## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The browser UI depends on the Inter font family for its intended
visual baseline
> - The app previously referenced remote Google Fonts stylesheets at
runtime
> - That meant self-hosted, offline, or privacy-sensitive deployments
could lose the intended typography or depend on an external request
> - This pull request bundles the required Inter variable font files
with the UI and serves them from the app
> - A normal UI test now covers the static assets and CSS wiring without
adding a package script or build step
> - The benefit is a more reliable, self-contained UI that does not rely
on third-party webfont hosting
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this exact gap.
**Subsystem affected**
ui/ — React + Vite board UI
**Problem or motivation**
Paperclip's UI should ship the webfont assets it references so
production and self-hosted deployments render consistently without
reaching out to Google Fonts at runtime.
**Proposed solution**
Bundle the Inter variable font files under the UI public assets, load
them with local `@font-face` declarations, document the bundled assets,
and cover the source assets/CSS wiring with a normal UI Vitest test.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping the remote stylesheet dependency is simpler, but leaves
deployments dependent on external font hosting. Using system fonts only
would avoid the asset footprint, but changes the intended UI typography.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is a focused UI reliability/polish fix, not a roadmap-level core
feature.
**Additional context**
Searched public GitHub issues and PRs for `webfonts
repo:paperclipai/paperclip`; no duplicates or closely related open items
were found.
## What Changed
- Added bundled Inter variable font assets and their notice under
`ui/public/fonts/`.
- Replaced remote Google Fonts imports with local `@font-face`
declarations using relative public-asset URLs that remain subpath-safe
from built CSS.
- Documented the local font asset expectation in development and UI spec
docs.
- Removed the follow-up font asset checker scripts and package/build
wiring after review feedback clarified they are not required for
building the UI.
- Added `ui/src/lib/ui-font-assets.test.ts` to verify the shipped WOFF2
files, notice text, and CSS font references through the normal UI test
suite.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/ui-font-assets.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts`
- Passed.
- Confirms the bundled font files exist, are WOFF2 files, have notice
coverage, and are referenced by `ui/src/index.css`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`
- Passed.
- Confirmed the UI still builds after removing the checker from
`ui/package.json`.
- Confirmed `ui/dist/fonts/` contains `InterVariable.woff2`,
`InterVariable-Italic.woff2`, and `NOTICE.md` after the build.
- The UI build emitted existing warnings about `::highlight(...)`, a
dynamic/static import overlap for `MarkdownEditor.tsx`, unresolved
relative public font URLs left for runtime resolution, and large chunks,
but completed successfully.
## Risks
Low risk. This adds static font assets and swaps the font source from a
remote stylesheet to same-origin files. The main tradeoff is a larger
repository/UI asset footprint from the bundled `.woff2` files.
> 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/GitHub
workflow with reasoning support.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other
environment-bound secrets.
> - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not
model values that should differ by human operator.
> - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing
whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value.
> - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped
runtime checks deterministic and auditable.
> - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user
values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime
resolution gates.
> - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user
provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required
user secrets or active definitions are unavailable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #224
Refs #6057
This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core
secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It
is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime
secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the
responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time.
Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as
#1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full
user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here.
## What Changed
- Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values,
keeping stored values out of access metadata.
- Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to
pick them alongside existing secret refs.
- Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve
against the human responsible for the run.
- Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter
dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are
inactive.
- Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access.
- Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user
attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be
resolved.
- Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures
surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures.
- Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes.
- Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered
incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`,
`0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127`
migrations.
- Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR
contains code/docs/tests only.
## Verification
- PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`.
- PASS: `git diff --check`
- PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg
'^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true`
produced no files.
- PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130`
with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`,
`0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`,
`0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and
`0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`.
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts`
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests)
- PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final
Greptile cleanup fixes)
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests
after the final rebase CI fix)
- PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery,
project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors,
watchdog, and stale queue paths.
- PASS: GitHub checks are green on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck +
Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e,
Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review.
- PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on
`2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5,
and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated
threads.
## Risks
- Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible
user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs
before adapter dispatch.
- `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without
values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind
explicitly.
- External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically
provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side
access for non-local vaults.
- The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release
validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge.
- The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream
migrations; the branch migrations use guarded
column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older
draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects.
> 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 (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter
with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal
reasoning mode are 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs can execute inside reusable, runtime-created git worktree
execution workspaces.
> - Those managed worktrees record the expected branch so later
dispatches do not accidentally run an agent in the wrong checkout.
> - Successful run finalization already checked branch coherence, but it
treated every unrecorded branch switch as fatal.
> - A common publishing flow can briefly switch a clean worktree to a
PR/publish branch that points at the same commit as the recorded issue
branch, leaving no divergent work to protect.
> - This pull request keeps the strict finalization guard for unsafe
drift, but lets finalization restore the recorded branch when
same-commit repair is provably safe.
> - The benefit is fewer false failed runs after harmless branch
switches while preserving hard failures for divergent or dirty
worktrees.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this exact finalization failure. Related
public worktree-recovery context: #3087 and #3056, but those address
different worktree realization/reuse recovery paths rather than
successful-run finalization branch repair.
Bug report details:
**What happened?**
When an adapter run succeeded after switching a managed git worktree
from its recorded issue branch to a publish/PR branch, finalization
failed with a managed worktree branch mismatch even when the publish
branch and recorded branch pointed at the same commit and the worktree
was clean.
**Expected behavior**
Finalization should restore the recorded branch only when it can prove
the worktree is clean, registered, and the recorded branch points at the
current `HEAD`. If the actual branch has different commits or unsafe
state, finalization should continue to fail with bounded validation
evidence.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a runtime-managed `git_worktree` execution workspace for an
issue run.
2. During the adapter run, create and check out a new publish branch
without committing new changes.
3. Return adapter success and let heartbeat finalization run.
4. Before this change, finalization records a failed branch check and
fails the run even though the branches point at the same commit.
5. With this change, finalization records the repair operation, restores
the recorded branch, and records a successful finalize row.
6. Repeat with a commit on the publish branch; finalization still fails
because the branch heads differ.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced against `master` at `bac7307ec`; fixed by this PR at
`64ec605cf`.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev / built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is core heartbeat/workspace finalization
behavior.
**Database mode**
Embedded test Postgres in the focused server test.
**Access context**
Agent run finalization.
**Node.js version**
`v25.6.1`
**Operating system**
`Darwin 24.6.0 arm64`
**Relevant logs or output**
The new focused test intentionally exercises both outcomes:
```text
Test Files 1 passed (1)
Tests 3 passed (3)
```
**Relevant config**
Runtime-created `git_worktree` execution workspace.
**Additional context**
The unsafe divergent branch case still fails with
`workspace_validation_failed` and `git_worktree_branch_incoherence`
evidence.
**Privacy checklist**
Reviewed; this description avoids internal task links, local workspace
paths, credentials, and instance-specific URLs.
## What Changed
- Reused the existing guarded branch-coherence repair helper during
heartbeat finalization when the final branch inspection finds clean
same-commit branch drift.
- Recorded repair metadata in the `workspace_finalize` operation so
reviewers/operators can audit whether finalization repaired branch
drift.
- Preserved failure behavior for divergent branch heads and surfaced the
bounded workspace validation evidence from the repair helper.
