## 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>
<!-- 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 control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Execution semantics define when work may stop, how child work
reports upward, and how watchdog recovery proves liveness was restored.
> - The existing docs did not require a routable waiting path before
entering `blocked`, leaving permission-denial and review workflows
vulnerable to dead ends.
> - Child-to-parent reporting and low-trust review delegation also
needed explicit channels and ownership boundaries.
> - Watchdog recovery needed bounded restoration verification rather
than treating a recovery write as proof of restored progress.
> - The security-sensitive defaults were reviewed and approved before
publication.
> - This pull request documents those contracts and synchronizes the
bundled Paperclip skills that operationalize them.
> - The benefit is clearer stop conditions, safer reporting defaults,
and bounded watchdog recovery without sacrificing liveness.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue exists for this execution-semantics
documentation phase, so the problem and solution are described here in
full.
- Problem: `blocked` could be entered without a routable owner/action
path, review findings could be reported on the wrong issue or treated as
blockers, and watchdog recovery lacked bounded verification of restored
liveness.
## What Changed
- Require a routable waiting path for `blocked` and clarify that
permission denial alone is not a blocker.
- Define canonical child-to-parent completion/report channels,
review-delegation ownership, and the sanctioned courier pattern.
- Specify atomic watchdog recovery batches, fingerprint validation,
bounded restoration attempts, and human escalation.
- Document the low-trust preset default for report comments and align
both bundled Paperclip skills.
## Scope and Sequencing
- This is the contract-first P1 documentation PR. Runtime enforcement is
intentionally excluded and follows in the separately owned
implementation phases; these docs define the acceptance contract those
phases must satisfy.
- The five-file patch is approved and frozen for this PR, so review
findings about absent runtime support are tracked as
implementation-phase requirements rather than edits to this docs-only
change.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Confirmed the PR diff is exactly 5 approved docs/skill files with 91
insertions and 1 deletion.
- Confirmed the patch preserves the approved execution-semantics
contract after replay on latest `origin/master`.
## Risks
- Low implementation risk: documentation and skill guidance only; no
runtime code, schema, migration, dependency, lockfile, or workflow
changes.
- Semantic risk is limited to readers or agents applying the clarified
contracts; the security-sensitive R1a default was approved before
publication.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (exact underlying model ID and
context-window size are not exposed by this runtime), with reasoning,
terminal tool use, Git/GitHub operations, 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 private URLs or internal issue identifiers
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run the applicable docs-only checks locally and they pass
- [x] Tests are not applicable because this is a
docs/skill-guidance-only change
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must
not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status
> - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the
action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully
attributable
> - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and
#9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow
guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together
> - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior
harder to review and land as one coherent capability
> - This pull request consolidates the remaining server,
shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current
master
> - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely
archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that
behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server
authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI.
### Problem or motivation
Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's
Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the
agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run
attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed
for safe agent-managed cleanup.
### Proposed solution
Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox
items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve
actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose
policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document
conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening.
### Alternatives considered
- Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state
belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization.
- Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because
completion signals can still require human review or a decision.
- Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this
consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed
and verified together.
### Related work
- Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658.
- Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661.
- `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization
initiative.
## What Changed
- Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus
company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage.
- Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user
targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency,
and detailed activity auditing.
- Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented
reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and
Paperclip skill.
- Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub
access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human
action.
- Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties
attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane
handling.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed.
- `node --test
.agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the
repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing
`#9627` literals outside this PR's diff.
## Risks
- Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so
authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused
route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths.
- Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation
and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or
visibility.
- The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist
and disabled modes can reduce agent access.
- This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new
migration number or modification to an already-applied migration.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use,
shell execution, code review, 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
(`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) 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
> - The `/pr-gardening` skill drives a bundled agent that scans a
company's issues for those linked to open GitHub PRs, then reports on
their state; it relies on the server's company-search **extract**
endpoint to pull PR references out of issue bodies
> - Two gaps surfaced during end-to-end QA of the gardening workflow:
the extract service silently ignored a per-issue match cap, so callers
could not bound how many matches came back per issue, and the skill's
candidate-discovery scripts fell over on large repos and on issues that
referenced deleted PRs
> - Left unaddressed, the gardener either truncated its scan
unpredictably or aborted outright, so it could not reliably enumerate PR
candidates
> - This pull request honors an explicit `matchesPerIssue` limit in the
extract search API and hardens the skill's candidate discovery against
missing/unavailable PRs and oversized `gh` output
> - The benefit is a PR-gardening workflow that scans deterministically
and finishes cleanly on real-world companies
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing public GitHub issue — describing the bug in-PR following
the bug report template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`).
### What happened?
The company-search extract endpoint accepted a per-issue match limit but
did not apply it, returning matches capped only by the old hardcoded
constant regardless of the caller's request. Separately, the
`/pr-gardening` skill's candidate-discovery scripts crashed when a
scanned issue referenced a deleted PR (GitHub `Not Found (HTTP 404)` /
GraphQL `Could not resolve to a PullRequest`) and could exceed the
default `gh` output buffer on large result sets, aborting the whole
scan.
### Expected behavior
The extract API bounds matches per issue when a caller passes
`matchesPerIssue` (default 20, max 200), and omitting it preserves the
previous default. The gardening scripts skip PRs that are
deleted/unavailable and tolerate large `gh` responses without aborting
the scan.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Call the company-search extract endpoint with a `matchesPerIssue`
value against an issue containing many PR references — previously the
value was ignored.
2. Run the pr-gardening candidate scan against a company whose issues
reference a since-deleted PR — previously the scan threw instead of
skipping that PR.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` at the base of this PR (branch cut from current
`origin/master`).
### Deployment mode
Local Paperclip instance / self-hosted.
## What Changed
- **Extract search honors `matchesPerIssue`**: added the
`matchesPerIssue` field to the shared search validator/types and applied
the cap in `company-search-extract` so results are bounded per issue
(`packages/shared`, `server/src/services/company-search-extract.ts`,
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`).
- **Hardened pr-gardening candidate discovery**: `find-candidates.mjs` /
`lib.mjs` now request `matchesPerIssue=200`, treat missing/unavailable
PRs (deleted PR → `isMissingPullRequestError` / `unavailable`) as skips
instead of fatal errors, and raise the `gh` `maxBuffer` to 50 MB for
large repos.
