalid-key 401s at
dispatch time) and Refs #9598 (classifies Codex refresh auth failures).
Both cover dispatch-time failures; this PR fixes the pre-dispatch
environment test.
Description follows the bug report template:
**What happened?**
A user configured a Codex ACP agent and had already authenticated Codex
(subscription auth present in the shared Codex home visible to the
Paperclip server). Clicking "Test" on the agent configuration page still
reported:
`warn: No Codex ACP credentials were detected. Hint: Set OPENAI_API_KEY
or run codex login before starting a Codex ACP agent.`
**Expected behavior**
The environment test should detect the same credentials that real agent
dispatch would use. When shared managed Codex auth is available, the
test should pass with an informational check instead of warning. When
credentials really are missing, the warning should explain that the
Paperclip server process is the one that needs them.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the Paperclip server as an OS user whose shared Codex home
contains valid subscription `auth.json` (no `OPENAI_API_KEY` in the
adapter env or server env).
2. Configure an agent with the codex-local adapter using the ACP engine.
3. Click "Test" on the agent configuration page.
4. Observe the `codex_acp_credentials_missing` warning even though
dispatch would succeed.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Codex
**Additional context**
The confusion was amplified by the hint: users had run `/login` in a
Codex chat session and assumed the server was authenticated. That login
lives in a different process and home directory, so the server never saw
it.
## What Changed
- `testCodexAcpEnvironment`
(packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.ts) now calls the shared
`evaluateCodexCredentialReadiness` predicate from `codex-home.ts`
instead of a local ad-hoc `hasCodexNativeCredentials` probe, so the Test
button and real dispatch agree.
- An explicit empty `OPENAI_API_KEY` in the adapter config env no longer
falls through to the server environment key.
- An externally managed `CODEX_HOME` override is now reported as its own
informational check (`codex_acp_external_home_configured`).
- The `codex_acp_credentials_missing` warning now says the credentials
must be visible to the Paperclip server, and the hint explains that a
`/login` in a separate Codex or chat session does not authenticate the
server.
- Removed the now-unused `hasCodexNativeCredentials` helper.
- Added two regression tests: shared managed Codex auth is detected (no
false warning), and the missing-credentials warning carries the new
server-boundary wording.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclip/adapter-codex-local test --
src/server/acp.test.ts` — the two new tests cover the shared-home
detection branch and the new warning wording; the existing ACP lane
tests cover the API-key and remote-target branches.
- Manual: with subscription auth in the server-visible shared Codex home
and no `OPENAI_API_KEY`, the agent configuration Test now reports
`codex_acp_native_auth_detected` (info) instead of
`codex_acp_credentials_missing` (warn).
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only affects the environment test path, not
dispatch. The readiness predicate is the same one dispatch already uses,
so drift between the two paths is now structurally prevented.
- Behavioral shift: an explicit empty adapter `OPENAI_API_KEY` no longer
silently falls back to the server env key in the test result. This
matches dispatch behavior and is intentional.
## Model Used
- Implementation authored by OpenAI Codex (gpt-5.5) running through the
Codex ACP lane with tool use.
- PR preparation, rebase onto master, and review fix-up by Anthropic
Claude (Claude Code CLI agent, extended thinking, tool use).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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: Cody <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Inbox and Tasks screens render issues as a vertical list of
`IssueRow` components
> - A recent refactor split `IssueRow` into a root `div` plus a full-row
overlay `Link`, and the divider and hover styles moved onto that overlay
> - As a result every row shows a bottom border and hover greys the text
instead of tinting the background
> - This pull request moves the divider and hover/selected wash back
onto the root row band and keeps only positioning on the overlay
> - The benefit is the list reads cleanly again: no stray dividers, and
hover tints the background behind the text
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Describing the bug in-PR (bug report):
**What happened**
- In the Inbox and Tasks list views, every row shows a 1px bottom
border, including the last row.
- Hovering a row dims/greys the row text instead of showing a background
tint behind the content.
**Expected behavior**
- List rows in Inbox and Tasks show no separator lines by default.
- Hover shows a subtle background tint behind the row content; the text
stays fully legible.
- The blocked inbox view keeps its intentional separators.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the Inbox or Tasks list view.
2. Note the horizontal border under every row, including the last.
3. Hover a row and note the text greys out rather than the background
tinting.
**Root cause**
- PR #10526 restructured `IssueRow` from a single root `Link` into a
root `div` plus a full-row `absolute inset-0` overlay `Link` (to keep
header controls clickable). The divider and hover/selected/checklist
background classes moved onto the overlay `Link`. `last:border-b-0` no
longer matched (the Link is the first child of a multi-child div), and
the hover wash painted on top of the content instead of behind it.
**Paperclip version/commit**
- Base commit: `8b83d69e3` (branched from current `master`).
**Deployment mode**
- UI (web) list views: Inbox and Tasks.
## What Changed
- `ui/src/components/IssueRow.tsx`: moved the divider classes and the
hover/selected/checklist background wash from the overlay `Link` to the
root row `div`, so the tint paints behind the content and
`last:border-b-0` matches the real last row. The overlay `Link` now
keeps only `absolute inset-0` positioning and the focus ring. Renamed
the `hideDivider` prop to an opt-in `showDivider` (default `false`).
Kept `[&_button]:relative [&_button]:z-10` on the root so the Archive
button stays clickable above the overlay, and kept the `isArchiving`
collapse animation on the root row.
- `ui/src/components/IssuesList.tsx`: dropped the old `hideDivider`
usage (dividers are now opt-in).
- `ui/src/pages/Inbox.tsx`: dropped the old `hideDivider` usage.
- `ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.tsx`: added `showDivider` so this
view keeps its separators.
## Verification
- `cd ui && npx tsc -b` — typecheck passes with the change.
- Manual (recommended for reviewer): in the Inbox and Tasks list views,
confirm no per-row bottom border and that the last row has none. Because
dark-mode `--border` is 10% white and near-invisible in screenshots,
assert the computed `border-bottom-width` on a row element rather than
eyeballing pixels.
- Hover a row: text stays legible; a background tint appears behind the
content.
- Inbox: the Archive button appears on hover and is clickable (the
overlay does not swallow the click).
- Blocked inbox view: separators still render.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change relocates existing Tailwind classes between two
elements of the same row and renames one internal prop; no data or API
surface changes. All `IssueRow` call sites were updated in this PR
(verified: no remaining `hideDivider` references).
## Model Used
- Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking with tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] 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
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [ ] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The heartbeat service dispatches agent runs, and issues in a project
can share one project workspace (one working tree on disk).
> - Two runs can execute in the same shared workspace at the same time.
Each run mutates the same uncommitted files and branches, and the runs
corrupt each other's state.
> - Multi-agent projects hit this as soon as two issues in one project
become active together, so the platform needs to serialize
shared-workspace execution instead of relying on luck.
> - This pull request adds a pre-dispatch gate: a run whose issue
targets a busy shared workspace is deferred with a bounded scheduled
retry instead of dispatched.
> - The benefit is that concurrent issue runs in one project take turns
in the shared working tree, while isolated-workspace runs and unrelated
workspaces stay fully parallel.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10645
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`:
- New pre-dispatch gate in the run executor. Before adapter dispatch,
when the run's issue has a `projectWorkspaceId` and the effective
execution workspace mode is `shared_workspace`, the executor looks for a
holder: another `running` run whose context issue shares the same
project workspace. The gate covers every run shape that reaches adapter
dispatch with issue context — assignee execution runs, comment/mention
interaction wakes, and review-participant runs.
- When a holder exists, the run throws `WorkspaceBusyDeferral` instead
of dispatching. The outer catch recognizes the deferral: it cancels the
run with `errorCode: "workspace_busy"` (contention is not a failure),
cancels its wakeup, schedules a retry through the existing
`scheduleBoundedRetryForRun` primitive (`workspace_busy` reason, 60–120
s jittered delay), and returns the agent to idle. The issue execution
lock transfers to the scheduled retry run, so the issue keeps an active
execution path and stranded-issue recovery does not fire.
- An adapter never dispatches alongside a live holder: deferral has no
attempt ceiling, so a deferred run keeps rescheduling until the
workspace frees. Deadlock safety comes from holder liveness, not a
counter — a holder silent past
`ACTIVE_RUN_OUTPUT_SUSPICION_THRESHOLD_MS` (recovery's own "suspicious
silence" bar, 1 h) stops counting as a holder, so a zombie run can only
delay work, never park it forever, and recovery's silent-run escalation
is already reaping it in parallel. If no retry can be scheduled (agent
paused, issue reassigned), the deferral releases the issue execution
lock so the issue does not strand.
- Holder detection honors isolation: when the isolated-workspaces
experiment is enabled, holders whose issue settings select
`isolated_workspace` / `operator_branch` (or the legacy `isolated`
alias) are not counted, because they never touch the shared tree. A NULL
or `agent_default` mode counts as a holder — over-serializing is the
safe direction.
- Non-assignee deferrals survive replay: the deferral stamps
`workspaceBusyDeferredWhileAssignee` into the run context (inherited by
the scheduled retry), and both the retry promotion gate and the
claim-time staleness check exempt a non-assignee `workspace_busy` retry
from the reassignment cancellation — for such a retry an assignee
mismatch is the expected state, not a reassignment race. An assignee
run's retry keeps the full protection: if the issue is reassigned while
the retry pends, it still cancels with `issue_reassigned`.