- Added focused server coverage for safe finalization repair and unsafe
divergent branch failure.
- Updated execution semantics docs to describe the narrower finalization
rule.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
Low to medium risk. The change affects successful-run finalization for
runtime-created git worktree execution workspaces. The repair path is
constrained to clean, registered, same-commit branch drift, and the
focused test confirms divergent branch heads still fail instead of being
restored silently.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent. Exact hosted model ID was not
exposed in the runtime; tool use and local shell execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The local adapter and heartbeat recovery systems decide whether an
agent has a real control-plane mutation path.
> - Sandboxed local adapters split execution between the trusted host
process and the sandbox shell/tool surface.
> - A host-side adapter can still reach Paperclip while the sandbox
shell surface cannot, which leaves agents thinking no endpoint or
credentials are configured even though the host can still post comments.
> - Execution-policy review stages can also remain pending after a
reviewer run finishes without recording a decision.
> - This pull request makes the sandbox bridge available to the actual
shell mutation surface and adds bounded recovery for
terminal-but-still-pending review participants.
> - The benefit is that agents get a real reachable Paperclip API path
where they need it, and stalled review stages become visible recovery
work instead of silently drifting.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No exact public GitHub issue matched this combined failure. I searched
for exact and related terms including `cannot reach the Paperclip
control plane`, `execution_review_participant_recovery`, `sandbox
callback bridge`, `review participant in_review`, and `control plane
sandbox`.
Related public issues:
- Refs #8482 for `in_review` liveness invariant recovery.
- Refs #863 for prior agent API-key reachability confusion.
- Refs #248 for the broader sandboxed agent execution model.
Bug summary:
- What happened: a sandboxed local-adapter run could have host-side
Paperclip access while the sandbox Bash/tool surface lacked a reachable
API endpoint or usable run credentials. Separately, a reviewer run could
finish while its execution-review stage remained pending, leaving the
source issue in `in_review` with no decision and no live participant
run.
- Expected behavior: the mutation surface that agents actually use
should receive a run-scoped Paperclip bridge, and pending review
participants should get one bounded normal-model recovery wake before
moving to explicit blocked/source-scoped recovery.
- Steps to reproduce: run a sandbox-backed local adapter that needs
Bash/curl/tooling to call Paperclip from inside the sandbox, or finish
an execution-policy reviewer run without submitting the pending review
decision.
- Deployment mode: local/authenticated private development instance with
sandbox-backed local adapters.
## What Changed
- Changed sandbox callback bridge startup so bridge credentials are
passed through the sandbox runner environment instead of embedded in the
visible `nohup env ...` command string.
- Added adapter-utils coverage proving the sandbox shell can call
Paperclip through the bridge, forwards the host run JWT with
`X-Paperclip-Run-Id`, and does not leak host or bridge tokens into
stdout/stderr, runner command text, or runtime files.
- Added one bounded execution-review participant recovery path for
terminal reviewer runs whose `executionState` remains pending.
- Escalated exhausted or non-invokable review participant recovery to
blocked/source-scoped recovery with dedicated evidence, activity, and
next-action text.
- Documented the mutation-surface reachability contract in
`doc/execution-semantics.md` and updated the Paperclip skill
authentication guidance for sandbox bridge env vars.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
--no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
- `curl -fsS $PAPERCLIP_API_URL/api/health` returned `status: ok` on the
local instance.
## Risks
- Medium behavioral risk: more `in_review` issues with
terminal-but-pending reviewer runs will now be retried once and then
blocked explicitly instead of remaining quiet.
- Low sandbox bridge risk: credential delivery moved from command text
to the runner environment, which is less leaky but depends on sandbox
providers honoring the env payload for startup commands.
- No database migration is included.
- Full repo build and CI were not run locally before opening the PR;
targeted server/adapter tests and typechecks passed.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via the Codex local agent, with repository tool use and
shell-based code execution. The runtime did not expose a precise
context-window value to the agent.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Managed issue workspaces are part of the control-plane runtime
boundary: the server records which git worktree and branch an agent run
is allowed to use.
> - Existing reuse checks validated the worktree path and cleanliness,
but did not fully validate that the actual checked-out branch still
matched the recorded execution workspace branch.
> - That gap let an agent run switch a managed worktree onto a
publishing branch without updating the execution workspace record, then
later reuse or finalize the workspace as though it were coherent.
> - The runtime needs a bounded repair path for provably safe mismatches
and a hard validation failure for dirty, divergent, or unrecorded branch
transitions.
> - This pull request adds branch coherence to managed git worktree
validation, records explicit recovery evidence, and prevents finalize
success when a run silently changes branches.
> - The benefit is that branch drift becomes either safely repaired or
visibly recoverable instead of silently corrupting managed workspace
state.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug.
Bug report:
- What happened: a managed agent workspace could be recorded for one
branch while the underlying git worktree was actually checked out on
another branch. Reuse and finalization could still treat the workspace
as healthy.
- Expected behavior: managed git worktrees should verify the actual
branch against the recorded execution workspace branch. Safe same-HEAD
clean mismatches may be repaired, while dirty, divergent, or unrecorded
branch transitions should fail into explicit workspace validation
recovery.
- Reproduction outline: create a runtime-managed issue worktree, switch
its checkout to another branch without updating the execution workspace
record, then attempt reuse or run finalization.
- Deployment mode: local/self-hosted Paperclip server using managed git
workspaces.
- Related public work: Refs #7644 and #7579. Related but not duplicate:
#8275 and #5851.
## What Changed
- Added managed git worktree branch inspection, formatted validation
evidence, and safe same-HEAD repair logic to the workspace runtime
service.
- Validated recorded managed workspace branch state before reuse and
during heartbeat setup.
- Added finalization-time branch guards so runs that silently switch
branches fail with `workspace_validation_failed` instead of recording a
successful finalize.
- Added recovery fingerprints and evidence for
`git_worktree_branch_incoherence`, including manual-repair next actions
for unsafe branch drift.
- Documented branch coherence as part of runtime-created git worktree
workspace coherence.
- Added focused tests for safe branch repair, dirty/divergent recovery
evidence, heartbeat setup validation, and finalize failure/success
paths.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
Notes:
- An initial full `pnpm test:run` attempt hit a transient `socket hang
up` in one `plugin-routes-authz` case. The exact case passed when rerun
directly, the full `plugin-routes-authz` file passed, and the subsequent
full `pnpm test:run` passed.
- `pnpm build` still emits existing Vite CSS pseudo-element and
chunk-size warnings unrelated to this change.
## Risks
- This intentionally changes behavior for managed runs that switch
branches without recording the transition: they now fail during
workspace validation/finalization instead of silently proceeding.
- The automatic repair path is intentionally narrow. It only repairs
clean branch mismatches when both branches point at the same commit;
dirty or divergent worktrees require manual recovery.
- Recovery fingerprints now include workspace-validation evidence, so
duplicate recovery-action grouping is more precise for
branch-incoherence failures.
> 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 Codex CLI/API coding agent, with shell/git/test
execution and reasoning mode enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Cody <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Cody <cody@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent runs are assembled by the heartbeat service from agent config,
project workspaces, environment config, secret bindings, skills, and
runtime session state.
> - The heartbeat service intentionally reuses adapter sessions,
execution workspaces, and sandbox leases when that preserves useful
state.