- **Tests**: expanded `company-search-extract-{routes,service}.test.ts`
for the new limit and added coverage in `pr-gardening.test.mjs`.
## Verification
Re-run on a fresh worktree cherry-picked onto current `master`:
- `node --test
.agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` → 8/8 pass
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts` → 10/10
pass
## Risks
Low risk. `matchesPerIssue` is optional and backward-compatible
(omitting it preserves prior behavior). The skill changes only add
skip/tolerance paths and a larger buffer; no schema or migration
changes.
## Model Used
Claude — Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use /
code execution via the 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent companies and their work.
> - Its recovery subsystem detects stranded issue execution and decides
whether to retry, escalate, or request operator intervention.
> - The existing recovery path used a mostly generic owner ladder and
generic execution contract, so transient failures could wake a manager
who then performed the deliverable instead of repairing and returning
the task.
> - Provider quota failures also entered the same takeover path even
when the correct action was to wait for capacity and retry the original
assignee.
> - Recovery actions already retain the source owner and evidence needed
to choose a cause-specific route, render a scoped contract, and measure
whether work was handed back.
> - This pull request adds a cause-keyed recovery playbook, propagates
its contract through every built-in adapter, and makes resolved recovery
actions return work to the original owner by default.
> - The benefit is bounded self-recovery that preserves task ownership,
avoids needless management takeover, and makes recovery outcomes
observable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public GitHub issue was found.
Related recovery work was reviewed but is not duplicated here: #9630
restores bounded recovery continuations, #8807 changes one
assignee-ranking case, and #9404 records runtime-failure transition
evidence. This change instead introduces cause-specific routing and
recovery contracts across the recovery lifecycle.
### What happened?
When an issue became stranded, recovery generally selected an owner
through the same fallback ladder and rendered the normal execution
contract. That made the recovery wake look like ordinary deliverable
work, even when the correct action was to retry the original agent,
repair its runtime, or wait for a provider quota reset.
### Expected behavior
Recovery should select a response by failure cause, tell the recipient
to recover rather than complete the deliverable, suppress takeover wakes
for provider quota waits, and return repaired work to its original
assignee unless the recovery owner explicitly completes it.
### Actual behavior
Recovery could escalate transient failures to management, omit the
cause-specific next action from the wake, and leave the recovery owner
assigned after the runtime problem was resolved.
### Impact
The generic path creates avoidable management work, ownership churn, and
budget consumption while obscuring whether recovery successfully
returned work to the responsible agent.
## What Changed
- Added cause-keyed routing for process loss, missing disposition,
provider quota limits, Codex output inactivity, workspace validation
failures, and fallback recovery causes.
- Added recovery-scoped wake rendering that replaces the generic
execution contract with the failure summary, original assignee, attempt
count, next action, and cause-specific playbook instruction.
- Propagated the structured recovery contract through all built-in
adapter execution paths, including Hermes local and gateway adapters.
- Added provider-quota wait monitoring so capacity failures schedule the
original assignee instead of enqueueing a takeover wake.
- Added hand-back behavior and `handed_back` / `owner_completed` outcome
accounting when recovery actions are resolved.
- Added focused routing, renderer, quota-monitor, and hand-back
regression coverage plus implementation-spec documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`
- 4 test files passed; 194 tests passed.
- Targeted `pnpm --filter ... typecheck` across
`@paperclipai/adapter-utils`, `@paperclipai/shared`,
`@paperclipai/server`, `@paperclipai/ui`, and all nine changed adapter
packages.
- 13 affected workspace packages passed typecheck.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- All UI token gates passed.
## Risks
- Recovery routing behavior changes for stranded work, so an incorrectly
classified cause could select a different recipient than before;
fallback causes retain the existing management ladder.
- Provider quota detection depends on structured failure evidence and
conservative text matching; unmatched failures continue through fallback
recovery.
- Adapter prompt plumbing changes across built-ins, covered by shared
renderer tests and compile-time call signatures.
> 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 exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, using reasoning, tool
use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose its configured
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 control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent companies
> - Agents and operators need company-scoped search to discover relevant
issue history safely
> - The interactive search endpoint intentionally returns compact
excerpts and low pagination caps for UI use
> - Automation that inventories repeated references, such as
pull-request URLs, needs exhaustive distinct matches without loading
full issue objects into an LLM context
> - Client-provided regular expressions would create an unsafe and
expensive query surface, so extraction must remain literal with
server-owned expansion modes
> - This pull request adds a bounded agent-oriented extraction endpoint
with explicit truncation
> - The benefit is deterministic, compact bulk discovery across issues,
comments, and documents while preserving company authorization and rate
limits
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
`server/` REST API and `packages/shared/` contracts.
### Problem or motivation
The existing interactive company search caps issue pagination and
snippets, so automation cannot reliably enumerate every distinct literal
or pull-request URL across issue descriptions, comments, and linked
documents without fetching large full issue payloads.
### Proposed solution
Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/search/extract` with escaped literal
matching, optional server-owned URL token expansion,
issue/comment/document scopes, status/date filters, higher issue-level
pagination caps, compact source references, and explicit
pagination/match truncation flags.
### Alternatives considered
Reusing `GET /issues?q=` would return unnecessarily large issue objects;
increasing interactive-search snippet limits would make the UI API
heavier; accepting arbitrary client regex would expose avoidable
database cost and ReDoS risk.
### Roadmap alignment
`ROADMAP.md` does not currently list a conflicting company-search or
bulk-extraction initiative. GitHub searches found no directly
duplicative open issue or pull request.
## What Changed
- Added shared query validation and response contracts for literal and
URL extraction.
- Added a company-scoped extraction service that pages issues, gathers
matching issue/comment/document sources, expands URL tokens,
deduplicates values, and reports truncation explicitly.
- Added the authenticated route using the existing company-search
authorization decision and rate limiter.
- Added targeted Vitest coverage for URL extraction, multi-source
dedupe, date/status filters, match caps, cross-company denial, and rate
limiting.
- Documented the extraction surface in the implementation specification.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-extract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts` — 30 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
## Risks
- Bulk substring search can scan large text columns. The endpoint
mitigates this with a minimum literal length, bounded issue pagination,
a 20-distinct-match cap per issue, explicit truncation, existing
company-search rate limiting, and no client-provided regex.