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` (new):
embedded-Postgres coverage of the full lifecycle plus unit coverage of
the delay window.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 10 tests:
- a run whose issue targets a busy shared workspace is cancelled with
`workspace_busy`, its adapter never executes, a `scheduled_retry` run
exists with the 60–120 s window, the issue execution lock points at the
retry run, the holder run is untouched, and the agent returns to idle;
- after the holder finishes, `promoteDueScheduledRetries` +
`resumeQueuedRuns` execute the retry run to success;
- a non-assignee comment-mention wake defers, does not touch the issue
execution lock, and its retry promotes, survives the claim-time
staleness check, and executes despite the assignee mismatch;
- an assignee retry is still cancelled with `issue_reassigned` when the
issue is reassigned while the retry pends;
- a holder issue with `executionWorkspaceSettings.mode =
"isolated_workspace"` does not cause deferral;
- a running run in a different project workspace does not cause
deferral;
- a holder silent past the staleness threshold does not cause deferral
(the run executes);
- a retry with ten prior deferrals still defers again — never dispatches
— while the holder is live;
- delay jitter stays inside the base-to-base-plus-jitter window and
clamps out-of-range random sources.
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-` — full
heartbeat suite sweep.
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Behavioral shift: shared-workspace runs that used to start immediately
now wait for the workspace to free. Against a long-running live holder
the wait is unbounded by design — the alternative is dispatching into a
held working tree, which is the corruption this PR removes. Every
deferral is visible in the run timeline (lifecycle event with the holder
run, issue, and attempt number), and the wake is parked, never dropped.
- A zombie holder (a `running` row whose process died) delays contending
runs by up to the 1 h staleness threshold before it stops counting.
Recovery's silent-run escalation targets the same run on the same clock,
so this window matches what the system already tolerates for silent
active runs.
- The holder check and the dispatch are not atomic; two runs that pass
the gate in the same instant can still race. The gate closes the common
window (a second run waking while the first is mid-execution); the
pre-existing sync-conflict handling remains the backstop for the rare
simultaneous start.
- No schema change, no API change, no new configuration.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, tool use, full repository access; implementation, tests, and
verification runs.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The decisions service lets agents propose decisions with a TTL, and
a sweep expires them.
> - Four sweep tests create decisions that expire 5 ms in the future,
then race the service's own clock read.
> - On a loaded CI runner more than 5 ms routinely elapse before
validation, so `create` itself rejects the decision and the test fails
on unrelated PRs.
> - This pull request makes the expiry deterministic: create with a
comfortable future TTL, then move `expiresAt` into the past directly in
the store.
> - The benefit is that the decisions suite stops failing intermittently
and stops blocking unrelated PRs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No open issue exists; the defect is described here following the bug
template.
**What happened?**
`decisions-service.test.ts` fails intermittently in CI with `expiresAt
must be within 30 days` in `bounds expiration work to the configured
batch size` and `falls back to the default sweep batch size for invalid
configuration`. The failure hits unrelated PRs — for example the `PR`
workflow runs for #10699 failed three times on this suite while the same
suite passes locally.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` on a
machine under load (or add a ~10 ms delay inside
`decisionService.create` before the expiry validation).
2. The test builds `expiresAt: new Date(Date.now() + 5)`; by the time
`create` validates, `expiresAt.getTime() <= Date.now()` is true.
3. `create` throws `expiresAt must be within 30 days` (the past-expiry
branch of the validator) and the test fails before the sweep runs.
**Expected behavior**
The sweep tests exercise expiry deterministically and never depend on
fewer than 5 ms elapsing between two clock reads in different modules.
**Paperclip version**
master (`717684ad8f`); the tests landed with the decisions desk workflow
in #10672.
**Deployment mode**
Not deployment-specific — CI and local test runs.
## What Changed
- `server/src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts`: added two helpers —
`nearFutureExpiry()` (a 60 s TTL that passes validation with a wide
margin) and `expireDecisionNow(id)` (moves the stored `expiresAt` into
the past). The four affected tests create decisions with the future TTL,
force-expire them through the store, and drop the 10 ms sleeps. The
sweep observes the same expired state as before with no scheduler-timing
dependence.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts`
— five consecutive local runs, 31/31 passing each.
- No production code changed; the diff is test-only.
## Risks
- Low risk: test-only change. The force-expire helper writes the store
directly, which is the same technique other TTL suites use to avoid
sleeping through real time.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, tool use; diagnosis, fix, and verification runs.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents execute in environments — local, SSH, or sandboxes — resolved
at run time as agent environment → instance default → local
> - The Configuration page has a Test button that probes the adapter
(working directory, command, a model call) in the environment it will
run in
> - But the Test sent only the agent's own environment id, with no
instance-default fallback, so agents relying on the instance default
were probed on the Paperclip host instead
> - A sandbox image carrying an extra CLI then fails the Test with
"command not found" even though every real run would resolve to the
sandbox and succeed — the Test lies about a working setup
> - This pull request mirrors the run-time resolution in the Test call
via a small shared helper with tests
> - The benefit is that the Test button reports the truth about where
the agent actually runs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing public issue — inline description following the bug report
template:
**What happened?**
With the instance default environment set to a sandbox (whose image
includes the adapter CLI) and an agent that leaves its environment unset
("use instance default"), the Configuration page's Test fails with
`command not found` for that CLI.
**Expected behavior**
The Test probes the environment a real run would use — here the
instance-default sandbox, where the CLI exists — and passes.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Set the instance default environment to a sandbox whose image carries
an adapter CLI not installed on the Paperclip host (e.g. `grok`).
2. Create a `grok_local` agent without selecting an environment.
3. Press Test on the agent's Configuration page → `command not found`,
while a real heartbeat run resolves to the sandbox and works.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `sha-53bcf38-cloud`-era master; root-caused in
`ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.tsx` (`environmentId =
currentDefaultEnvironmentId || null`) versus the server's
`resolveExecutionWorkspaceEnvironmentId` (agent → instance default →
local).
## What Changed
- New `ui/src/lib/adapter-test-environment.ts`:
`resolveAdapterTestEnvironmentId` — agent environment first, else
instance default, else null (host probe) — documented as the mirror of
the server's run-time resolution.
- `AgentConfigForm` uses it in the Test mutation. The raw agent
environment id is now sent even when it points at the local environment:
the server already resolves the driver and probes the host for local, so
explicit-local behavior is unchanged, and the test-environment route's
remote paths (SSH/sandbox lease + custom-image template) engage exactly
as they do for the fallback environment.
- Tests pin the fallback (agent wins; instance default when agent unset;
null when neither).
Deliberately untouched: the onboarding wizard's adapter test still sends
no environment — during onboarding an instance default frequently
doesn't exist yet, and changing that flow deserves its own look.
## Verification
- `vitest run` on the new helper suite plus both `AgentConfigForm`
suites — 19 tests pass; `tsc` clean in `ui/`.
- Root cause verified against a live deployment: an agent with
`default_environment_id = NULL`, instance default = sandbox environment;
the Test posted `environmentId: null` and probed the host (no `Probing
inside environment: …` check in the result), which lacks the CLI that
the sandbox image carries.
## Risks
- Low. The change only widens which environment the Test probes,
matching run-time reality. Sandbox-backed tests boot a throwaway sandbox
(existing route behavior — lease, custom-image template,
archive-on-release), so Tests for instance-default-sandbox agents now
take sandbox-boot time instead of failing fast and wrongly.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, via Claude Code
with tool use and code execution); diagnosis included live inspection of
a deployed instance's agent/environment configuration.
## 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
(helper doc-comment carries the rationale; no user-facing doc covers the
Test button)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane teams use to manage AI agents and
their reusable capabilities.
> - Skills Manager lets operators discover and import skills from
project workspaces.
> - Automatic discovery only surfaces skills in conventional locations,
so valid skills stored elsewhere in a project are invisible.
> - Operators need a safe way to navigate project folders without
exposing paths outside the selected workspace.
> - This pull request adds company-scoped workspace folder browsing and
selection to the project skill import flow.
> - The benefit is that operators can find and import valid skill
folders regardless of repository layout while preserving workspace
boundaries.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- **Subsystem affected:** Cross-cutting (`server/`, `ui/`, and
`packages/shared`).
- **Problem or motivation:** Project skill imports rely on conventional
directory discovery, which prevents operators from selecting valid
`SKILL.md` folders stored in atypical locations.
- **Proposed solution:** Add a company-scoped browse endpoint and a
folder browser in the import dialog. The server resolves real paths,
rejects traversal outside the workspace, skips symlinks and high-noise
directories, identifies skill directories/files, and caps listings at
250 entries.
- **Alternatives considered:** Expanding the automatic scan to every
directory would be slower and noisier, while accepting arbitrary
filesystem paths would weaken project/workspace scoping.
- **Roadmap alignment:** This extends the completed “Skills Manager,
Skill Studio & Skills Store” capability in `ROADMAP.md` without
duplicating planned core work.
- **Additional context:** GitHub search found no duplicate or closely
related public issues or pull requests.
## What Changed
- Added shared browse request/result contracts and validation for
project workspace navigation.
- Added a company-scoped API route and service that safely lists local
workspace folders and detects `SKILL.md` entries.
- Added project workspace/folder navigation to the import dialog,
including parent navigation, workspace switching, truncation feedback,
and direct skill selection.
- Added service and route regression tests for browsing, skill
detection, company isolation, and traversal rejection.
- Added shared response schemas and OpenAPI documentation for the browse
endpoint.
- Hardened explicit skill selections with realpath containment so
symlinked directories cannot escape the project workspace.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills.test.ts` — 64 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3
tests passed.