> - Reuse becomes incorrect when the effective next-run config changes
after a saved session, workspace, or lease was created.
> - Stale reuse can make a later run appear pinned to old agent,
environment, secret, instruction, or workspace settings.
> - This pull request records non-sensitive fingerprints for the
effective session, workspace, and lease config at run boundaries.
> - When those fingerprints drift, Paperclip refreshes persisted runtime
config or starts fresh execution instead of reusing stale state.
> - The benefit is predictable next-run config freshness without storing
raw secret values, full env maps, provider credentials, or private path
details.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8058
- Related PRs checked during dedup search: #4968, #4155, #84, #8480.
These cover nearby workspace/session routing or model-config freshness
areas, but do not duplicate this effective run config fingerprinting
path.
## What Changed
- Added effective run config fingerprinting for session, workspace, and
lease reuse decisions, with canonicalization that ignores generated
runtime noise and redacts sensitive values.
- Updated heartbeat reuse logic to compare stored and next-run
fingerprints, reset stale saved sessions, refresh persisted workspace
config snapshots, replace stale reused workspaces when required, and
avoid stale sandbox lease reuse.
- Included plain environment value drift via value hashes, without
storing the raw env values.
- Root-bound instruction content hashing so legacy direct absolute
instruction paths are represented but not read for config fingerprints.
- Batched secret/version metadata lookups for environment lease
fingerprinting.
- Added workspace operation/run result freshness metadata so operators
can inspect non-sensitive decision categories.
- Surfaced config freshness labels and next-run copy in the UI and docs.
- Added focused coverage for fingerprint redaction, session reset
decisions, workspace refresh/replace behavior, environment lease drift,
and persisted workspace restoration.
## Verification
- `git diff --check`
- Sensitive-data scan before push:
- `git diff --unified=0 origin/master...HEAD | rg -n --pcre2
"(AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID|AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY|ghp_[A-Za-z0-9_]{20,}|github_pat_[A-Za-z0-9_]{20,}|sk-[A-Za-z0-9]{20,}|-----BEGIN
(RSA |OPENSSH |EC |DSA )?PRIVATE KEY-----|AKIA[0-9A-Z]{16})"`
- `git diff --unified=0 origin/master...HEAD | rg -n --pcre2
"[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Za-z0-9.-]+\\.[A-Za-z]{2,}"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/effective-run-config-fingerprints.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db clean`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- UI screenshots from Cutter:
-
https://artifacts.cutter.sh/8797/run-2f4827c-2026-06-30T18-57-25/preview/change-01.png
-
https://artifacts.cutter.sh/8797/run-2f4827c-2026-06-30T18-57-25/preview/change-02.png
-
https://artifacts.cutter.sh/8797/run-2f4827c-2026-06-30T18-57-25/preview/change-03.png
## Risks
- Medium: overly broad fingerprints could start fresh sessions,
workspaces, or sandbox leases more often than necessary.
- Medium: missing a config category would allow stale reuse to persist
for that category.
- Medium: legacy direct absolute instruction paths are no longer
content-hashed unless they are paired with an absolute managed
instructions root.
- Low data risk: fingerprint metadata stores hashes and category names,
not raw secrets, raw env values, provider credentials, or private path
details.
> 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 via Codex CLI / Codex coding agent, tool-enabled with
shell, Git, GitHub CLI, local test execution, and code editing. The
exact deployed model variant and context window are not exposed by this
environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Cody <cody@paperclip.ing>
## 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
> - Agents and board users operate inside a company-scoped control plane
where permissions decide which mutating actions they can perform
> - Company skills are part of the reusable agent-company setup surface,
but skill mutation had been coupled to broader agent-creation authority
> - That coupling meant importing or managing skills required a
permission that also implies hiring power, which is broader than the
operation needs
> - Paperclip already has a grant-based permission vocabulary, so skill
mutation should be authorized through a dedicated `skills:create`
capability while preserving existing default behavior for trusted agents
> - This pull request adds the skill creation permission contract,
enforces it on company skill mutations, exposes it in agent permission
management, and documents the changed CLI/API expectations
> - The benefit is a narrower, auditable permission path for skill
import/create/update/delete flows without forcing agents to receive
broader agent-creation authority
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue is linked.
Problem: company skill mutation APIs were effectively tied to broader
agent creation authority. This PR splits skill mutation authorization
onto the public `skills:create` permission while keeping existing
default skill creation behavior for agents unless explicitly disabled.
Related public PR found during duplicate search: #5330. That PR uses an
older `canManageSkills` shape; this PR implements the `skills:create`
grant path instead.
## What Changed
- Added `skills:create` to shared permission constants and agent
permission types/validators as `canCreateSkills`.
- Backfilled default human/member role grants for `skills:create`.
- Updated company skill mutation routes to require board/user or agent
access to `skills:create`, while preserving legacy/default agent
behavior through `canCreateSkills` unless explicitly disabled.
- Updated agent permission update handling, UI permission controls,
duplicate-agent payloads, plugin SDK fixtures, and agent detail API
surfaces for `canCreateSkills`.
- Added regression coverage for skill route authorization, permission
schema/default behavior, invite grants, omitted permission updates, and
duplicate-agent payloads.
- Updated CLI and Paperclip skill documentation for the new skill
creation permission.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-join-grants.test.ts
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts` — 5 files, 90 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run ...changed files...` was attempted first, but the
stable wrapper rejects explicit file arguments; direct Vitest was used
for the same targeted files.
## Risks
- Moderate authorization risk: this changes the gate for company skill
mutations, so the tests cover board grant checks, agent explicit grant
checks, legacy default allowance, and explicit denial.
- Migration/backfill risk is low: the migration only grants
`skills:create` to existing human roles that already need broad
management capability.
- UI/API compatibility risk is low: `canCreateSkills` remains default-on
for full agent permissions, and the update validator preserves omitted
values so unrelated permission edits do not re-enable disabled skill
creation.
> 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 with terminal/tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The CLI (`paperclipai plugin ...`) installs and manages plugins
against a Paperclip server resolved from `--api-base` /
`PAPERCLIP_API_URL` / the active profile / an inferred default
> - During local plugin development you can have more than one Paperclip
running (a released host plus a branch build on another port), and
nothing told you *which* instance a command actually talked to
> - So a plugin that depends on a route or response field only present
on a feature branch could be silently installed/tested against a stale
host, returning `API route not found`, and look broken when the real
problem was the test target
> - This pull request makes the install target explicit: it probes `GET
/api/health` and prints the resolved API URL + server
status/version/mode/exposure before installing, and adds a `plugin
target` command plus docs for running and verifying against a branch
service
> - The benefit is that local plugin authors can confirm they are
exercising the runtime they intend to, instead of debugging phantom
plugin bugs caused by hitting the wrong server
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists, so the underlying problem is described
inline following the feature-request template.
**Problem or motivation**
Local plugin development assumes a single Paperclip on
`http://127.0.0.1:3100`. When a plugin depends on server code that only
exists on a feature branch (a new scoped route, a new response field, a
new managed-resource capability), installing it into a long-lived host
still on older code makes the route/field missing there. The plugin
falls back or errors and *looks* broken, when the real cause is that it
was tested against the wrong runtime. The CLI already let you point at
any server, but it never surfaced which server you ended up on — so the
mistake was invisible.