- URL expansion uses a fixed server-owned pattern plus an escaped
literal. A security review is requested as part of PR review to confirm
the pattern and abuse controls.
- No database migration or existing API response shape changes are
included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex CLI coding agent; exact runtime model ID and
context-window size were not exposed to the session. Tool-enabled code
execution and repository editing were used with medium reasoning effort.
## 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 uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable
across an organization.
> - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with
permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and
inconsistent denial handling.
> - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing
company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments.
> - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API
behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI.
> - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate
`paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR.
### Problem or motivation
Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no
explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source
classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution.
### Proposed solution
Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to
allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation
APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio
to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise
Edition implementation in the core repository.
### Alternatives considered
Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was
rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior
inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository
was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must
receive its own PR.
### Roadmap alignment
Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent
governance and removing workflow dead ends.
### Additional context
The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition
editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI
integration code.
## What Changed
- Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation
documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical
actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary.
- Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared
validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused
server tests.
- Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and
keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and
execution.
- Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead
ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an
operation is actually denied.
- Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE
discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this
PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE
repository.
- Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company
restriction exists.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx
src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg
'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches.
## Risks
- Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout
depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised.
- Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments
expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions.
- Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused
review.
- The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core
policy API as policy actions evolve.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not
exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use,
shell execution, and code review capabilities 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 available to this runtime)
- [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 or
described the result 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 focused 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 on the latest head
- [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>
Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Budgets and spend telemetry are control-plane safety features, not
just reporting
> - Local Codex and Claude adapters can execute through either ACP or
their native CLI engines
> - The ACP lane records usage and reported cost, but CLI JSON output
often reports tokens without a price
> - The CLI lane was either losing per-run usage semantics or coercing
missing cost to zero, making real usage indistinguishable from a
genuinely free run
> - This pull request preserves CLI usage as per-run totals and records
token-bearing runs without a reported price as explicitly unpriced
ledger events
> - The benefit is accurate usage accounting and a visible pricing gap
instead of silently misleading zero-cost telemetry
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9471
Refs #9230
**Bug description**
A `codex_local` run using the CLI engine can emit a final
`turn.completed` event with millions of input tokens and tens of
thousands of output tokens while the agent's spend ledger remains
indistinguishable from a true zero-usage, zero-cost run. Claude CLI
output has the same missing-price edge case.
**Expected behavior**
Token-bearing CLI runs should persist their usage. If the adapter
reports a price, the ledger should record it as reported; if the CLI
reports usage but no price, the ledger should explicitly mark the event
as unpriced rather than silently treating missing price data as a
reported `$0` cost.
**Reproduction shape**
1. Configure `codex_local` with `engine: cli`.
2. Run a task that produces a `turn.completed` usage payload.
3. Observe token usage in the run stream.
4. Before this change, missing price data is represented as ordinary
zero-cost spend and the CLI usage basis is not consistently propagated.
## What Changed
- Mark Codex and Claude native CLI usage totals as `per_run` and
propagate that basis through success and failure results.
- Stop coercing missing Claude CLI cost to `0`.
- Add `cost_status` to cost events with `reported` and `unpriced`
values, including an idempotent migration and shared validation/types.
- Persist token-bearing runs without a reported price as `unpriced`
ledger events while retaining zero cents until an authoritative price
exists.
- Add parser, execute-path, heartbeat-accounting, and cost-service
regression coverage for both local CLI adapters.
- Document the cost-status invariant and CLI accounting behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.test.ts
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` — 6 files / 102 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — includes migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
## Risks
- Existing cost rows default to `reported`, preserving current
interpretation; only new token-bearing events with absent cost are
marked `unpriced`.
- This change does not invent model pricing. Budget hard stops still
cannot charge an unknown amount, but operators and evals can now
distinguish missing pricing from a genuinely reported zero cost.
- Consumers that enumerate cost-event fields should tolerate the
additive `costStatus` field.
> 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 `gpt-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use
and code execution; default reasoning mode.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The heartbeat/recovery subsystem decides whether an agent run has a
durable continuation path after the process stops.
> - External waits need stricter semantics than local background
watchers: a killed local process is not durable, while a first-class
blocker/monitor/scheduled wake is.
> - Without that distinction, recovery can repeatedly treat
adapter-failed continuations as live work and obscure the real reason a
task stopped.
> - This pull request adds explicit durable external-wait liveness
handling and documents the expected execution semantics.
> - It also improves operator-visible recovery evidence so invalid
external-wait paths explain why they were rejected.
> - The benefit is clearer recovery behavior, fewer duplicate
continuation recoveries, and a safer contract for monitor-backed
external waits.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #5978
- Related PRs: #4988, #7495, #8502
## What Changed
- Added durable external-wait liveness classification so
local/background watchers are not accepted as durable live paths after
the owning process exits.
- Preserved first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake paths as valid
external-wait continuations.
- Added backend regression coverage for killed watcher failure,
monitor-backed durable wait resumption, normal completion, blocker
behavior, and no duplicate recovery.
- Added adapter utility coverage for terminal cleanup behavior used by
local process adapters.
- Surfaced invalid external-wait recovery evidence in the recovery
action card and run ledger.
- Updated execution semantics documentation and the V1 implementation
contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-server` equivalent lane passed in CI-clean env: 238 files, 2164
tests passed, 1 skipped.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-a` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: UI 305
files / 2430 tests; CLI 43 files / 230 tests.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-b` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env:
shared/db/adapters/plugin packages all green.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized` passed in fully
Paperclip-env-clean env: 107 serialized server suites green, including
84/84 heartbeat-process-recovery tests.
- `pnpm build` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env.
Notes: running `pnpm test:run` directly inside the Paperclip heartbeat
environment exposed local harness env contamination in existing tests
(`PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_DB_BACKUP_DIR`, and
`PAPERCLIP_WORKTREE_START_POINT`). Re-running the same lanes with
inherited `PAPERCLIP_*` and port env removed produced the CI-equivalent
green results above.
## Risks
- Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery classification for
stopped local external-wait processes, so adapters relying on unmanaged
background watchers must use blockers, monitors, scheduled wakes, or
explicit durable handoff instead.