- Focused post-review reruns: `company-skills-service.test.ts` — 45
tests passed; shared/server typechecks passed.
- GitHub latest-head checks — all green after one transient e2e rerun;
no pending or failing checks.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean on the rebased head.
## Risks
- Low-to-moderate risk: this adds a filesystem browsing surface.
Realpath containment checks prevent workspace escape, symlinks are
excluded, remote-managed workspaces are rejected, and directory listings
are capped.
- The browser intentionally hides `.git` and `node_modules`; skills
inside those directories cannot be selected through this flow.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.5`, reasoning-enabled with
terminal/tool use and code execution; runtime context-window size is not
exposed.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
— the execution harness requires preserving the assigned branch name.
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — no
user-facing docs changes are needed beyond this PR description because
the flow is self-explanatory UI behavior.
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision
> - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work
> - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle
old work
> - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and
reversible retention
> - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set
> - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts.
**Problem or motivation**
Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick
queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that
does not delete work.
**Proposed solution**
Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging
shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator
keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin
agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed,
exact item manifest.
**Alternatives considered**
Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting
old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk
query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in
`ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation
from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474.
## What Changed
- Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue
page, and aging shelf UI.
- Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides.
- Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent
notification outbox.
- Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query,
and revive actions.
- Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep.
- Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks.
- Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain
source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction
contract.
- Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused
tests, and Storybook screens.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408
files and 3,362 tests passed)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup,
and UI API tests.
- Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal
50-item page boundary.
The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime
because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The
isolated test passes when those two variables are removed.
## Risks
- The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses
idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation.
- Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set
version checks prevent stale archive writes.
- Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity,
version, or the reviewed set changes.
- Archive is reversible and does not delete source records.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used tool calls, code
execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The
context-window size is not exposed in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Mine inbox gives each human user a personal work queue.
> - A human user can complete a task from the board.
> - The status update did not update the user's inbox archive state.
> - The completed task therefore stayed in the user's Mine inbox.
> - This pull request archives the task for the human user who completes
it.
> - Agent completion does not change another user's inbox archive state.
> - The benefit is that manual completion removes the task from Mine
without an extra action or comment.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
When a human user changed a task status to `done`, the task stayed in
that user's Mine inbox.
**Expected behavior**
The status change should archive the task from that user's Mine inbox.
The operation should not add a task comment.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task that appears in Mine.
2. Change the task status to `done`.
3. Return to Mine.
4. Observe that the completed task is still present.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
All deployment modes with a board user and the Mine inbox.
**Access context**
Board (human operator).
## What Changed
- Archive the completed task for the board user who changes its status
to `done`.
- Persist the status update, inbox archive, and archive audit
atomically.
- Publish live and plugin activity only after the owning transaction
commits, including recovery, decision, and approval completion paths.
- Keep agent-driven completion from changing a human user's inbox
archive state.
- Add database-backed regression tests for the archive, audit, Mine
filter, rollback, event publication, recovery, and agent paths.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts` passed all 7 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` passed all 44
tests.
- Five directly affected server test files passed all 74 tests; decision
and comment-route suites passed all 105 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final
fix.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed.
- The initial repo-wide `pnpm test:run` passed 3,223 tests; one
unrelated plugin orchestration wake-reason test failed and reproduced in
isolation.
- All latest-head GitHub Actions gates are green, including all server
and E2E shards.
- Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with no unresolved review
threads.
- Public GitHub search found no duplicate issue or pull request.
## Risks
- Low risk. The behavior only runs on a board user's transition into
`done`.
- Reopening and completing the task again updates the existing per-user
archive row.
- Agent status updates do not archive a human user's inbox.
- Transactional callers must supply a post-commit activity queue;
covered completion paths do so and tests exercise rollback and
publication order.
- This bug fix does not duplicate planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex from the GPT-5 model family assisted with this change. The
runtime does not expose the exact serving model ID or context window.
Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip
API access were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout.
> - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent
needed to run the app.
> - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never
start a service.
> - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat,
operator, and startup recovery flows.
> - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps
worktree creation lean.
> - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same
reliable runtime setup when a service starts.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred
database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end
runtime provisioning and safe cleanup.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and
isolated instance cleanup.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared
workspace contracts, and development scripts.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree
creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after
workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service
starts.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an
idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service
spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes
the isolated instance safely.
**Reason and benefit**
Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running
Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace
startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the
app.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace
behavior is unchanged when it is absent.
## What Changed
- Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an
idempotent runtime provision script.
- Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace,
and persisted workspace contracts.
- Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for
heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows.
- Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the
`workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase.
- Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made
failed attempts visible and retryable.
- Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown.
- Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound
teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata.
- Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior,
readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup.
- Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase
exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent
runtime injects static AWS credentials)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when
non-secret provider config is present'`
- Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after
stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging,
persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion.
- Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization,
stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and
rewritten sibling pointers.
## Risks
- A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip
records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start.
- Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt,
while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes.
A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is
running before removing it.
- Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service
validates ownership and path containment before removal.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and
code execution. The service does not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request CI must give contributors fast and stable feedback.
> - The `general-server` Vitest lane runs many single-worker server
suites.
> - A recent completed PR run showed this lane as the slowest completed
check.
> - Three shards still left one runner with the largest share of work.
> - This pull request splits that lane into four duration-balanced
shards.
> - The benefit is a shorter critical path for the same server test
coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI maintenance change.
**Pre-submission checklist**
- I confirmed this improves existing behavior. It does not add a new
command, endpoint, or concept.
- I searched open public issues and pull requests for related CI
sharding work.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The pull request workflow's `general-server` Vitest lane.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This affects GitHub Actions CI and the Vitest shard
duration manifest.
**Current behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses three shards. The server suites now total
about 880 seconds of serial Vitest wall time. The slowest shard was
about 313 seconds in the measured run.
**Proposed behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses four shards. Each shard receives about
220 seconds of predicted suite weight from the refreshed duration
manifest.
**Reason and benefit**
The slowest PR check controls how soon a reviewer can trust the PR. Four
balanced shards reduce the slowest `general-server` shard while keeping
the same suite selection rules.
**Breaking changes**
None. This only changes CI partitioning and duration data for existing
test suites.
**Additional context**
Related public searches found no exact open issue or pull request for
this `general-server` sharding change.
## What Changed
- Split the `general-server` CI matrix from three shards to four shards.
- Refreshed `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` with wall-time
weights from a recent completed PR run.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Dry-ran the four `general-server` shards locally during
implementation. The partition covers 300 unique suites with about 220.56
seconds of predicted weight per shard.
- Ran a local sensitive-data scan before push. It found only test
filenames that contain words such as `secret` or `token`, not credential
values.
## Risks
Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest becomes stale as
suite costs move. Missing suites fall back to the median weight, so the
lane still runs if the manifest is incomplete.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and local command execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Inbox lists work items by recent activity.
> - An archive changes activity data and can change the computed order.
> - The list can then move rows under the pointer during a fast archive
sequence.
> - The Inbox must keep its shown order while the operator is engaged.
> - This pull request adopts fresh order only at an idle, visibility, or
view-change boundary.
> - The benefit is a stable Inbox that still receives fresh data and new
items.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
The Inbox re-sorts while an operator archives items quickly. An archive
can lower a parent group's activity time. Unrelated rows then move, and
the row under the pointer can change.
**Expected behavior**
Keep the shown order stable while the operator works in the Inbox.
Insert new items at their computed positions. Adopt a fresh order after
an idle period, after a long hidden-tab interval, or when the view
changes.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the Inbox on the Mine tab with several items, including nested
items.
2. Archive several items quickly with the pointer or keyboard.
3. Observe rows move before the archive sequence is complete.
**Deployment mode**
Any deployment. This change affects only the web UI.
**Additional context**
This PR supersedes the closed subset PR #10621. It keeps the full change
in one review.
## What Changed
- Added an order-pin utility for sections, root rows, non-issue items,
and nested children.
- Kept archived rows in place for the existing five-second undo
interval.
- Added an attention-boundary hook for idle, visibility, and view-change
commits.
- Connected pointer, wheel, hover, keyboard, and archive interactions to
the idle boundary.
- Made idle commits repeat while the Inbox stays idle.
- Made view changes adopt the fresh order in the same render.
- Added unit and integration coverage for order pins and attention
boundaries.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/hooks/useInboxSortAttention.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/inboxOrderPin.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 33 tests
passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — 3,429 tests passed, 2 skipped, and 1 unrelated
server test failed. The isolated failure expects `issue_commented` but
current master records `heartbeat.scheduling_suppressed` in
`plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts`.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is client-only and does not change the sort
algorithm.
- A bad pin can show an old order until the next boundary. The tests
cover repeated idle commits and immediate view changes.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool
use, and code execution for the implementation.
- OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5`), reasoning, tool use, and code execution for PR
preparation and verification. The serving snapshot, context-window size,
and hidden reasoning configuration were not exposed.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip creates isolated instances for server-managed git
worktrees.
> - The worktree teardown path removes the git worktree but leaves its
isolated instance directory behind.
> - The leaked directory can retain an embedded PostgreSQL process and
database files.
> - Teardown must remove only the collision-resistant instance assigned
to that exact worktree path.
> - This pull request stops the verified embedded PostgreSQL process and
removes the guarded instance directory.
> - The benefit is complete worktree cleanup without risk to another,
default, or live Paperclip instance.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Closing a server-managed git worktree removed the git worktree and
branch, but it left the isolated Paperclip instance directory behind. A
live embedded PostgreSQL process could also keep running against that
directory.