**Proposed solution**
Make the install target explicit. Before `plugin install` runs, probe
`GET /api/health` and print the resolved API URL plus server
status/version/deploymentMode/exposure, so the developer can confirm
which Paperclip they are installing into. Add a standalone `plugin
target` command to inspect the target without installing, a
`--no-verify-target` escape hatch, and docs covering how to run a branch
service on its own port and verify a branch route end-to-end.
**Alternatives considered**
- Do nothing and rely on the existing `--api-base` / `PAPERCLIP_API_URL`
resolution — rejected because the gap was never the inability to point
at a branch server, it was the lack of feedback about which server was
actually hit.
- Fail the install when the target looks stale — rejected as too
aggressive; the probe is advisory and degrades gracefully when health
details are not exposed or the server is unreachable.
## Dedup Search
- [x] I searched the open and recently closed GitHub PRs for similar or
duplicate PRs — this is not a duplicate
## What Changed
- Add `probeTargetDiagnostics` / `formatTargetDiagnostics` helpers
(`cli/src/commands/client/plugin.ts`) that read `GET /api/health` and
report the resolved API URL plus server `status` / `version` /
`deploymentMode` / `deploymentExposure`.
- `plugin install` now prints these target diagnostics before
installing, so you can confirm which instance you are installing into.
Skippable with `--no-verify-target`.
- `plugin install --json` keeps its original flat `PluginRecord` shape
(top-level `id` / `pluginKey` / `version` / `status` are unchanged);
when the target was probed it gains an additional top-level `target`
field. Existing automation that reads the plugin fields keeps working.
- Add a standalone `paperclipai plugin target` command to inspect the
install target without installing anything.
- Update `doc/plugins/LOCAL_PLUGIN_DEVELOPMENT.md`: how the CLI resolves
its target, how to run a branch service on its own port and point the
CLI at it explicitly, an end-to-end check that the branch route is
actually served, and a troubleshooting entry for the stale-target
symptom.
- Unit tests for the diagnostics helpers (reachable + unreachable probe,
and both render paths).
## Verification
- `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts` — 10/10 pass
(covers `probeTargetDiagnostics` success/failure and
`formatTargetDiagnostics` rendering).
- CLI typecheck (`tsc --noEmit` in `cli/`) — clean.
- Manual: with a server running, `paperclipai plugin target` prints
`Target Paperclip: <url>` and the health line; `plugin install` prints
the same block before installing and `--no-verify-target` skips it.
## Risks
Low risk. The probe is read-only (`GET /api/health`) and runs before
install; if the server does not expose details it degrades to `ok (no
details exposed)`, and an unreachable target prints a remediation hint
rather than failing the command. The `--json` output keeps its original
flat shape, so existing scripts are unaffected. No server or schema
changes.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended thinking + tool use, via
Claude Code.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products.
> - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue
properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and
plugin-provided external context.
> - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly
plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand
status, identity, and liveness.
> - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and
pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company.
> - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts,
storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can
contribute detection and status resolution.
> - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation,
GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters,
sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage.
> - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable
Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the
UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work.
Feature request:
- Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related
surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline.
- Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist
normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise
status-aware links across issue surfaces.
- Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues
containing external work links.
- Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped,
provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where
relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests.
Related PR search:
- No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`.
- Closed related prior attempt: #4556.
## What Changed
- Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness
helpers, and plugin protocol declarations.
- Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects,
source mentions, and display metadata.
- Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing,
refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents,
comments, projects, and plugins.
- Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring
docs.
- Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat,
documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar
badges, and Storybook stories.
- Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired
stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive
tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR
branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56
tests.
- Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm
test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not
claim those were rerun after the final rebase.
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on
issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync
wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core
mutations.
- Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are
additive and company-scoped.
- Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge
cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current
GitHub shapes.
- Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy
issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended
surfaces.
> Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the
current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature.
Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products,
preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped
external-object reference foundation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool
use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context
window were not exposed in the environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to manage AI-agent
companies.
> - Board operators rely on the settings UI and CLI docs to understand
which product surfaces are stable to depend on.
> - Experimental features already existed in the product, but the
operator-facing contract around them was too soft and too fragmented.
> - That created a risk that users would enable experiments without
being told clearly that they can break, change, or disappear.
> - The docs and the in-product settings page both needed the same
explicit warning language so the contract is visible at the moment of
decision.
> - This pull request adds that warning to the board-operator guide, CLI
references, and the experimental settings page.
> - The benefit is clearer operator expectations without changing the
underlying feature flags or rollout behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this docs/polish gap.
Problem description:
- Board operators could enable experimental features without a clear
operator-facing statement that those features are opt-in and come
without compatibility guarantees.
- The docs site, repo CLI reference, and in-product experimental
settings page did not present one consistent warning contract.
- This PR closes that gap by documenting the risk explicitly where
operators discover and enable those settings.
Related public search:
- Searched public issues/PRs for related work with `gh search issues
--repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features warning'` and `gh
search prs --repo paperclipai/paperclip 'experimental features
warning'`.
- Reviewed open PR #6165 during that search and found it unrelated; it
changes experimental auth/routing flags rather than documenting
experimental-feature risk.
## What Changed
- Added a new board-operator guide at
`docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md` that defines the
Paperclip contract for experimental features.
- Registered that guide in `docs/docs.json` so it appears in the public
docs navigation.
- Added matching caveat language next to `instance
settings:experimental` in `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md`.
- Added the same caveat to `doc/CLI.md` so the repo CLI reference does
not drift from the published docs.
- Added a single page-level warning banner to
`ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx` stating that
experimental features are opt-in, carry no compatibility guarantees, and
may change, break, or be removed.
- Added a targeted UI test in
`ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` that asserts
exactly one page-level warning renders with the new risk language.
## Verification
- `jq empty docs/docs.json`
- `git diff --check`
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run
src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx`
- Manual review of the warning contract across:
- `docs/guides/board-operator/experimental-features.md`
- `docs/cli/control-plane-commands.md`
- `doc/CLI.md`
- `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`
UI note:
- This is a copy-level warning addition rather than a layout rework. I
did not attach before/after screenshots in this PR body.
## Risks
- Low risk: this changes operator-facing documentation and warning copy,
not feature-flag behavior.
- The main failure mode is wording drift across docs and UI in future
edits, which is why this PR adds the same contract to all relevant
operator-facing surfaces.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md` before opening this PR. This is docs/UI polish
around an existing experimental surface, not overlapping roadmap-level
core feature work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex Local using `gpt-5.4` with high reasoning and tool use
for coordination, review, docs changes, and PR preparation.
- Anthropic Claude Local using `claude-opus-4-8` with high reasoning and
tool use for the in-product warning and targeted UI test.