- Low UI risk: recovery-card copy changes are covered by component tests
and Storybook screenshot QA.
- No database migration is included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/code
execution. Exact context-window metadata was not exposed in the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` §5.2 (Out of Scope V1) conflates two
distinct concerns into a single bullet: _"Multi-board governance or
role-based human permission granularity"_.
> - Role-based human permission granularity has been V1 for a while —
the `humans-and-permissions` plan and the `principal_permission_grants`
table shipped, the `PERMISSION_KEYS` set covers `users:invite`,
`users:manage_permissions`, `tasks:assign`, `tasks:assign_scope`,
`tasks:manage_active_checkouts`, `tasks:view_all`, `agents:view_all`,
`joins:approve`, `agents:create`, `environments:manage`.
> - The remaining OOS item from that bullet is _multi-board governance_
— running multiple board UIs against one company. That's a
deployment-topology concern, separate from permission granularity, and
stays V1 OOS.
> - This PR splits the bullet so the OOS list reflects reality and
contributors don't read the SPEC and conclude that per-user permission
scoping is unplanned.
## What Changed
Single-file docs edit in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` §5.2:
- Drop the conflated "Multi-board governance or role-based human
permission granularity" bullet.
- Keep "Multi-board governance (multiple board UIs for a single
company)" as OOS — that part is still out of scope.
- Add a short paragraph below the OOS list pointing readers to the
`humans-and-permissions` plan, `principal_permission_grants`, and the
existing `tasks:view_all` + `agents:view_all` opt-out scoping primitives
so anyone reading §5.2 finds the V1 surface immediately.
## Verification
- N/A — docs-only change, no code/schema/test impact.
## Risks
- None. Single bullet rewording.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic). Model ID: `claude-opus-4-7`.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work — it documents already-shipped V1 work that the SPEC
was lagging on
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass — N/A docs-only
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — N/A
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A docs-only
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — this
PR IS the doc update
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Mike <ms@moar.tools>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent adapters are the boundary between the control plane and the
runtimes that actually do work.
> - Hermes support needs to be available as first-class local and
gateway adapters while still preserving the adapter-manager override
path for external packages.
> - The adapter work touches runtime execution, UI adapter metadata,
onboarding prompts, scoped credentials, release packaging, and smoke
coverage, so the handoff needs concrete verification rather than only
unit tests.
> - This pull request adds built-in Hermes local and Hermes gateway
support, keeps external adapter overrides compatible, and
documents/tests the gateway flow end to end.
> - The benefit is that operators can hire Hermes-backed agents without
a manual plugin install, while self-hosted installs can still
override/shadow the built-ins through Adapter manager packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this exact Hermes built-in adapter,
gateway onboarding, and release-source work.
Problem description:
- Hermes local and gateway adapters need a public, reviewable source
path in the monorepo so package artifacts and built-in adapter behavior
match the application source.
- Operators need built-in `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` adapter
choices without losing the ability to install external Hermes packages
as overrides.
- Gateway onboarding needs secure defaults for API server URLs, API
keys, and generated agent setup text.
- Hermes-originated task bridge credentials need narrower API-key scope
configuration.
- Related public PRs found during duplicate search include #3027, #2363,
#7544, #7950, #8095, and #8543.
## What Changed
- Added the unified Hermes adapter package with local and gateway
server/UI/CLI exports, config schemas, transcript parsing, model
detection, and package metadata.
- Registered `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` as built-in adapters
across shared constants, server registries, CLI packaging, and UI
adapter registries.
- Kept the external adapter override path compatible so installed Hermes
packages can shadow built-ins and restore the built-in parser when
disabled.
- Added Hermes gateway onboarding docs, board-operator docs, Docker
smoke assets, and shell smoke harnesses for join/e2e validation.
- Added scoped task-bridge API-key support, authorization checks,
issue-origin handling, and tests for Hermes-created Paperclip tasks.
- Hardened gateway transport and redaction behavior for API keys,
headers, session data, and smoke diagnostics.
- Updated release packaging/bootstrap checks for the Hermes packages
while leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of the PR per repository policy.
## Verification
Targeted local verification recorded before PR handoff:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter exec vitest run
src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` — 14/14 passed.
- `pnpm test:hermes-gateway-smoke` — 6/6 passed.
- Hermes package typecheck/build checks passed.
- Focused server/UI adapter tests passed — 31/31.
- Release helper Node tests passed — 18/18.
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed.
Fresh Docker E2E smoke evidence:
- Ran `pnpm smoke:hermes-gateway-e2e` on 2026-06-26 with a fresh state
directory and fresh Docker container against a live Paperclip dev
server.
- Hermes direct execution reached `completed`.
- Hermes stop/cancel path reached `cancelled`.
- Hermes gateway created a Paperclip task, Paperclip ran the Hermes
agent, and the task reached `done` with the expected marker response.
- Temporary board auth keys, token files, smoke state, and Docker
containers were cleaned up after the run.
PR checks on head `b5eae40ce`:
- GitHub Actions passed: `policy`, `review`, `Typecheck + Release
Registry`, all general test shards, all serialized server shards,
`Build`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, and aggregate `verify`.
- External checks passed: Snyk and Socket Project Report.
- External Socket Pull Request Alerts remained pending after the
first-party CI matrix completed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this spans adapter registration, package publishing,
gateway execution, onboarding docs, API-key scoping, and UI adapter
metadata.
- Migration risk is low: the scope-config migration adds a nullable
column and does not rewrite existing keys.
- Gateway execution depends on operator-provided Hermes API
configuration; the smoke covers the Docker gateway path but real
deployments may differ by network/auth setup.
- Direct Greptile review on the latest expanded diff is file-count
limited, although the commitperclip review gate passed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled in a local repository
workspace. Context window size is not exposed in this environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Commitperclip review gate is green; direct Greptile review is
file-count limited on the latest expanded diff
- [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 task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is
still productive, stalled, or ready for review.
> - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but
there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review
permissions.
> - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so
recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable
work.
> - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service
layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration
surfaces, and docs.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip`
`master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest
migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`.
> - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves
Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making
stalled work easier to route.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task:
[PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275).