**Expected behavior**
Worktree teardown must stop the isolated embedded PostgreSQL process and
remove only the instance assigned to that exact worktree. It must refuse
mismatched instance IDs and all paths outside
`PAPERCLIP_WORKTREES_DIR/instances/`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a server-managed git worktree with a repo-local
`.paperclip/.env` file.
2. Start its isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance.
3. Close the execution workspace.
4. Observe that the git worktree is removed but the isolated instance
directory remains.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The bug reproduces on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with a server-managed git worktree and embedded
PostgreSQL.
## What Changed
- Give server-managed worktrees collision-resistant instance IDs derived
from their resolved absolute paths.
- Capture the repo-local instance pointer before custom teardown
commands can remove it.
- Require the pointer's instance ID to match the exact worktree-derived
ID.
- Resolve and validate the instance path against the canonical managed
worktree instance root.
- Verify and stop the matching embedded PostgreSQL process before
directory removal, including process-exit races.
- Record successful and refused cleanup operations in the workspace
operation log.
- Add focused ownership, process-race, path-safety, and runtime
integration tests.
- Document automatic isolated-instance cleanup for server-managed
worktrees.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-instance-cleanup.test.ts` — 9 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "records teardown and cleanup
operations when a recorder is provided"` — 1 test passed and 99 tests
skipped.
- `node scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs` — 4
tests passed.
- `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree.sh` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
## Risks
The main risk is removal of the wrong instance directory. Provisioning
assigns a path-derived ID with a SHA-256 suffix, and cleanup requires
that exact ID in addition to a safe instance identifier, an absolute
configured home, a strict child path, canonical path checks, and a
second canonical path check immediately before removal. It refuses
legacy or mismatched IDs, symlink escapes, and all paths outside the
managed worktree instance root. Cleanup failures become visible warnings
and do not delete an unverified path.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact model
snapshot or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository
tools, GitHub tools, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane for companies of AI
agents.
> - Operators use the attention feed to find decisions that need action.
> - The feed has eleven source kinds, but it has no durable queue or
triage state.
> - The feed also returns every item and lacks decision deadlines,
snooze state, and decision-focused ordering.
> - This pull request adds secure queue sidecars and enriches the
attention feed with triage data, filters, cursor pagination, and
decide-now ranking.
> - The benefit is a bounded feed that can show the most urgent
decisions first without weakening source visibility rules.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request replaces the closed
[#10634](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10634). It
combines that queue foundation with the dependent attention-feed change
as one review unit.
**Subsystem affected**
Database schema, shared contracts, server authorization and REST APIs,
and the UI attention client library.
**Problem or motivation**
The attention feed can contain hundreds of mixed decision items.
Operators cannot group them into durable queues, set a decision
deadline, snooze an item, or request a bounded page ordered by urgency.
The current client must download the full feed on each refresh.
**Proposed solution**
Store queue membership and triage state by stable attention identity.
Re-authorize each source during queue reads and writes. Enrich attention
items with queue, deadline, snooze, expiry, rule, and origin data. Add
activity and queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, decide-focused
ordering, and a decide-now count.
**Alternatives considered**
Adding queue fields to every source would duplicate schema and
authorization logic across eleven source kinds. Client-only filtering
and sorting would still transfer the full feed and would make pagination
unstable.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change improves the core decision-attention surface and operator
oversight. It does not implement the separate general-purpose work queue
milestone in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped queue, membership, triage, and append-only event
tables with actor and run provenance.
- Added queue CRUD, item membership, starter-rule discovery, and
decide-by and snooze endpoints.
- Kept source authorization on each queue mutation, read, and count.
- Added attention fields for expiry, rule, origin agent, queues,
decide-by attribution, and snooze state.
- Added activity date filters, queue filters, opaque cursor pagination,
and configurable page limits.
- Added decide-now ordering by deadline, expiry, severity, and activity.
- Added `decideNowCount` and excluded actively snoozed items from the
default feed.
- Updated the shared and UI client contracts.
- Added focused server, route, OpenAPI, and UI client tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/decision-queues-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/attention.test.ts
ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts` (72 tests passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared
--filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- The migration adds four company-scoped tables and provenance foreign
keys. Migration numbering and safety checks pass.
- Attention reads can lazily create starter queues and memberships.
Inserts are idempotent, audited, and transactional.
- Cursor validity depends on the filtered feed. The API returns a clear
validation error when the cursor item no longer exists in that feed.
- Queue reads re-check source visibility. This favors correct
authorization over fewer queries.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5`. The runtime used agentic reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The runtime did
not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The inbox shows work that a board user owns or has joined
> - Issue detail views update a per-user read receipt
> - The Mine query treated that read receipt as user participation
> - A passive view therefore added the issue to Mine
> - This pull request separates passive reads from audited user
mutations
> - The benefit is a Mine inbox that reflects ownership and real
participation
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Opening an issue detail marks the issue as read. The Mine query treated
the read receipt as participation. The viewed issue then appeared in
Mine even when the user did not change it.
**Expected behavior**
Viewing an issue can update unread state. A view alone must not add the
issue to Mine. Issue creation, assignment, comments, and audited user
mutations must add it.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open an issue that you did not create and that is not assigned to
you.
2. Do not comment or change the issue.
3. Open the Mine inbox.
4. Observe that the issue appears in Mine on the previous
implementation.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`90ead239a8`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev from source.
**Additional context**
Related approach: #3421 changes Mine to an assignee-only filter. This
change keeps participation-based Mine behavior and corrects the
participation signal.
## What Changed
- Use an explicit audited user-mutation allowlist for Mine
participation, including comment cancellation.
- Keep passive reads, previews, denied resource requests, and archive
bookkeeping out of Mine participation.
- Record manual routine reuse as an explicit audited inbox touch instead
of a read receipt.
- Keep that inbox bookkeeping from satisfying routine activity gates.
- Add focused regression coverage for passive views, real mutations,
comment cancellation, and manual routine runs.
- Document the Mine participation contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"does not treat passive issue activity"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t
"touches a (coalesced|skipped active) routine issue|ignores inbox
bookkeeping activity"`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- GitHub latest-head CI: all required checks passed, including build,
typecheck, server suites, and e2e shards.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects only the server query that defines user
participation in Mine and the manual routine touch signal.
- Historical audited user mutations can now qualify an issue for Mine.
Passive read and archive actions remain excluded.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The runtime did not expose the exact
deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents on the same project can share one `shared_workspace` clone,
and each sandbox run reconciles its git history back into it
> - When histories written by different runs genuinely diverge,
reconciliation can hit a real merge conflict — a property of the
*workspace*, not of whichever agent happened to run last
> - That agent nonetheless finalized into a sticky `error` state,
removing a healthy agent from rotation while the workspace stayed broken
— and on a shared workspace this serially knocks out every agent that
touches it
> - This pull request classifies workspace-reconciliation failure
signatures as workspace-scoped, so the run still fails with the full
message but the agent stays invokable
> - The benefit is that one bad workspace state no longer disables
agents one by one
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10645 — this addresses the sticky-agent-error clause of that
issue. Workspace run serialization / per-agent worktrees remain tracked
there (design sketch on the issue).
## What Changed
- New exported `isWorkspaceSyncConflictFailure(message)` matching the
reconciliation failure signatures: `merge-tree` conflict ("Failed to
merge concurrent remote git histories"), integrate-retry exhaustion
("Failed to integrate concurrent remote git history"), and bundle
prerequisite failures ("did not send all necessary objects", "lacks
these prerequisite commits").
- Both run-failure finalization paths (adapter returned a failed result;
adapter threw) pass `keepIdleOnFailure` for these signatures — the same
mechanism already used for provider-quota failures — so the agent
finalizes to `idle` instead of `error`. The run itself still fails and
carries the full message; nothing about run reporting changes.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — new
signature matrix (4 positive signatures, negatives for unrelated adapter
failures and null/empty); 121 tests total.
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Low. The only change is which failure families put the agent into
`error`; behavior for every other failure is untouched. A workspace
stuck in conflict still fails every run against it (visible on the runs
surface) — it just no longer takes agents down with it.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Runs that must push to GitHub have a pre-dispatch credential
preflight (`push_write_credential_missing`) so the missing token
surfaces as a configuration-incomplete blocker instead of a late runtime
failure
> - The preflight only triggers when the issue mentions the GitHub PR
workflow *skill* — routine-created issues and agent-to-agent handoffs
rarely do, even when their text literally says "push the branch and open
a PR"
> - In practice the credential gap then surfaced only after
implementation and review were complete, stranding finished work
> - This pull request adds a conservative, verb-anchored text heuristic
over the issue title and description as a second preflight trigger
> - The benefit is that the credential ask reaches the human before any
work is burned
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10644 (completes the prevention set with #10648, #10650, #10658)
## What Changed
- `issueTextImpliesPrDeliverable(text)`: matches verb-anchored
deliverable statements — "open/create/raise/submit a (draft) pull
request/PR", "push … branch/remote/origin/upstream". Verb anchoring
deliberately ignores passing mentions ("the PR merged yesterday", "PR
feedback addressed").
- `requiresPushCapabilityPreflight` takes the issue's title+description
and ORs the text heuristic with the existing skill-mention trigger;
adapter-type and issue gating are unchanged. The run-dispatch call site
threads the already-loaded issue text — no extra query.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` — new
heuristic matrix (4 positive, 6 negative including null/empty) and
preflight-by-text cases (text triggers, passing mention does not, no
issue → no preflight); 122 tests total.