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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 productivity-recovery subsystem watches for "stranded" assigned
issues — claims whose live run disappeared — and repairs, resumes, or
visibly blocks them
> - When an executor decomposes an umbrella issue into sub-tasks, it
parks its own continuation as "waiting on review/approval" (error code
`issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`) — a deliberate pause, not a lost
run
> - Recovery's staleness gate mistook that deliberate park for a
disappeared run: it retried once, then escalated the issue to `blocked`
with a recovery action and an operator-facing failure notice — even
though nothing had failed and there was nothing for a human to do
> - The user is left staring at an inscrutable, over-technical
"stranded" error on a task they did nothing wrong with, with no idea
what action to take
> - This pull request teaches recovery to recognize a review-parked
continuation and, when the issue has a real waiting target (open
sub-tasks or unresolved blockers), convert it into a first-class
dependency wait: `blocked`-by-children, original assignee kept, plus a
plain-language comment saying it will resume automatically
> - The benefit is that post-decomposition umbrellas sit on a real
waiting path and self-resume through the normal blockers-resolved flow,
while genuine strands (no waiting target) still escalate exactly as
before
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #6503
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: add
`resolveContinuationWaitingOnReview`. When a continuation was cancelled
with `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review` and the issue has a real
waiting target — open (non-terminal) sub-tasks or existing unresolved
blockers — recovery sets the issue `blocked` by those issues, keeps the
original assignee, posts a plain-language `system` comment, and logs the
activity. Wired into `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues` ahead of the
escalation path, with a new `waitingOnReviewResolved` counter on the
result.
- With no waiting target, the code falls through to the existing
escalation, preserving genuine stranded-run detection.
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`: two new
tests — (1) a review-parked continuation converts into a dependency wait
on its open sub-tasks (done children excluded, no recovery issue opened,
plain-language comment, raw error code never leaks), and (2) it still
escalates when no open dependency remains.
- `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document the "Deliberate wait is not a
lost run" recovery rule and the requirement that a post-decomposition
umbrella hold a first-class waiting path rather than relying on
`parentId` rollup.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx tsc --noEmit` — passes against current `master`.
- New tests in `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`
(describe: "heartbeat orphaned process recovery"):
- "converts a continuation parked for review into a dependency wait on
its open sub-tasks"
- "still escalates a continuation parked for review when no open
dependency remains"
- Run with the repo's vitest setup, e.g. `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` (requires the
embedded-postgres test harness).
## Risks
Low. The change adds a single guarded pre-check ahead of the existing
escalation path; behavior is unchanged when the cancellation error code
is not `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review` or when the issue has no
open sub-task / unresolved blocker to wait on. No schema or migration
changes.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), Opus-class model, via the Claude Code agent harness
— extended thinking and tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — server-only)
- [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 (pending CI)
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The 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 control plane people use to create, configure, and
run AI agents for work.
> - This change sits in the server-side agent lifecycle and
secret-binding subsystem, where adapter config `env` entries can
reference company secrets.
> - An incident (while trying to configure a Novita sandbox) showed that
an agent can reach a broken runtime state if `adapterConfig.env`
contains `secret_ref` entries but the matching `company_secret_bindings`
rows are missing.
> - The immediate run-path guard and error-surfacing work made the
failure diagnosable, but they did not fully prevent new broken agents
from being created.
> - The risk came from create and approval flows being responsible for
remembering to sync bindings at each call site, which is easy to miss as
new flows are added.
> - This pull request moves the invariant into `agentService`
create/update/activate paths, keeps the existing hire-flow fix, and adds
regression coverage for create, update, and legacy pending-approval
recovery.
> - The benefit is that agent secret binding integrity is enforced
closer to the data mutation point, so future callers inherit the
protection automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8309
### What happened?
A Paperclip agent could persist `adapterConfig.env` `secret_ref` entries
without matching agent-scoped `company_secret_bindings` rows. When that
happened, the config UI could still look configured, but the real run
path failed pre-dispatch because the secret was not actually bound to
that agent.
### Expected behavior
Every normal agent create, config-update, and pending-approval
activation flow should leave the agent with secret bindings that match
its persisted secret-ref env config.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create or activate an agent through a flow that persists
`adapterConfig.env` secret refs without synchronizing
`company_secret_bindings`.
2. Observe that the config state can still appear populated.
3. Start a run for that agent.
4. Observe that pre-dispatch binding validation fails because the secret
reference exists but the agent binding does not.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`)
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`)
### Agent adapter(s) involved
- Claude Code
- Not adapter-specific (core bug)
### Database mode
Embedded PGlite / embedded local dev database flow
### Access context
Board (human operator) created or approved the agent; agent runtime
later consumed the config.
### Additional context
This PR focuses on preventing new broken states from normal service
flows and on backfilling the covered legacy pending-approval activation
path.
## What Changed
- Kept the existing branch-local hire-flow fix that synchronized
bindings for route and approval paths.
- Moved the binding integrity invariant into `agentService.create()`,
`agentService.update()` when `adapterConfig` changes, and
`agentService.activatePendingApproval()`.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts`
covering create-time sync, update-time resync, and backfill for legacy
pending-approval agents.
- Removed now-redundant route-layer and approval-layer binding sync
calls once the service layer became authoritative.
- Simplified the affected unit tests so route/approval tests no longer
assert service-owned binding writes directly.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approvals-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low to medium risk.
- This changes where secret-binding synchronization is enforced, so any
unexpected caller that relied on upper-layer manual sync behavior could
behave differently.
- Agent create/update/activation flows now perform binding
synchronization consistently, which adds binding-table writes at those
mutation points.
- This PR does not retroactively scan and heal every already-broken
historical agent row; it prevents and backfills through the covered
service flows.
> 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 Codex class model via `codex_local`
- Session model family: GPT-5 Codex
- Tool-assisted coding with shell, git, HTTP, and local test execution
- Reasoning mode: medium interactive tool-use 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 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The `codex_local` adapter runs local Codex CLI processes and builds
their environment from persisted agent config plus host process env.
> - A host-level `OPENAI_API_KEY` or shared Codex auth home can silently
make new agents spend through shared credentials.
> - Existing agents can be repaired manually, but new and updated agents
need a persistent guard at the agent configuration boundary.
> - This pull request isolates new and updated `codex_local` agents with
per-agent `CODEX_HOME` and an empty `OPENAI_API_KEY` override.
> - The benefit is that future agent creation or adapter updates cannot
silently fall back to shared OpenAI credentials.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Paperclip work item: [ZOL-5477](/ZOL/issues/ZOL-5477).
No matching GitHub issue exists, so the bug is described inline
following `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`.
**Pre-submission checklist**
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am on the latest `master` commit for this PR branch.
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip's `codex_local`
adapter configuration boundary, not in a provider outage.
**What happened?**
New or updated `codex_local` agents could inherit a host-level
`OPENAI_API_KEY` or use a shared Codex home when their adapter config
did not explicitly isolate those values. That made it possible for
future agents or manual adapter edits to silently fall back to shared
OpenAI credentials.
**Expected behavior**
Creating, hiring, or updating a `codex_local` agent should either
persist isolated per-agent configuration or reject unsafe shared Codex
home configuration with a clear 422 response. The guard must not print
secret values.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create or update a `codex_local` agent without an explicit
`adapterConfig.env.OPENAI_API_KEY` override.
2. Run it on a host where the Paperclip server process has
`OPENAI_API_KEY` set.
3. Observe that the adapter process can inherit the host key unless
Paperclip persists a blocking empty override.
4. Set `adapterConfig.env.CODEX_HOME` to a shared path such as
`~/.codex` or the company-level `codex-home`.
5. Observe that the old code allowed the shared auth home instead of
returning a validation error.
**Paperclip version or commit**
- Reproduced by inspection against `master` before this PR.