## Problem or motivation
Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped
work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task
ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and
see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain
limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link
approvals, or submit approval comments.
## Proposed solution
Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation
guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and
documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under
explicit boundaries.
## Alternatives considered
Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep
stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment
harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable
scoped-review issue for stalled task trees.
## Roadmap alignment
This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task
execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not
duplicate an existing planned core item.
## What Changed
- Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators,
CRUD API, and service support.
- Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation
enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate
guidance.
- Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks,
viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting.
- Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and
implementation semantics.
- Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked
cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog
migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to
`0104_issue_watchdogs`.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with
a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind
constant.
- Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes,
scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility,
settings, and new issue dialog behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
- Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB
schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task
configuration.
- Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting
and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and
production agents.
- The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` /
duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local
migration number should not get duplicate-object failures.
- CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest
review-fix push.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact
runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool
use and local command 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add
screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the
work.
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation
composer frames the operator's intent.
> - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning
mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without
immediately implying execution or plan drafting.
> - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like
normal task execution.
> - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through
shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI.
> - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a
question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning
flows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request
follows the repository feature request template.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`.
### Problem or motivation
Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from
planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear
public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an
agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply
normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather
than an answer.
### Proposed solution
Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from
issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning
from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling,
and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly
instead of executing or drafting a plan.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not
communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI.
- Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks
for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question.
- Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be
represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be
reliable.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked
and no duplicate planned core work was found.
### Additional context
Related public searches performed before opening this PR:
- GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
No duplicate PR was found.
## What Changed
- Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation
coverage.
- Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can
see standard, planning, and ask state.
- Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and
selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI.
- Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and
affected UI work-mode flows.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests.
Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states:
https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8
It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture
about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment
metadata.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared,
server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are
preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work
modes may need to handle `ask`.
> 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 coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with
shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context
window and exact hosted model snapshot are 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`,
`feat/...`) 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] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect
files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work.
> - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file
references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI.
> - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side
workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing
arbitrary host paths.
> - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and
be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review.
> - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page
file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact
file chips.
> - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from
issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip
issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`.
Problem / motivation:
- Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents
or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal.
- The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace
browsing/searching from an issue page.
- The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size
limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging.
Related PR:
- Prior closed attempt: #4442
- Single active PR for this branch: #7681
## What Changed
- Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and
workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products.
- Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing
workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific
limits, and audit logging.
- Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser,
command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact
file chips.
- Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and
workspace file opening.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
updated the existing single PR branch.
- Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset`
consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring
stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and
stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test.
## Verification
Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`:
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts
ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts
ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx`
- 1 file passed, 25 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed.
- Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current
`public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer
PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single
active PR for the branch.
- No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add
design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work.
Current remote verification on head
`a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`:
- Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no
unresolved Greptile review threads.
- PR workflow `verify` - success.
- Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards,
serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk -
success.
- `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was
filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block.
- `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate
detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I
reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test
failure was exposed in the job logs.
## Risks
- This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention
to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown
autolink false positives.
- Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth;
very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms.
- Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access
support is implemented.
- The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer
review, but the check output says it is not a merge block.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use
environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch
inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI
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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [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 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution
policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract.
> - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal
same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and
generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads.
> - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context,
which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer
assigned to hostile content.
> - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging,
route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output
does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the
low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations.
> - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection,
preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind
promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion,
documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks,
enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor
authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic.
> - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review
containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot
surfaces.
Fixes#7531.
## What Changed
- Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus
database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work
products.
- Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent
self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion
checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context.
- Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source
trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime
containment, and quarantine redaction.
- Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust
preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views.
- Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review
contract plan under `doc/plans/`.
- Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses
`ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered
migration are not broken by the renumbered migration.
## Verification
- Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with
lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment
tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata.
- Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to
`0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT
EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not
broken.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts
ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `git diff --check`
- GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release
registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify,
policy/review, Socket, and Snyk.
- Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved
Greptile review threads.
- No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly
says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server
authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata,
and UI preset controls.
- Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate
future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions.
- Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover
the current known routes but future integrations must route through the
same containment layer.
- The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is
5/5.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI
workflow.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added
per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically
required
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped
issues, projects, agents, and board-visible workflows.
> - The board sidebar and project list are the daily navigation surface
for that control plane.
> - Users need to keep all projects and agents accessible while hiding
resources they have intentionally left from their own sidebar.
> - That requires user-scoped resource membership state backed by
company-scoped API and database contracts.
> - The branch also needed to preserve HTTP worktree login sessions and
keep the project list easier to scan after membership grouping.
> - This pull request adds resource membership controls, sidebar leave
actions, grouped/sortable project listings, and focused tests.
> - The benefit is a cleaner personal workspace view without weakening
company-scoped access to the underlying project or agent detail pages.
## What Changed
- Added `project_memberships` and `agent_memberships` tables with
API/shared/server contracts for current-user join/leave state.
- Renumbered the membership migration to `0090_resource_memberships`
after rebasing onto current `master`, and made it idempotent for anyone
who had applied the old branch-local `0087` migration.
- Added project and agent sidebar leave actions, plus list filtering
that waits for membership state before hiding resources.
- Added grouped project listing, project sorting controls, and reserved
row subtitle height for cleaner scanning.
- Fixed HTTP auth cookie security handling so HTTP worktree sessions can
persist.
- Updated focused server and UI tests for the new membership, sidebar,
project list, and auth behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MembershipAction.test.tsx
ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx`
- Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Migration safety: low to medium. The migration now uses `IF NOT
EXISTS` / guarded constraints and is numbered after current master
migrations, but it should still get CI coverage against fresh databases.
- UI behavior: low. Left resources are hidden from sidebar only after
membership state loads; direct detail access remains available.
- Auth behavior: low. Cookie security is relaxed only for HTTP/private
local-style origins where secure cookies would prevent login
persistence.
> 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 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git workflow,
context window not exposed by 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Screenshot note: no browser screenshots were captured in this heartbeat;
the UI changes are covered by focused component tests above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies by keeping
task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control
plane.
> - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the
boundary between autonomy and governance.
> - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and
clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries.
> - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host
APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls.
> - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this
core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public
core/plugin infrastructure work.
> - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong
in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental
`plugin-briefs` package.
> - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths
and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved
Greptile threads.
> - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for
richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal
operators.
## What Changed
- Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed
issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service.
- Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots,
authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge
invocation scope propagation.
- Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind
plugin-provided settings surfaces.
- Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices.
- Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted
agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback
behavior.
- Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active
agent memberships and role-default human permission grants.
- Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch
changes.
- Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff.
- Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy
membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and
startup test mocks.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files
passed, 28 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed.
- `git diff --check` -> passed.
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed.
- `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed
with no lockfile update.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed.
- `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0.
- GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`.
- Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0
comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads.
- Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`,
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter
for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies
may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are
configured.
- Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area
available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company
scoping.
- Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill,
but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled workflow with shell,
git, and GitHub CLI access.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates AI-agent work
through issues, heartbeats, comments, approvals, and auditable recovery
paths.
> - The affected subsystem is heartbeat/recovery orchestration,
especially the optional cheap model profile used for operational
recovery overhead.
> - Cheap recovery should repair status and liveness, but it must not
become the worker lane that writes deliverables, continues source work,
or propagates cheap execution hints into downstream retries.
> - The gap was that cheap-profile hints could follow recovery wake
contexts and assignment overrides farther than intended, making real
work eligible to run on the cheap model.
> - This pull request separates status-only cheap recovery from normal
source-work continuations, adds route guards for deliverable mutations
during cheap status-only runs, and documents the invariant.
> - The benefit is safer retry/recovery behavior: cheap runs can clean
up control-plane state, while any remaining source work resumes through
a normal/original model path.
## What Changed
- Added recovery model-profile work classes so status-only recovery
carries explicit guard context and normal-model continuations scrub
cheap hints.
- Updated heartbeat, productivity review, liveness continuation, and
recovery service wakeups to request cheap only for bounded status-only
recovery work.
- Blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from writing issue documents,
plans, attachments, work products, or assigning downstream work back to
`modelProfile: "cheap"`.
- Added/updated server tests for cheap profile propagation,
artifact/document guards, route authorization, retry scheduling, and
successful-run handoff behavior.
- Documented the recovery model-profile lane in
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md` and `doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- After rebasing onto current `public-gh/master`, stabilized the new
`InstanceSidebar` plugin-filter tests so the PR check lane stays green.
## Verification
- Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
src/services/recovery/model-profile-hint.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-document-restore-routes.test.ts` from `server/` - 3
files, 37 tests passed after final edits.
- Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` from `server/` - 44
tests passed after rerunning the cleanup-sensitive file alone.
- Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/InstanceSidebar.test.tsx` - 4 tests passed.
- Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed.
- Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed.
- PR checks on latest head `6f8c3b1380f5bd872c6f49f6f7188ecf3bb6d263` -
all green, including `verify`, build, typecheck,
server/general/serialized tests, e2e, Snyk, and policy.
- Greptile: pass 3 returned Confidence Score 5/5 with zero unresolved
Greptile review threads.
## Risks
- Medium risk: recovery behavior is intentionally stricter, so any path
that incorrectly relies on cheap recovery to keep doing source work will
now need to hand back to a normal-model run.
- Low migration risk: no schema changes.
- No product UI changes; the UI file touched is a test-only
stabilization after rebasing onto current `master`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool use and
local code execution enabled; context window not exposed in this
environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A: no product UI changes)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Scheduled routines are the control-plane path for recurring agent
work.
> - Routines already had dispatch/history, but their runtime environment
did not carry routine-owned secret bindings through execution.
> - Operators need routine-specific secrets that can override
project/agent env without exposing secret values in history, logs, or
access events.
> - This pull request adds the routine env runtime contract, wires it
into execution, and makes the routine UI/history surfaces show safe
secret metadata.
> - The benefit is that routine executions can use scoped secret refs
predictably while preserving company boundaries and auditability.
## What Changed
- Added routine env persistence/runtime support, including
`routines.env`, `routine_runs.routine_revision_id`, revision snapshots,
and idempotent migration `0086_routine_env_runtime_contract`.
- Resolved routine env during heartbeat adapter config assembly with
precedence `agent < project < routine` and secret access events recorded
against the routine consumer.
- Added secret binding synchronization for routine create/update/restore
flows and guarded cross-company, missing, disabled, and deleted secret
cases.
- Added a Secrets tab to routine detail, env/secret history diff
rendering, and Storybook coverage for the new UI states.
- Added server/UI regression tests, including an embedded-Postgres QA
path for routine secret execution and restore behavior.
- Updated implementation/database docs for routine env and
secret-binding behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` after rebasing onto
`public-gh/master` to refresh workspace links for the newly-added
upstream Grok adapter package.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/qa-routine-secrets-e2e.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 92 tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed across the workspace.
- `pnpm build` passed. Vite emitted the existing
large-chunk/dynamic-import warnings.
- UI screenshots were captured locally during QA in
`artifacts/pap-9521/` and `artifacts/pap-9522/`; generated screenshots
are not committed to avoid adding binary artifacts to the repo.
## Risks
- Migration risk is limited by `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for the new
columns, FK, and index, and the migration is ordered as `0086`
immediately after upstream `0085`.
- Runtime behavior changes env precedence for routine executions by
adding routine env as the highest-precedence layer; tests cover
agent/project/routine precedence.
- Secret handling is security-sensitive; tests cover value-free
manifests/events/errors, disabled/missing/deleted secrets, and
cross-company rejection.
- UI history now renders routine env/secret diffs; tests and Storybook
stories cover the main rendering paths.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell/tool use and
medium reasoning effort.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped
issues, comments, and issue documents.
> - Issue documents are the durable place where plans, handoffs, and
other work artifacts are revised over time.
> - Some documents need to be preserved as operator-approved snapshots
while agents continue working on the same issue.
> - Without document locking, a later board or agent write can overwrite
the document key that reviewers expected to remain stable.
> - This pull request adds board-managed issue document locks and makes
agent writes to locked keys create a derived document instead of
mutating the locked document.
> - The benefit is safer document handoffs: approved or frozen issue
documents stay immutable until the board explicitly unlocks them.