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- A false positive turns into a configuration-incomplete blocker asking
for a GitHub token on an issue that didn't need one — the heuristic is
intentionally conservative (verb-anchored) to keep that rare, and the
blocker names the exact remediation.
- No behavior change for issues that neither mention the skill nor state
a PR deliverable.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents decompose work by creating child issues assigned to other
agents
> - When two agents each lack a capability the other assumed (e.g.
neither can push to GitHub), each can "resolve" its blocker by
delegating the same step to the other: A creates a child for B, B
creates a grandchild back for A
> - Nothing detects the cycle; the chain of blocked issues grows and no
signal reaches the human who could actually fix the capability gap
> - This pull request refuses agent-initiated child creation when the
child's assignee is the creator of a still-open ancestor in the same
chain — a mechanical, semantics-free cycle signal
> - The benefit is that the hot-potato dies at creation time with an
actionable error instead of growing a dead chain
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10642 (write-time counterpart: #10648 refuses assignment to
paused agents; the credential-gap *preflight* side is tracked separately
in #10644)
## What Changed
- `issueService.findOpenAncestorCreatedByAgent(parentIssueId, agentId,
{maxDepth})`: bounded walk up the parent chain looking for a still-open
(not done/cancelled) ancestor created by the given agent.
- Agent-initiated issue creation with a parent (both the
create-with-`parentId` route and `POST /issues/:id/children`) now
refuses with a structured 409 (`code: delegation_cycle`, naming the
ancestor) when the new child would be assigned to the agent that created
a still-open ancestor: that agent delegated the work into this chain, so
assigning it back is a cycle. The message states the alternatives —
complete the work, leave the child unassigned, or escalate to a board
operator.
- Deliberately unaffected: human actors (deliberate re-routing is their
call), closed ancestors (re-engaging the creator of finished work is
normal), and accepted-plan decomposition (its children come from a
human-approved plan).
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-assignee-invokability-routes.test.ts` — cycle
refused with 409 and no create call; the same child allowed when no open
ancestor matches; board actors never consult the guard.
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — new
embedded-Postgres coverage: ancestor found through the chain, closed
ancestors ignored, depth bound honored (114 total).
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` —
unchanged (79).
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Low-to-moderate: a new 409 for a creation shape that previously
succeeded. The blocked shape (agent assigns new work to the creator of
an open ancestor) is the cycle signature; the legitimate "hand a subtask
to the parent's assignee" pattern is unaffected because it keys on
assignee, not creator. Watchdog and plan-decomposition flows are exempt
or unaffected as described.
- The walk adds at most `maxDepth` (10) single-row lookups per agent
child creation with an assignee.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents escalate work up the org chart (`reports_to`), and operators
pause agents — notably, instance imports pause every agent by default
> - A paused manager does not invalidate the chain (subordinates stay
invokable), so nothing surfaces when an operator unpauses workers but
leaves their manager paused
> - Escalations then dead-letter silently: agent-created issues assigned
to the paused manager sit in a queue nothing will ever run
> - This pull request computes paused ancestors in the existing
org-chain health model and surfaces a non-blocking warning on the agent
read models and detail page
> - The benefit is that the operator learns their escalation paths are
dead before work vanishes into them
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10647 (companion to #10648, which refuses agent-initiated
assignment to paused agents at write time — this PR makes the standing
hazard visible)
## What Changed
- `AgentOrgChainHealth` gains two additive, optional fields:
`pausedAncestors` (paused agents in the `reports_to` chain) and
`escalationWarning` (human-readable, only set when the agent itself can
work — a paused/terminated agent's escalation path is moot). Chain
validity, invokability, and assignability are byte-identical.
- No server route changes needed: the fields flow through every existing
agent read model (list, detail, org chart) since they ride the same
`getAgentWorkEligibility` computation.
- Agent detail page shows an amber "Escalation path is paused" banner
(same visual language as the invalid-chain banner, but non-blocking)
with the warning text naming the paused manager and the two remedies.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run packages/shared/src/agent-eligibility.test.ts` — 5
new cases: paused direct manager warns; paused grandparent through a
healthy manager warns; the agent itself paused → no warning (but
ancestors still reported); fully active chain → no warning, empty list;
terminated ancestor keeps the invalid-chain classification without
double-counting as paused.
- Full `@paperclipai/shared` suite (392 tests) and
`agent-eligibility-routes` (54) unchanged.
- `tsc --noEmit` in shared, server, and ui.
## Risks
- Low. Purely additive fields plus one UI banner; no behavior gates on
the new data.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators can cancel a running agent from the board when a run is
unwanted — most acutely while cleaning up a runaway loop
> - The recovery machinery treats a cancelled run like any other
unsuccessful terminal run: the stranded-issue sweep classifies the issue
as stranded, creates a recovery action, and wakes the agent again
> - So cancelling runs to stop a loop *fed* the loop: each operator
cancel spawned a recovery action that re-woke the agent the operator had
just stopped
> - This pull request stamps board-initiated cancellations with operator
attribution and makes the sweep stand down while such a run is the
issue's latest activity
> - The benefit is that an operator's cancel is final until something
new happens, instead of being fought by automation
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10646
## What Changed
- `POST /heartbeat-runs/:runId/cancel` (board-only) now cancels with an
explicit reason ("Cancelled by a board operator") and stamps
`resultJson.cancelledByActorType: "user"` / `cancelledByUserId`.
- `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues` gains an early stand-down: when the
issue's latest run is operator-cancelled (the new stamp, or the existing
`operator_interrupted` error code from interrupt-by-comment), the issue
is skipped entirely — no recovery action, no wake — and counted in a new
`operatorCancelExempted` result field. The exemption is inherently
self-limiting: any newer run or wake supersedes it because the gate only
looks at the *latest* run.
- System cancellations without operator attribution (lease expiry,
assignee changes, terminal-status cancels, pause holds) keep today's
recovery behavior unchanged.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`
(embedded Postgres) — 3 new cases: a stamped operator cancel produces
zero recovery actions and zero wakes; an `operator_interrupted` cancel
likewise; an unattributed system cancel still flows into pre-existing
recovery (wake observed), proving the stand-down is scoped to operator
attribution.
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-scheduled-retry-routes.test.ts` — unchanged
(109 tests).
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Low. The only suppressed behavior is recovery of runs a human
explicitly cancelled from the board; everything else is byte-identical.
If an operator cancels and walks away, the issue stays quiet until any
new activity — which is the intent (the operator owns the next step).
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server enforces an issue execution policy. It gates status
changes while a review or approval stage is active.
> - A board user could not cancel a task while an agent reviewer held
the active stage. The API returned "Only the active reviewer or approver
can advance the current execution stage".
> - Board users own the board. They must always be able to edit and
cancel any task.
> - This pull request adds a board override to the execution stage
transition. A board cancel clears the pending stage state and proceeds
instead of raising an error.
> - The benefit is that board users can always stop work, even while a
review is pending or the stored stage state has drifted.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Description follows
`bug_report.yml`:
**What happened?**
A board user set a task to `cancelled` while the task had an active
reviewer stage held by an agent. The PATCH failed with "Task Update
Failed... only the assigned approver or reviewer...". The same failure
occurred when the stored stage state had drifted: the server silently
forced the task back to `in_review` instead of honoring the cancel.
**Expected behavior**
A board user can always edit and cancel any task. A board cancel must
clear the pending review stage and apply the requested status.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a task assigned to agent A with agent B configured as reviewer
in the execution policy.
2. Let agent A hand the task off so the review stage becomes active.
3. As the board user, set the task status to Cancelled.
4. The update fails with the reviewer-only error.
Related work: #5487 touches the execution-policy approver UI. It does
not address the board cancel path.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: the issue PATCH route now passes
`allowBoardOverride` when the actor is a board user.
- `server/src/services/issue-execution-policy.ts`: when
`allowBoardOverride` is set and the requested status is not `in_review`
or `in_progress`, the transition clears `executionState` and proceeds.
This applies both while a stage decision is pending and when the stage
state has drifted, so a board cancel is no longer rejected or silently
flipped back to `in_review`.
- Reviewer gating is unchanged for everyone else: a board user who is
the active participant still uses the normal approve / request-changes
flow, and non-participant agents still receive the 422 guard.
- Assignee-only board updates on an `in_review` task keep the stage
state coherent: reassigning to an eligible stage participant re-pends
the stage with them as the current participant, while reassigning to a
non-participant (or unassigning) dissolves the review back to
`in_progress` instead of persisting an `in_review` issue with no
execution state or an ineligible participant.
- New unit tests and route tests cover board cancellation of an active
review stage and of a drifted pending review, plus reviewer swap,
non-participant reassignment, and unassignment during an active review.
## Verification
- In `server/`: `pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 2 files, 73/73
tests pass on top of current `master`.
- In `server/`: `pnpm run typecheck` passes.
## Risks
- Low risk. The override branch runs only for board actors and only for
target statuses other than `in_review` and `in_progress`. Cancelling
clears `executionState`, so a later reopen starts from a fresh stage
state. Agent-facing flows and reviewer gating are unchanged.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, running in
Claude Code (Claude Agent SDK) with extended thinking and agentic tool
use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents can create and assign issues to other agents, and commonly
escalate to their org-chart manager (`reports_to`) when they hit
something outside their authority
> - Issue assignment already refuses terminated and pending-approval
assignees, but accepts paused assignees from any actor
> - A paused agent never runs, so agent-initiated escalations to a
paused manager become invisible dead letters — accepted silently, never
picked up, never surfaced
> - This pull request refuses paused assignees when the assigning actor
is an agent, at the single normalization helper all four assignment
paths flow through
> - The benefit is that agent-routed work can no longer silently vanish
into a paused agent's queue
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10641
## What Changed
- `normalizeIssueAssigneeAgentReference` (used by issue create, both
child-create routes, and issue update) now throws a 409 when an
**agent** actor assigns to a **paused** agent, with a message naming the
alternatives: assign an invokable agent, leave the issue unassigned, or
escalate to a board operator.