**Deployment mode**
- Local dev / self-hosted server with `codex_local` agents.
**Installation method**
- Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
- Codex.
**Database mode**
- Not database-related.
**Access context**
- Board and agent configuration paths.
**Relevant logs or output**
- No secret-bearing logs included.
**Relevant config**
- Unsafe shape: missing `adapterConfig.env.OPENAI_API_KEY`, or shared
`adapterConfig.env.CODEX_HOME`.
- Fixed shape: per-agent `CODEX_HOME` plus empty `OPENAI_API_KEY`
override.
**Additional context**
Related PR search for `codex_local OPENAI_API_KEY CODEX_HOME` found:
- #3681 `fix: preserve managed Codex auth and repo-root env loading`
- #5621 `fix: copy worktree codex auth locally`
Those are adjacent auth-handling changes, but they do not add the agent
create/update guard implemented here.
**Privacy checklist**
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths,
API keys, tokens, company names, and redacted where necessary.
## What Changed
- Added a `codex_local` config guard in agent create, hire, and update
routes.
- The guard assigns `adapterConfig.env.CODEX_HOME` to
`companies/<companyId>/agents/<agentId>/codex-home` when missing.
- The guard persists `adapterConfig.env.OPENAI_API_KEY = ""` when
missing, preventing host env inheritance.
- Shared `CODEX_HOME` values for the company codex-home, host
`$CODEX_HOME`, or `~/.codex` now fail with a 422 error.
- Added route tests for create, hire, update, and rejected shared host
Codex home.
- Updated `codex_local` and development docs to describe the per-agent
home contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-adapter-validation-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `git diff --check upstream/master...HEAD`
- `gh pr list --repo paperclipai/paperclip --state all --search
"codex_local OPENAI_API_KEY CODEX_HOME" --limit 20 --json
number,title,state,url`
- `rg -n "codex|OPENAI_API_KEY|CODEX_HOME|adapter" ROADMAP.md` returned
no roadmap overlap.
## Risks
- Existing legacy `codex_local` agents with shared `CODEX_HOME` will get
a clear 422 when their adapter config is updated until the shared path
is replaced. This is intentional because silent fallback is the bug
being guarded.
- Low migration risk: no database migration and no secret values are
printed or persisted beyond the empty override.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 Codex, Codex coding-agent session with repository tool
use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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
- [ ] 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
## Paperclip
- Issue: [ZOL-5477](/ZOL/issues/ZOL-5477)
- Owner: Разработчик (`6625498c-66c9-429f-b578-4463ddc3ba16`)
- Status: waiting reviewer
- Next action: merge after approval and green CI
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Plugins extend the server with worker/UI surfaces, and bundled local
plugins under `packages/plugins/**` ship as TS source — their compiled
`dist/` is not checked in
> - On a fresh checkout, installing a bundled local plugin via the
in-app **Install** button failed because `paperclipPlugin.manifest`
points at `./dist/manifest.js`, which does not exist until the package
is built
> - The error surfaces as `Package … does not appear to be a Paperclip
plugin (no manifest found)`, which is misleading — the manifest is real,
the dist is just missing — and forces every contributor to run `pnpm
--filter … build` by hand before the bundled-plugin installer works at
all
> - This pull request teaches the install path to detect that case and
run the package's build (plus standalone runtime bootstrap for plugins
outside the root workspace) before manifest resolution, gated by a kill
switch and a bounded timeout
> - The benefit is bundled plugins like
`@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff` install in one click on a fresh
checkout, with a clear error message and manual fallback when the
autobuild itself fails
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing GitHub issue. Underlying bug, following the bug-report
template:
**What happened?**
Installing a bundled local plugin from a fresh checkout fails with
`Package @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff at
packages/plugins/plugin-workspace-diff does not appear to be a Paperclip
plugin (no manifest found)`. The manifest is declared in `package.json`
(`paperclipPlugin.manifest = ./dist/manifest.js`) but `dist/` is not
built/committed, so the loader cannot find it.
**Expected behavior**
Clicking **Install** on a bundled plugin builds it if needed and
registers it, without a manual build step.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Fresh checkout of `master`
2. Start the server, open Plugin Manager
3. Click **Install** next to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`
4. Observe the "no manifest found" failure
**Scope**
Same failure mode affects every bundled plugin without a checked-in
`dist/` (`plugin-llm-wiki`, examples, sandbox-provider plugins, etc.).
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/plugin-loader.ts`: added
`ensureLocalPluginBuilt(packageRoot, pkgJson)` — when the package lives
under `packages/plugins/**` and its declared paperclipPlugin entrypoints
(`manifest`, `worker`, `ui`) are missing, run `pnpm --filter <name>
build` (and a standalone runtime-deps bootstrap for plugins outside the
root pnpm workspace) before manifest resolution
- `server/src/routes/plugins.ts`: invoke the autobuild from the
local-path install path; surface a `hasBuiltEntrypoints` boolean on the
`AvailableBundledPlugin` listing; invalidate the bundled-plugins cache
after a successful install so a freshly built plugin no longer reports
`hasBuiltEntrypoints: false`
- `ui/src/api/plugins.ts` + `ui/src/pages/PluginManager.tsx`: type and
consume `hasBuiltEntrypoints` so the installer can show that an
autobuild will run on install
- `server/src/__tests__/plugin-install-autobuild.test.ts`: new suite — 9
tests covering success, kill-switch, build failure, timeout, manifest
still missing after build, standalone variant, and the existing
`plugin-routes-authz` listing assertion
- `doc/plugins/LOCAL_PLUGIN_DEVELOPMENT.md`: documents the autobuild,
the `PAPERCLIP_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOBUILD=1` kill switch, and the manual
fallback command
- Detect the autobuild timeout via the child-process `killed` flag
rather than string-matching the error message, so the "after timing out"
context is actually emitted
Knobs:
- `PAPERCLIP_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOBUILD=1` — skip autobuild entirely;
restore prior behavior
- Build timeout: 120s, with a clear error that points at the manual
`pnpm --filter <name> build` recovery command
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/plugin-install-autobuild.test.ts
src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` → 44/44 pass
- End-to-end on a clean checkout: `rm -rf
packages/plugins/plugin-workspace-diff/dist`, invoke
`ensureLocalPluginBuilt()` against the real package, all declared
entrypoints (`dist/manifest.js`, `dist/worker.js`, `dist/ui/index.js`)
regenerated. The original `no manifest found` symptom no longer
reproduces.
## Risks
Low. The autobuild only fires when (a) the package sits under
`packages/plugins/**`, (b) at least one declared entrypoint is missing,
and (c) the kill switch is not set. In a packaged production server the
`packages/plugins/**` path does not exist on disk, so the helper
short-circuits and never shells out to `pnpm`. Failures from the spawned
build are surfaced as an install error with the exact manual command to
retry, so the worst-case is the same UX as before plus a clearer
message.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7), extended thinking enabled, tool use
(filesystem + bash).