## What Changed
- Added `locked_at`, `locked_by_agent_id`, and `locked_by_user_id`
document fields plus migration `0085_tranquil_the_executioner.sql`.
- Added document lock/unlock service behavior, route endpoints, activity
events, and locked-document write protections.
- Made agent document writes to locked keys create a new derived key
such as `plan-2` rather than overwriting the locked document.
- Surfaced lock state through shared issue document types, UI API
methods, document header lock controls, and activity formatting.
- Added server and UI tests for lock/unlock behavior, locked document
immutability, and UI action visibility.
- Updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` with the V1 document lock
contract and endpoints.
## Verification
- `git rebase public-gh/master` completed cleanly after committing the
branch changes.
- `git diff --check` passed before commit.
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-revisions.test.ts` passed: 5 files, 32 tests.
## Risks
- Medium risk because this changes the document persistence contract and
adds a migration.
- The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and guarded foreign-key
creation so it remains safe for users who may have already applied an
earlier copy of the migration.
- Locked documents intentionally reject board edits/deletes/restores
until unlocked; any existing workflows that expected direct overwrite
need to unlock first.
- Agent writes to locked keys now create derived documents, which may
create extra issue documents when agents retry locked writes.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with tool use and local code
execution in the Paperclip worktree.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work
must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness.
> - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but
source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues,
blockers, and comments.
> - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns
recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue.
> - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class
active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution
outcome.
> - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend
reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions.
> - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source
issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path.
## What Changed
- Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared
types/constants/validators, and an idempotent
`0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master`
migrations.
- Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped
recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid
locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes.
- Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue
detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked,
cancelled, or false-positive outcomes.
- Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class
blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked
without a blocker selection path.
- Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices,
active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage.
- Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership,
races, stale comments, and UI behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
— 5 files, 72 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering check.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec
vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- UI states are available in
`ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot
capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`.
## Risks
- Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership
toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in
new places.
- Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after
`master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for
anyone who previously applied the old branch-local
`0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration.
- Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for
already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be
watched in CI and Greptile review.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git,
GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Agent heartbeat settings control how much parallel work one employee
can run
> - The previous default of 5 concurrent runs was too restrictive for
active local agent teams
> - The shared default, heartbeat clamp, docs, and route/import/UI
expectations need to agree
> - This pull request raises the default heartbeat concurrency to 20
while keeping explicit headroom up to 50 for power users
> - The benefit is higher throughput for agent teams without each new
agent needing manual runtime config edits
## What Changed
- Raised `AGENT_DEFAULT_MAX_CONCURRENT_RUNS` from 5 to 20.
- Raised the heartbeat service max clamp from 10 to 50, keeping the new
default below the ceiling.
- Updated V1 implementation docs and tests that assert default
imported/exported runtime config.
- Updated the new-agent UI runtime config test to assert the shared
default constant instead of duplicating the numeric value.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium risk: new agents can consume more local execution capacity by
default. The heartbeat scheduler still respects configured max
concurrency and budget/pause controls, and operators can lower or raise
the per-agent cap within the `1..50` clamp.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use and local command
execution. Exact context window was not exposed in the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where
adapters are the boundary between the board, agents, and execution
runtimes.
> - Local adapters currently expose a primary runtime configuration, but
operators often need a cheaper model lane for routine or low-risk work.
> - That cheap lane has to stay adapter-owned: runtime profile settings
should not mutate the primary adapter config or bypass existing
auth/secret mediation.
> - Issue creation also needs an ergonomic way to request primary,
cheap, or custom model behavior for a selected assignee.
> - This pull request adds a first-class `cheap` model profile contract
across adapter capabilities, heartbeat config resolution, agent
configuration, and issue creation.
> - The benefit is cheaper task execution can be configured and
requested explicitly while preserving adapter boundaries, secret
handling, and audit visibility.
## What Changed
- Added adapter model-profile capability metadata and a `cheap` profile
contract for supported local adapters.
- Applied `runtimeConfig.modelProfiles.cheap.adapterConfig` during
heartbeat config resolution, including requested/applied/fallback run
metadata.
- Added agent configuration UI for cheap model profile settings without
writing those settings into primary `adapterConfig`.
- Added New Issue assignee model lane controls for Primary / Cheap /
Custom and request payload handling.
- Added run ledger profile badges and Storybook stories for the new
cheap-lane UI states.
- Added tests for validators, heartbeat model profile application,
permission/secret mediation, UI payload helpers, and run ledger
rendering.
- Added committed UI verification screenshots under
`docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`.
- Addressed Greptile review feedback around cheap-profile defaults,
shared profile types, and fallback test data.
## Verification
Local:
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-registry.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-assignee-overrides.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` — passed, 8 files / 103
tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` — passed after
Greptile/rebase follow-up, 2 files / 17 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after
Greptile/rebase follow-up.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — did not complete successfully in this local
worktree: it stopped in pre-existing `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`
sandbox/SSH fixture suites outside this PR diff. Failures were 5s local
timeouts plus `git init -b` unsupported by this machine's Git 2.21.0.
The branch-specific targeted suites above passed.
- Branch was fetched/rebased onto `public-gh/master`; `git rev-list
--left-right --count public-gh/master...HEAD` reports `0 9`.
Remote PR checks on latest head
`e30bf399146451c86cee98ed528d51d33fa5af5a`:
- `policy` — passed.
- `verify` — passed.
- `e2e` — passed.
- `Greptile Review` — passed, confidence score 5/5; Greptile review
threads resolved.
- `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` — passed.
Screenshots:
- [New issue cheap lane
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-cheap-desktop.png)
- [New issue custom lane
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-custom-desktop.png)
- [New issue unsupported adapter
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-unsupported-desktop.png)
- [Run ledger model profile badges
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/runledger-profile-badges-desktop.png)
- Mobile variants are also in `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`.
## Risks
- Medium: heartbeat config mediation now merges runtime model profiles
into adapter configs, so adapter secret normalization and host-command
restrictions must keep covering nested config paths.
- Medium: the UI adds another issue creation choice; unsupported
adapters must keep hiding the cheap lane and preserve primary behavior.