- Board/user actors are unchanged and may still assign to paused agents
deliberately — the pause state is visible in the UI, and staging work
for a later unpause is a legitimate workflow. Terminated /
pending-approval / invalid-org-chain refusals are unchanged for all
actors.
- This matches the existing precedent for watchdogs ("Cannot assign
watchdog to an agent that is not invokable") using the same
conflict-error shape.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-assignee-invokability-routes.test.ts` — new
coverage: agent PATCH → paused assignee 409 (no update call), agent
child-create → paused assignee 409 (no create call), agent assignment to
an invokable agent still 200, board assignment to a paused agent still
200.
- Neighboring suites unchanged: `issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes`,
`issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes`,
`issue-create-deduplication-routes`, `issue-watchdogs-routes` (97
tests).
- `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Low. The only behavior change is a new 409 for agent actors assigning
to paused agents — previously a silent dead-letter. Agents that relied
on this (escalation flows) now get an actionable error instead; human
workflows are untouched.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Execution policies let one agent implement and another review,
cycling through changes-requested → addressed rounds
> - Nothing bounds that cycle: no round counter, no escalation, no
termination signal — two agents can ping-pong indefinitely, especially
when the review's success criteria drift to something the implementer
cannot satisfy
> - On a real multi-agent instance this produced 6+ unattended rounds
(~8 runs) that continued even after the human had merged the PR under
review
> - This pull request counts consecutive agent-initiated
changes-requested rounds and, at a configurable cap, hands the
still-pending review to the responsible human instead of bouncing back
to the implementer
> - The benefit is that unattended review loops terminate in a human
decision instead of burning runs forever
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#10643
## What Changed
- `IssueExecutionState.changesRequestedCount` (schema + type, default
0): consecutive agent-initiated changes-requested rounds on the current
stage. Carries through executor resubmissions, resets to 0 on approval,
and resets when a **human** makes the changes-requested decision — the
cap targets unattended agent↔agent ping-pong, never human review.
- `IssueExecutionPolicy.maxReviewRounds` (optional, 1–50, default null →
server default `DEFAULT_MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS = 3`).
- At the cap, the transition records the reviewer's changes-requested
decision as usual but keeps the stage **pending** with the responsible
human (`responsibleUserId`, falling back to `createdByUserId`) as the
participant: the issue is assigned to that human and the pending review
surfaces through the existing attention/review UI. The human then
approves, requests changes (resetting the counter and handing back to
the implementer), or re-scopes.
- The escalated hold is sticky: transitions from anyone other than the
escalated human no longer re-select a configured agent participant for
the stage (which would have silently undone the escalation on the next
unrelated PATCH). The escalated human's own decisions flow through the
normal participant decision branch.
- Issues with no responsible human keep today's hand-back behavior; the
counter still accumulates so operators can see the churn.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`
— 8 new cases: round counting on hand-back, count carried through
resubmission, escalation at the default cap, sticky hold across
unrelated transitions, human changes-requested resets the counter, human
approval completes the stage, no-responsible-human fallback, and a
`maxReviewRounds: 1` policy override.
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` and the full
`@paperclipai/shared` suite (387 tests) — schema additions are backward
compatible (both fields optional with defaults; persisted states without
the counter parse as 0).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec tsc --noEmit` and `cd server
&& pnpm run typecheck`.
## Risks
- Behavior change: an agent-only review loop that previously ran forever
now escalates to a human after 3 agent rounds by default. Instances that
want longer loops can set `maxReviewRounds` per policy. Flows where a
human participates are unaffected (human decisions reset the counter).
- Escalation requires a `responsibleUserId`/`createdByUserId` on the
issue; without one, behavior is unchanged.
- Persisted execution states from before this change parse with
`changesRequestedCount: 0` — no migration needed.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request CI to test changes before merge.
> - The e2e PR lane runs Playwright specs in a shard matrix.
> - Each shard builds a list of spec files for its matrix entry.
> - The workflow passed that list after a literal `--` separator.
> - Playwright did not receive the list as file filters.
> - This pull request removes the separator and adds a guard test.
> - The benefit is that each e2e shard runs only its assigned specs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10629.
**What happened?**
The e2e shard step used `pnpm run test:e2e -- $specs`. The shard spec
list was not applied as Playwright file filters.
**Expected behavior**
Each e2e shard should pass only its selected specs to Playwright.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Inspect `.github/workflows/pr.yml` at the merge commit for #10629.
2. Find the `e2e_shards` command that invokes `pnpm run test:e2e`.
3. See the literal `--` before `$specs`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`86767951`
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions PR CI.
## What Changed
- Removed the literal `--` from the e2e shard `pnpm run test:e2e $specs`
invocation.
- Added a regression test that checks the workflow passes `$specs`
without that separator.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
## Risks
Low risk. This changes one CI command and one workflow guard test. The
main risk is shell argument handling in the workflow, and the guard now
covers the expected command shape.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 through Codex. The run used shell and GitHub CLI tool
access. The runtime did not expose a context window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server posts a workspace-ready comment after it prepares an
execution workspace or runtime service.
> - The full Markdown card uses too much space in the task thread.
> - The existing system-notice presentation can show the same comment as
a compact row.
> - The server must keep the original body for API clients and expanded
details.
> - This pull request adds structured presentation data at both
workspace-ready call sites.
> - The benefit is a quieter thread with no data loss and no migration.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The server posts the workspace-ready task comment after workspace
provisioning and adapter-managed runtime startup.
**Current behavior**
The task thread shows a full Markdown comment with strategy, branch,
working directory, services, and warnings. Long branch names can make
this card dominate the thread.
**Proposed behavior**
Show the comment as a compact system-notice row. Expand the row in place
to show the original Markdown body and structured workspace, service,
and warning details. Use a warning tone and open the details by default
when warnings exist.
**Reason and benefit**
The same workspace data is available in the task properties. The compact
row keeps the thread easy to scan while it preserves the full comment
for API consumers and expanded inspection.
**Breaking changes**
None. The comment body stays unchanged. Existing comments without
presentation data keep their current rendering.
## What Changed
- Added workspace-ready presentation and metadata builders.
- Added structured workspace, service, reuse, and warning details.
- Wired both workspace-ready comment paths to send presentation and
metadata options.
- Added focused unit and heartbeat-level tests.
Collapsed notice:
Expanded notice:
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/workspace-runtime-ready-comment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-ready-comment.test.ts` — 8
tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — 300 server files and 405 UI files passed. One
unrelated CLI AWS doctor test detected static credentials from the
runner environment. The same test passed with `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and
`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` removed.
- Built the existing system-notice Storybook story and captured both
compact and expanded states.
- GitHub CI — all latest-head gates passed. One signoff-policy e2e shard
hit a transient checkout-state race and passed on its single rerun.
## Risks
Low risk. This change only adds optional comment presentation data in
two server paths. The body, database schema, API contract, and old
comments remain unchanged. Incorrect metadata would affect only expanded
structured details; focused tests cover the shape and both warning
states.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 (`gpt-5`, the exact snapshot and context-window
size are not exposed by this runtime). The agent used reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and visual inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pull request workflow protects changes with a Playwright e2e
lane.
> - That lane already uses a weighted file partition so slow specs do
not cluster by test count.
> - Recent green PR runs showed the two e2e shard jobs were slower than
the next slow required lane.
> - The largest spec is indivisible, so a third shard lets that spec run
alone and lets the rest split by duration.
> - This pull request changes only the PR e2e shard matrix and the guard
test.
> - The benefit is a shorter expected PR critical path while the
required `e2e` aggregate check name stays stable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9923
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `pull_request` workflow Playwright e2e lane.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: GitHub Actions CI and test scripts.
**Current behavior**
The PR workflow runs the weighted Playwright e2e partition across two
jobs. Recent green runs showed those jobs as the slowest required
checks.
**Proposed behavior**
The PR workflow runs the same e2e spec set across three weighted jobs.
The aggregate required check stays named `e2e`.
**Reason and benefit**
The third shard lets the slow smoke-lab spec run alone while the rest of
the catalog stays balanced. This should shorten the PR critical path.
The win is bounded by fixed per-job setup time.
**Breaking changes**
None. The required aggregate check contract is preserved.
## What Changed
- Change the PR e2e shard matrix from two entries to three entries.
- Update the shard guard test to expect three shards.
- Floor the balance bound at the largest single spec weight.
- Assert that the workflow does not define more shard indexes than
`SHARD_COUNT`.
## Verification
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` passes with 6
tests.
- The recorded-weight partition is complete and non-overlapping: 168.0s,
116.5s, and 114.4s.
- I checked `ROADMAP.md` and found no overlapping roadmap-level core
feature.
- I searched public GitHub PRs and issues for related e2e shard work. I
found related PR #9923 and no open duplicate for this branch or change.
## Risks
- This adds one extra GitHub Actions runner to the PR e2e lane.
- The wall-clock win is bounded by fixed per-job setup.