## 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
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Production self-hosters increasingly expect telemetry out of the box
— Jaeger, Tempo, Honeycomb, Datadog, Grafana Cloud, Dynatrace all speak
OTLP
> - Today there is no OpenTelemetry bootstrap in the server, so
operators who want traces have to patch their fork or run a sidecar that
captures only HTTP-level info
> - An opt-in bootstrap that costs nothing when disabled is the
minimum-viable surface for this audience
> - The OpenTelemetry packages are heavyweight enough that we don't want
them in the default dependency graph — they should load only when the
operator configures an OTLP endpoint
> - This pull request adds a self-contained
`server/src/instrumentation.ts` that dynamically imports the OTel SDK
and starts it when `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT` is set, and is a
complete no-op otherwise
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue covers this directly — feature-gap description
following the feature-request template:
**Problem or motivation**
Production self-hosters increasingly expect telemetry out of the box —
Jaeger, Tempo, Honeycomb, Datadog, Grafana Cloud, Dynatrace all speak
OTLP — but the server has no OpenTelemetry bootstrap. Operators who want
traces today must patch their fork or run a sidecar that captures only
HTTP-level information.
**Proposed solution**
An opt-in OTel bootstrap gated on `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT`, loaded
via dynamic `import()` only when configured, so the heavyweight OTel
packages stay out of the default dependency graph.
**Alternatives considered**
Related open PRs found during the duplicate-PR search approach
observability differently: #4894 adds OTLP instrumentation to Paperclip
core unconditionally, and #3752 proposes an observability plugin. Not
duplicates — different layering: this PR keeps the default install
dependency-free via opt-in dynamic import.
## What Changed
- New `server/src/instrumentation.ts` — opt-in OpenTelemetry
auto-instrumentation. Gated on `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT`. Respects
the standard OTel env vars (`OTEL_SERVICE_NAME`, `OTEL_SERVICE_VERSION`,
`OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT`). Skips the fs/dns/net
auto-instrumentations (too chatty). `sdk.start()` is wrapped in
try/catch so a bad endpoint or missing native bindings doesn't crash the
server. `process.once("SIGTERM" / "SIGINT", …)` for clean shutdown on
the first signal only. OTel packages are loaded via dynamic `import()`
so they are true optional runtime dependencies — no entries in
`package.json`, no lockfile churn.
- `server/src/index.ts` — import `./instrumentation.js` as the very
first statement so auto-instrumentation can patch `http` / `express` /
`pg` before they are evaluated by downstream modules.
## Verification
- `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT=http://localhost:4317 pnpm start` after
`pnpm install
@opentelemetry/{sdk-node,auto-instrumentations-node,exporter-trace-otlp-grpc,resources,semantic-conventions}`
in `server/` — traces show up in the configured collector; HTTP,
Express, and Postgres spans are populated.
- `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT` unset — server starts with no
OTel-shaped output in logs, no behavior change.
- `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT=…` set but packages not installed —
single `console.warn` at startup telling the operator which packages to
install.
## Risks
Low. No behavior change unless the env var is set. The bootstrap never
throws into the caller; every failure path ends in `console.warn` /
`console.error` and falls through to non-traced operation.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context), extended thinking mode.
## Checklist
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] Thinking path traces from project context to this change
- [x] Model used specified
- [x] Tests run locally and pass
- [x] CI green
- [x] Greptile review addressed
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies.
> - Issue checkout ownership is part of the execution-control layer that
prevents two runs from mutating the same task at the same time.
> - The current lock model should preserve `409` conflicts for live
competing owners, but it should not strand the rightful assignee behind
a stale terminal run.
> - A same-agent follow-up run can encounter an existing `checkoutRunId`
from a failed, timed-out, succeeded, or missing heartbeat run.
> - In that case, the new run should safely adopt ownership instead of
failing with an ownership conflict.
> - This pull request makes stale checkout adoption transactional and
keeps live checkout owners protected.
> - The benefit is safer run recovery without weakening single-owner
checkout semantics.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Fixes#5350
- Closes#1508
- Closes#1970
- Closes#2083
- Closes#3158
- Closes#3190
- Related stale-lock PRs reviewed during dedup search: #7536, #6658,
#5660, #5442, #6223, #7048, #6824, #6799
## What Changed
- Updated issue checkout ownership recovery so the current assignee can
adopt a stale terminal or missing checkout run.
- Added row locking around stale checkout adoption to avoid races while
replacing `checkoutRunId` / `executionRunId`.
- Preserved `409` behavior when a different live checkout owner is still
active.
- Prevented terminal actor runs from reclaiming an unowned checkout lock
after the newer eager stale-checkout clear path.
- Fixed the stale checkout test fixture so same-assignee cases do not
insert duplicate agent rows.
- Added/kept focused coverage for stale checkout adoption and live-owner
conflict behavior.
- Fixes#5350.
## Verification
- Focused tests:
```sh
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts
```
Result:
```text
2 passed, 84 tests passed
```
- Server typecheck:
```sh
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
```
Result:
```text
passed
```
- Live curl smoke confirmed same-agent stale checkout adoption returns
`200` instead of `409`.
```text
old_run_status=succeeded
checkout_http=200
patch_http=200
```
The PATCH response showed `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId` updated
to the new run id.
### Live curl smoke result
<img width="1498" height="570" alt="Live curl smoke showing stale
checkout adoption returned 200"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4bf834de-e3cd-4495-ac5a-74767b439eeb"
/>
### Server request log
<img width="631" height="131" alt="Server logs showing heartbeat,
checkout, and patch requests succeeded"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ceaaa403-110e-44e8-bac8-5d8506e79cc3"
/>
## Risks
- Low to medium risk: this touches issue execution lock ownership.
- The behavioral shift is intentionally narrow: only the current
assignee can adopt stale terminal or missing checkout ownership.
- Live checkout owners remain protected with `409`.
- No database migration or API contract change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use, shell
execution, code review, and local verification.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Cross-references and status (maintainer)
- Closes#1508
- Closes#1970
- Closes#2083
- Closes#3158
- Closes#3190
- Status: rebased onto current master; focused tests and server
typecheck pass locally; all required CI is green; Greptile is 5/5;
master drift verified.
---------
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The issue subsystem holds per-row lock columns (`checkoutRunId`,
`executionRunId`, `executionAgentNameKey`, `executionLockedAt`) that
gate checkout, ownership, and release
> - When a heartbeat run terminates, `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote`
clears the execution-lock columns but stale checkout locks could remain
attached to dead runs in edge paths
> - The original fix closed the finalization, checkout, release, and
sweeper paths, but PR CI exposed one more process-loss retry path where
a queued retry advanced `executionRunId` while leaving `checkoutRunId`
pinned to the failed run
> - This pull request closes the asymmetry: terminal-run cleanup and
process-loss retry recovery release dead checkout locks while preserving
live execution ownership
> - The benefit is permanent, automatic self-heal of stale lock columns
and fewer false checkout 409s requiring board intervention
> - Related upstream issue: #6007
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #6007.
Duplicate/related PR search performed on 2026-06-10 with query
`checkoutRunId process loss retry stale checkout lock
repo:paperclipai/paperclip`.
Related PRs found and reviewed for overlap:
- #7727 `fix(heartbeat): atomically advance checkoutRunId on
process-loss retry`
- #7707 `test: cover same-agent stale checkout adoption`
- #3068 `fix: clear checkoutRunId when releasing issue execution lock`
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote`:
extend the per-issue update to also null `checkoutRunId` when it matches
the terminating run id. WHERE clause scoped to `executionRunId = run.id
OR checkoutRunId = run.id` for idempotence.