- Low migration risk: no database migration is included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with repo tool use
and command execution. Exact served model/context window was not exposed
by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a company-scoped control
plane
> - Contributors and agents need docs and skills that match the current
V1 behavior
> - The source branch included documentation updates alongside
implementation work
> - Keeping docs and skill guidance separate makes the implementation PR
easier to review
> - This pull request refreshes the V1 docs and agent-operating guidance
without changing runtime behavior
> - The benefit is current contributor guidance that can merge
independently from code changes
## What Changed
- Refreshed V1 product, goal, implementation, database, and development
documentation.
- Updated the Paperclip heartbeat skill guidance and create-agent skill
references.
- Added the Paperclip plan-to-task conversion skill.
- Updated release changelog skill guidance.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` passed in the PR worktree
after the Greptile fix.
- Greptile Review passed on head `673317ed` with zero unresolved review
threads.
- GitHub PR checks passed on head `673317ed`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`,
and `security/snyk (cryppadotta)`.
## Risks
- Low runtime risk because this branch only changes docs and skill
guidance.
- Documentation may need follow-up wording adjustments if reviewers want
a different framing for V1 behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub
workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so issue
checkout and execution ownership are core safety contracts.
> - The affected subsystem is the issue service and route layer that
gates agent writes by `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId`.
> - PAP-1982 exposed a stale-lock failure mode where a terminal
heartbeat run could leave `executionRunId` pinned after checkout
ownership had moved or been cleared.
> - That stale execution lock could reject legitimate
PATCH/comment/release requests from the rightful assignee after a
harness restart.
> - This pull request centralizes terminal-run cleanup, applies it
before ownership-gated writes, and adds a board-only recovery endpoint
for operator intervention.
> - The benefit is that crashed or terminal runs no longer strand issues
behind stale execution locks, while live execution locks still block
conflicting writes.
## What Changed
- Added `issueService.clearExecutionRunIfTerminal()` to atomically lock
the issue/run rows and clear terminal or missing execution-run locks.
- Reused stale execution-lock cleanup from checkout,
`assertCheckoutOwner()`, and `release()`.
- Allowed the same assigned agent/current run to adopt an unowned
`in_progress` checkout after stale execution-lock cleanup.
- Updated release to clear `executionRunId`, `executionAgentNameKey`,
and `executionLockedAt`.
- Added board-only `POST /api/issues/:id/admin/force-release` with
company access checks, optional `clearAssignee=true`, and
`issue.admin_force_release` audit logging.
- Added embedded Postgres service tests and route integration tests for
stale-lock recovery, release behavior, and admin force-release
authorization/audit behavior.
- Documented the new force-release API in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts` passed.
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- `git diff --check` passed.
- `pnpm lint` could not run because this repo has no `lint` command.
- Full `pnpm test:run` completed with 4 failures in existing route
suites: `approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts` (2),
`issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts` (1), and
`issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` (1). Those same files pass when run
isolated and when run together with the new stale-lock route test, so
this appears to be a whole-suite ordering/mock-isolation issue outside
this patch path.
## Risks
- Medium: this changes ownership-gated write behavior. The new adoption
path is limited to the current run, the current assignee, `in_progress`
issues, and rows with no checkout owner after terminal-lock cleanup.
- Low: the admin force-release endpoint is board-only and
company-scoped, but misuse can intentionally clear a live lock. It
writes an audit event with prior lock IDs.
- No schema or migration 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, GPT-5 coding agent (`gpt-5`), agentic coding with
terminal/tool use and local test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The heartbeat runtime, agent import path, and agent configuration
defaults determine whether work is dispatched safely and predictably.
> - Several accumulated fixes all touched agent execution recovery, wake
routing, import behavior, and runtime concurrency defaults.
> - Those changes need to land together so the heartbeat service and
agent creation defaults stay internally consistent.
> - This pull request groups the runtime/governance changes from the
split branch into one standalone branch.
> - The benefit is safer recovery for stranded runs, bounded high-volume
reads, imported-agent approval correctness, skill-template support, and
a clearer default concurrency policy.
## What Changed
- Fixed stranded continuation recovery so successful automatic retries
are requeued instead of incorrectly blocking the issue.
- Bounded high-volume issue/log reads across issue, heartbeat, agent,
project, and workspace paths.
- Fixed imported-agent approval and instruction-path permission
handling.
- Quarantined seeded worktree execution state during worktree
provisioning.
- Queued approval follow-up wakes and hardened SQL_ASCII heartbeat
output handling.
- Added reusable agent instruction templates for hiring flows.
- Set the default max concurrent agent runs to five and updated related
UI/tests/docs.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- Split integration check: merged this branch first, followed by the
other [PAP-1614](/PAP/issues/PAP-1614) branches, with no merge
conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: touches heartbeat recovery, queueing, and issue list
bounds in central runtime paths.
- Imported-agent and concurrency default behavior changes may affect
existing automation that assumes one-at-a-time default runs.
- No database migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Add DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md with canonical mode taxonomy. Update CLI.md,
DEVELOPING.md, PRODUCT.md, and SPEC-implementation.md with local_trusted/
authenticated nomenclature. Revise humans-and-permissions plan with Better
Auth choice, bootstrap flow, unified invite semantics, and expanded criteria.
Add implementation guide and additional plan documents for cursor cloud
adapter and deployment auth mode consolidation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Document local-trusted vs cloud-hosted deployment scenarios in
PRODUCT.md. Spec out assets and issue_attachments tables with storage
provider abstraction and attachment API endpoints. Draft comprehensive
plan for human users, memberships, invites, permissions, and
agent-to-human task delegation across both deployment modes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Document secret storage in DATABASE.md and DEVELOPING.md. Update
SPEC-implementation with company_secrets schema and indexes. Add
migrate-inline-env-secrets script for converting existing plain
env values to managed secrets (dry-run by default, --apply to commit).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Switch from PGlite (WebAssembly) to embedded-postgres for zero-config
local development — provides a real PostgreSQL server with full
compatibility. Add startup banner with config summary on server boot.
Improve server bootstrap with auto port detection, database creation,
and migration on startup. Update DATABASE.md, DEVELOPING.md, and
SPEC-implementation.md to reflect the change. Update CLI database
check and prompts. Simplify OnboardingWizard database options.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta
Mikes
Dotta
dotta
Devin Foley
Forgotten