- Behavior risk is low because the aggregate required check remains
named `e2e`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-enabled coding agent in this repository. The
runtime did not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Cody <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The heartbeat service is the control plane that runs agents through
adapters and records each run's usage and cost in the finance/cost
ledger
> - Adapters report a provider cost (`costUsd`), but there is no way to
represent the provider-billed cost *after* prompt-cache discounts, so
cache-heavy runs are priced wrong and some paid runs end up exported
with a zero/null cost
> - A benchmark comparing Paperclip-orchestrated runs against direct
harness invocation of the same tasks measured 1.5–3.1× higher apparent
USD per pair, largely because cache-discounted billing was not
represented in the exported cost data
> - This pull request adds an optional `cacheAdjustedCostUsd` field to
`AdapterExecutionResult` and a `resolveCacheAdjustedCostUsd` helper in
the heartbeat service that prefers the explicit cache-adjusted figure
and falls back to the reported `costUsd`, persisting it into the run's
usage/ledger JSON
> - The benefit is that paid runs are no longer exported as zero/null
cost and cache-heavy runs can be priced correctly, so operators
comparing orchestrated vs. direct costs see real numbers
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No single existing public issue covers this exactly; closely related
cost-reporting issues:
- Refs #8947 — hermes adapter never reports usage/cost to Paperclip, so
budget limits never trigger
- Refs #6716 — hermes_local cost/usage capture returns zero
- Refs #3320 — expose per-run token counts in activity log and dashboard
**Problem (feature-request form):** Adapters can only report a single
`costUsd`. Providers with prompt caching bill less than the nominal
token cost, and the heartbeat cost accounting has no field for the
cache-adjusted billed amount. As a result, cache-heavy paid runs are
either priced at the undiscounted figure or, when the adapter withholds
the ambiguous number, exported as zero/null. **Proposed solution:** an
explicit optional `cacheAdjustedCostUsd` on the adapter execution
result, resolved server-side with a safe fallback to `costUsd`.
**Alternatives considered:** recomputing cache discounts server-side
from token counts (rejected: provider pricing tables drift and cache
billing rules are provider-specific; the adapter is the source of
truth).
## What Changed
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/types.ts`: added optional
`cacheAdjustedCostUsd?: number | null` to `AdapterExecutionResult`, with
a doc comment on adapter expectations
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: added exported
`resolveCacheAdjustedCostUsd()` (explicit cache-adjusted value wins when
a finite non-negative number; otherwise falls back to a finite
non-negative `costUsd`; otherwise `null`), and consistently uses the
resolved billed value for ledger cents, cost status, and run usage JSON
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts`: added unit
coverage for explicit precedence, fallback, invalid values,
adjusted-only pricing, and discounted ledger billing
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts` — 1 file, 7
tests passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed
- GitHub Actions on head `dc9c3830bf694b9afb3b27c5c8c36bff38e7fdcb` —
all 26 checks clean/skipped; one unrelated E2E checkout-contention flake
passed on its single failed-job rerun
- Greptile review on the same head — 5/5 with zero unresolved threads
## Risks
- Low risk: the field is optional and additive; when absent, behavior
falls back to the existing `costUsd` path
- Ledger/usage JSON gains a new optional `cacheAdjustedCostUsd` key —
consumers that strictly validate keys would need to tolerate it (usage
JSON is already open-shaped)
- No migrations, no API-breaking changes
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Implementation: Anthropic Claude Fable 5, model ID `claude-fable-5`,
standard context window, agentic coding mode with shell/file tool use
- PR preparation and verification: OpenAI Codex on GPT-5 (the runtime
did not expose a more specific serving snapshot or context-window
value), reasoning mode with shell and GitHub tool use
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (doc
comment on the new field; no user-facing docs affected)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators spend most of their time on the issue detail page. They
talk to the assigned agent there through comments.
> - The current page reads as a ticket form. The thread sits below
properties, the composer sits mid-page, and live agent activity renders
as dense transcript logs.
> - Talking to an agent is a conversation. A chat-first layout matches
that mental model better than a ticket form.
> - A layout change this large must not disrupt current users. It needs
a safe opt-in path and full parity with the existing thread features.
> - This pull request adds a chat-style task view behind a new
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle. The flag is off by default and the
existing page is unchanged when it is off.
> - The benefit is a focused, readable conversation with the agent: live
tool activity folds into compact summaries, the composer stays at the
bottom, and properties, plan, and artifacts move into header tabs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #49 (chat with agents is a much-wanted feature).
Related PRs found in the dedup search:
- #4489 — an earlier, closed attempt to promote the conversation to the
primary surface on issue detail. This PR is a fresh, flag-gated take on
the same goal.
- #8837 — an open PR that proposes a two-column task layout. It
restructures the same page but keeps the ticket paradigm; this PR is
orthogonal because it is opt-in and chat-first.
**Subsystem affected**
UI (issue detail page).
**Problem or motivation**
The issue detail page presents agent conversations as a ticket:
properties first, thread below, composer in the middle of the page, and
raw transcript noise during live runs. Users who mainly converse with
their agents must scroll past chrome to follow the conversation, and
live activity is hard to read.
**Proposed solution**
An opt-in chat-style view of the issue detail page, gated by a new
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle in Settings → Experimental. With
the flag on, the thread fills the center pane, the composer docks to the
bottom of the viewport, Properties / Plan / Artifacts become header
tabs, live turns show a status pill with the current tool action and
elapsed time, and settled turns collapse to a "Worked · N tools" summary
that expands into per-tool rows. With the flag off, nothing changes.
**Alternatives considered**
Restyling the existing layout in place (rejected: too disruptive without
an opt-out), and a separate chat page beside the issue page (rejected:
splits the task's single source of truth). A per-request lab page
(`/task-chat-lab`, dev-only) was kept for design iteration instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
ROADMAP.md "CEO Chat" wants lighter conversations that still resolve to
real work objects. This PR keeps the core task-and-comments model — it
only changes presentation, opt-in — so it does not duplicate that
planned work.
## What Changed
- New `enableTaskChatRedesign` instance setting, exposed as a
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment card in Settings → Experimental (shared
feature catalog, validators, server instance-settings service, and UI
settings page).
- New `ui/src/components/task-chat/` component family: chat thread with
turn grouping, agent reply bubbles, live status pill, collapsible turn
summaries with per-tool rows, plan tab with a sticky CTA action bar,
inline interaction cards, per-request mode chips, and a bottom-docked
composer.
- A shared tool taxonomy (`tool-taxonomy.ts`) maps tool names to verbs
and icons; the status pill, tool rows, and the classic transcript view
all use it.
- A transcript adapter converts stored run logs into chat turns; it
dedupes tool-call updates by `toolUseId` so tool counts match the
expanded rows, and it keeps a tool row's first real name when later
generic updates arrive.
- Composer: posts on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter, supports image paste with
object-URL thumbnail previews (revoked on clear/unmount), and uploads
through the issue attachments route.
- `IssueDetail.tsx`: with the flag on, pane tabs move to the header bar,
the header is not sticky, and the chat fills the center; with the flag
off, the previous layout renders unchanged.
- Motion tokens for the new animations live in `ui/src/index.css` with a
`motion-tokens.ts` catalog and a test that keeps the two in sync (the
catalog now also covers the shared enter/exit/swap tokens that the
decision/quicklook block declares).
- A dev-only `/task-chat-lab` page with fixtures and a tweak panel for
motion tuning.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean across the workspace.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN.
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` — 3,344 of 3,345 tests pass locally. The
one failure is `IssueProperties.test.tsx` monitor-row time formatting,
which is timezone-sensitive: it also fails on unmodified `origin/master`
in a non-UTC timezone and passes with `TZ=UTC`. It is not related to
this change.
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — 21/21 pass (covers
the new setting).
- Manual: start the dev server, open Settings → Experimental, enable
"Chat-Style Tasks", and open any issue. The thread fills the page, the
composer docks to the bottom, and Properties / Plan / Artifacts appear
as header tabs. Assign an agent and comment to watch a live run: the
status pill shows the current tool action with elapsed time, and the
finished turn folds into a "Worked · N tools" summary. Disable the
toggle and confirm the classic page is unchanged.
- Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated: per
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`, "Per-change snapshot verification
demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)".
## Risks
- The flag-off path goes through the same `IssueDetail.tsx` file, so a
regression there would affect current users. Mitigation: the classic
markup renders through the same components as before behind explicit
flag conditionals, and the full UI suite passes.
- The transcript adapter interprets stored run-log formats, including
legacy entries without `toolUseId`. Malformed logs degrade to generic
tool rows rather than crashing.
- The new view changes no server behavior other than one additive
instance setting; it is additive and default-off. Overall risk with the
flag off is low.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5),
extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file editing, shell, test
execution) via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - An agent that runs in a sandbox has its workspace copied back to the
host when the run ends, so its work persists — the copy-back ships a git
bundle of the sandbox's commits
> - The bundle is created as a thin delta, `git bundle create HEAD --not
<baseSha>`, which records `baseSha` (the host workspace HEAD captured at
export) as a prerequisite the host must already hold
> - That assumption breaks when the sandbox HEAD has diverged from
`baseSha`, or when a shared host workspace no longer holds `baseSha` at
import time — then `git fetch` on the host hard-fails and the entire run
is lost even though the agent finished its work
> - This pull request bundles against the merge-base of `baseSha` and
the sandbox HEAD (with a full-bundle fallback), which the host can
satisfy in those cases
> - The benefit is that copy-back no longer discards a completed run's
work over a base the host can't reconcile
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A sandbox agent run completed its work, then failed during workspace
finalize:
```
git -C <host workspace> fetch --force <git-delta.bundle> refs/…/export:refs/…/imported
error: Could not read <baseSha>
fatal: revision walk setup failed
error: git-delta.bundle did not send all necessary objects
```
The run is reported as `adapter_failed` even though the agent produced
output. The copy-back bundle names the host workspace's recorded HEAD
(`baseSha`) as a prerequisite, but the host cannot satisfy it.
**Steps to reproduce**
Two independent triggers, both reproduced in tests:
1. The sandbox's HEAD has diverged from `baseSha` — e.g. the sandbox
carries a local-only branch that forked from an older commit than the
host's current HEAD.
2. The shared host workspace no longer holds `baseSha` at import time
(it was reset / re-realized between export and import).
In either case `git fetch` of the thin bundle fails with a missing
prerequisite.
**Expected behavior**
Copy-back imports the sandbox's work as long as the host holds any
common ancestor, instead of hard-failing and discarding the run.
**Paperclip version**
Current `master`.
**Deployment mode**
Any deployment running agents in sandbox environments with workspace
sync (notably shared-workspace clones and custom images that carry a
local-ahead branch).
## What Changed
- `buildRemoteGitDeltaBundleScript` now computes `bundle_base = git
merge-base <baseSha> HEAD` and bundles `HEAD --not <bundle_base>`. The
merge-base is an ancestor of `baseSha`, so any host that holds `baseSha`
(or an ancestor of it — e.g. after a reset) can satisfy the
prerequisite, and the bundle stays a delta rather than a full-history
transfer.
- When `baseSha` is absent from the sandbox, or no merge-base exists, it
falls back to a full, self-contained bundle (no prerequisites) so the
import can always complete.
- The existing empty-bundle no-op (no new commits) and the ordinary
fast-forward path are unchanged; the `cat-file` base check no longer
aborts the script under `set -e`.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts` — new cases:
a diverged sandbox HEAD imports when the host holds only the merge-base
(not `baseSha`), and the full-bundle fallback imports into a host that
shares no history; existing thin-delta and empty-bundle cases still
pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit`.
- Standalone shell repro confirmed the old thin bundle fails with
"Repository lacks these prerequisite commits" in both trigger cases, and
the merge-base bundle imports successfully.
## Risks
- Low. For the common case (sandbox HEAD descends from `baseSha`) the
merge-base is `baseSha`, so the bundle is byte-for-byte the same delta
as before. The change only alters behavior when the old code would have
hard-failed.
- This makes the copy-back import succeed on a diverged base; the
subsequent reconciliation of divergent histories
(`integrateImportedGitHead`) is unchanged and still owns how the
imported head is merged into the host branch. Where a workspace's
history has genuinely diverged (e.g. a stale custom image carrying a
local-only branch), a clean re-clone/re-capture is still the right
operational fix — this change prevents work loss, it does not reconcile
intentional divergence.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended
thinking, agentic tool use (file edits, shell repro, vitest/tsc runs).
No other models involved.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server signs decision specifications with an HMAC
> - PR #10010 made `PAPERCLIP_DECISION_SIGNING_SECRET` a hard startup
requirement
> - Existing installs do not have this new environment variable
> - Those installs now stop during startup
> - This pull request uses a secure persisted instance key when the
override is absent
> - The benefit is that existing installs start without new
configuration and decision signing remains fail-closed
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
After #10010, `startServer()` throws when
`PAPERCLIP_DECISION_SIGNING_SECRET` is unset or shorter than 32
characters. Existing installs without the new environment variable stop
at startup.
**Expected behavior**
The server starts without manual configuration. A new optional feature
must not add a required environment variable for existing installs.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Check out `master` at 9c1f8e7887.
2. Unset `PAPERCLIP_DECISION_SIGNING_SECRET`.
3. Start the server.
4. Observe that startup stops with a missing-secret error.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at 9c1f8e7887.
**Deployment mode**
All deployment modes are affected when the environment variable is
absent.
## What Changed
- Treat `PAPERCLIP_DECISION_SIGNING_SECRET` as an optional override.
- Generate a random per-instance key at
`<instance>/secrets/decision-signing.key` when the override is absent.
- Publish a complete first-time key with an atomic no-overwrite link so
concurrent server starts use one key.
- Repair permissive modes on process-owned secrets directories and
regular key files, reject planted symlinks or foreign-owned paths, and
fail startup if `0700`/`0600` cannot be enforced.
- Keep an explicitly configured secret shorter than 32 characters as a
startup error.
- Add startup, permission, planted-symlink, fail-closed verification,
and generated-key round-trip tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — 45 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` — passed.
- Eight simultaneous resolver processes returned the same persisted key.
The secrets directory/key modes were `0700`/`0600`.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
## Risks
- Existing configured secrets remain unchanged.
- Removing a configured secret after a proposal makes the prior
signature fail verification. Restoring the secret restores verification.
- A restored secrets directory or key with unsafe permissions now fails
startup when the server cannot repair it to `0700`/`0600`; symlinks and
paths owned by another local user are rejected rather than trusted.
- The generated key uses an atomic hard link in the instance secrets
directory. An unsupported file system fails startup instead of replacing
an existing key.
- Existing installs that failed at startup did not sign decisions with a
missing key.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Fable 5, model ID `claude-fable-5`, produced the
initial implementation with extended reasoning and tool use.
- OpenAI Codex, model ID `gpt-5`, addressed review findings and prepared
the PR with reasoning, repository editing, code execution, and GitHub
tooling. The runtime did not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server can preserve eligible agent runs during a controlled hot
restart.
> - A path change moved restart state from the Paperclip home root to
the instance root.
> - A staged update can therefore make the old server and the new server
read different intent files.
> - The old server then drains live runs, while the new server can start
without a shutdown snapshot.
> - This pull request adds a correlated compatibility handoff and
records the live preflight set.
> - It also verifies the target process instance on Linux, macOS, and
Windows.
> - The benefit is complete and safe run classification across the path
upgrade.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue covers this defect.
**What happened?**
A staged hot restart can run an older server that reads
`hot-restart-intent.json` from the Paperclip home root and a new server
that writes the file under the instance root. The old server misses the
request and uses graceful drain. The new server later finds its marker
without a shutdown snapshot. Before this change, that state could
produce an empty loss list even when live runs existed before restart.
**Expected behavior**
The old server must receive the PID-targeted restart request at its
legacy path. The new server must correlate the legacy shutdown snapshot
with its instance-scoped request. Every run that was live during
preflight must appear as adopted, finalized while down, or lost. A
reused PID must not let a stale marker claim a different process
instance.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a server version from before the instance-root marker change.
2. Keep one or more local-agent heartbeat runs active.
3. Stage a current build and request a hot restart from that build.
4. Observe that the old server reads only the home-root path while the
staged build writes only the instance-root path.
5. Observe graceful drain and a new-server intent that has no shutdown
snapshot.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The path transition entered `master` in #10045. The hot-restart adoption
flow came from #9647. This fix targets current `master` and
compatibility with the immediately preceding home-root behavior.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server built from source with controlled service hot
restarts.
Related work: #9628 is the original broader hot-restart feature PR.
#10556 addresses embedded PostgreSQL lifecycle behavior and does not
address marker-path compatibility.
## What Changed
- Write an authoritative instance-scoped intent and a correlated legacy
home-root handoff marker.
- Merge a legacy shutdown snapshot only when immutable request identity
fields match.
- Prevent a non-default instance from consuming an uncorrelated
legacy-only marker.
- Record preflight running heartbeat IDs and reconcile snapshot
omissions from current database state.
- Serialize marker claims, snapshot writes, stale recovery, and matching
cleanup with recoverable per-path filesystem leases.
- Read process start identity on Linux, macOS, and Windows to
distinguish a reused PID from the original server.
- Require identity for new restart requests and fail closed when a
supported platform cannot provide it.
- Classify older markers by comparing the replacement server boot time
or operating-system process start time with the request time.
- Close the preflight database client explicitly and use a root-safe SQL
query.
- Add focused unit, platform-branch, database-backed, and CI regression
coverage.
- Document the compatibility handoff, process identity probes, and
instance-scoped report path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/hot-restart.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t
"hot-restart|old-server legacy|preflight live|preflight run|spawn
identity before hot restart"` — 24 tests passed and 90 tests were
skipped across 2 files.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/hot-restart.test.ts` — 17
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-watchdogs-routes.test.ts -t "restarts a
stalled claimed run"` — 1 test passed and 10 tests were skipped.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts -t "allows an
agent with issue:delegate"` — 1 test passed and 7 tests were skipped.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- GitHub Actions — 26 of 26 checks passed at
`55a79cb029be8b1dc89926d9d89ccd2181266d5c`.
- Greptile — 5/5 at the same head with no unresolved current-head review
threads.
## Risks
- The legacy handoff path is shared across instances. Exclusive claims
and per-path leases prevent overwrite and match-before-delete races.
- Process identity uses platform commands as a fallback when the health
endpoint has no identity. Linux reads `/proc`, macOS and BSD use `ps`,
and Windows uses PowerShell.
- A supported-platform identity probe failure aborts the restart. This
fails closed instead of replacing an unknown live process.
- Older intent files do not contain process identity. The server
compares the replacement boot or process start time with the request
time when those values are available.
- A preflight database read can fail before the marker is written. The
command fails closed instead of claiming a restart whose live-run set is
unknown.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment model ID and
context-window size were not exposed by this runtime. Reasoning,
repository editing, shell execution, test execution, GitHub CLI, and
Paperclip API capabilities were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
github-actions[bot]
Dotta
scotttong
Nicky Leach
Devin Foley