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` process-loss retry: when queuing
the retry run, move `executionRunId` to the retry and clear the failed
run's `checkoutRunId` so the dead run no longer owns checkout.
- `server/src/services/issues.ts`: add `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal`
helper, symmetric to `clearExecutionRunIfTerminal`. No assignee/status
precondition. Wired into `checkout`, `assertCheckoutOwner`, and
`release`. Exported on the issue service.
- `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: add `sweepStaleIssueLocks`.
Scans `issues` where `checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT
NULL`, joins each referenced run, and clears all lock columns on issues
whose referenced runs are all terminal or missing. Emits one
`issue.stale_lock_cleared` activity log row per cleared issue.
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: re-export the sweeper on the
heartbeat facade.
- `server/src/index.ts`: invoke `sweepStaleIssueLocks` in both the
startup recovery sequence and the periodic heartbeat timer chain.
- Tests: route-level coverage of the new self-heal path on the next
checkout attempt, service-level sweeper coverage, and heartbeat recovery
assertions that terminal process-loss cleanup releases `checkoutRunId`.
## Verification
```bash
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run \
src/__tests__/recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts
NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues exactly one retry when the recorded local pid is dead|does not block paused-tree work when immediate continuation recovery is suppressed by the hold"
NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
```
All listed local checks pass. The new and updated tests cover:
- Run termination clears `checkoutRunId` when it points at the
terminating run.
- Process-loss retry clears the failed run's `checkoutRunId` while
assigning `executionRunId` to the queued retry.
- A different agent calling `POST /api/issues/:id/checkout` on an issue
whose prior owner died self-heals via `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal` and
succeeds.
- Sweeper clears stale lock columns for issues whose run row is
terminal.
- Sweeper leaves issues alone while the referenced run is still running.
- Sweeper leaves issues alone when `executionRunId` is still running
even if `checkoutRunId` is terminal.
- Sweeper is idempotent; second pass clears nothing.
Manual reproduction of the original bug shape:
1. Create an issue assigned to agent A, set `status='in_progress'`,
`checkoutRunId=R1`, `executionRunId=null`, where `heartbeat_runs.status
= 'failed'` for `R1`.
2. Reassign to agent B and move to `status='todo'`.
3. Before this PR: agent B `POST /checkout` returns `409 Issue checkout
conflict` indefinitely. After this PR: succeeds, lock columns rewritten
to agent B's current run id.
## Risks
- Low. All clears are scoped by run id, so they only fire when the lock
column unambiguously points at the terminating or terminal run. No
schema change. No migration. No API surface change.
- Behavioral shift: an issue that previously stayed `in_progress` with a
dead `checkoutRunId` after run termination now self-heals. Downstream
code that reads stale `checkoutRunId` as a proxy for recent run history
should already be reading `executionRunId` or the `heartbeat_runs`
table.
- Sweeper cost: one indexed scan per recovery tick over rows where
`checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT NULL` plus a single
batched `heartbeatRuns` lookup per candidate. Negligible at expected
cardinality; further bounded by the existing recovery cadence.
> 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`.
This is a bug fix, not a feature. No roadmap overlap.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-4-7`, extended-thinking off,
tool use enabled.
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool use enabled, used for the
follow-up process-loss retry fix and PR body update.
## 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
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue thread is the operator surface where comments, assignee
changes, pauses, resumes, and wakeups turn human intent into agent
execution.
> - Interrupting a live run and handing work to another assignee needs
clear semantics so the product does not accidentally keep work alive,
wake the wrong participant, or hide why an agent stopped.
> - Comment-driven wakes also need strict boundaries so closed, blocked,
and dependency-driven work only resumes when there is real actionable
input.
> - This pull request codifies the interrupt handoff contract,
implements backend scheduling behavior, and gives the UI clearer
handoff/pause language.
> - The benefit is a more inspectable and predictable task lifecycle for
both operators and agents.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Paperclip issue: `PAP-10664` / `PAP-10751`.
Problem: interrupting or reassigning live agent work could be ambiguous
in the UI and backend. Operators needed clearer feedback about whether a
handoff wakes an agent, what pause/cancel affects, and when comments
should revive execution. The backend also needed stronger tests around
comment wake boundaries, retry supersession, and structured agent
mention dispatch.
Related GitHub PR search found broad workflow-adjacent PRs #5082, #6359,
and #4083, but no exact duplicate for this head branch or
interrupt-handoff scope.
## What Changed
- Added an interrupt handoff semantics document covering destination
behavior, wake expectations, and live-run interruption states.
- Implemented backend interrupt handoff behavior and comment wake/reopen
handling in issue routes/services and heartbeat scheduling.
- Hardened structured agent mention dispatch so mentions resolve through
the intended dispatch path.
- Added UI helpers and components for handoff chips, wake rows,
interrupt banners, pause-affects summaries, and composer guidance.
- Updated the issue properties assignee picker and issue chat/composer
surfaces to make interrupt/reassign behavior clearer.
- Added backend, UI utility, component, and Storybook coverage for the
new behavior.
- Stabilized the new UI component tests with a local `flushSync`-backed
act helper matching existing repo practice in this dependency set.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by threading historical run `errorCode`
through issue-run data and operator-interrupted chat labels.
- Addressed Greptile's cancel ordering concern by terminating/deleting
in-memory heartbeat processes before cancellation status persistence,
with regression coverage for DB update failure.
## Verification
- `git diff --check $(git merge-base HEAD origin/master)..HEAD`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/interrupt-handoff.test.ts src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
src/components/interrupt-handoff/InterruptHandoffViews.test.tsx
--no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 4 files / 91 tests passed before
the Greptile follow-ups.
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism
--maxWorkers=1` — 6 files / 191 tests passed before the Greptile
follow-ups.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts --no-file-parallelism
--maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 24 tests passed after the historical
`errorCode` follow-up.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism
--maxWorkers=1` — 2 files / 11 tests passed after the historical
`errorCode` follow-up.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
--no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 52 tests passed after
the cancel ordering follow-up.
- Greptile is green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`;
the old inline P2 is resolved/outdated.
- GitHub Actions, Socket, security-review, and Greptile checks are green
for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`. The external
`security/snyk (cryppadotta)` status was still pending at
`https://app.snyk.io/org/cryppadotta/pr-checks/85b3e8f4-04e1-4f8e-9362-899c8148c23c`
after a bounded wait.
## Risks
- Medium: changes touch issue comments, wake scheduling, and live-run
interruption semantics, so regressions could affect when agents resume
or stay stopped.
- Medium: UI copy and state grouping for assignee changes may need
reviewer tuning after product review.
- Low migration risk: no database schema migration is included.
- The branch was created before the latest `origin/master` commits;
reviewers should confirm CI merge-base behavior and resolve any merge
conflicts if GitHub reports them.
> 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 use and local command
execution enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window were 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Screenshot note: this PR includes Storybook coverage for the new
interrupt handoff UI states rather than captured before/after browser
screenshots in this PR-creation heartbeat.
---------
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.
> - 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 the open source control plane people use to manage AI
agents, work, and company context.
> - The board UI sidebar is the main way operators keep orientation
across companies, projects, agents, issues, and settings.
> - The existing fixed expanded sidebar competes with route-specific
navigation, especially company settings and plugin routes that bring
their own contextual sidebar.
> - A collapsible primary rail preserves global navigation while giving
contextual pages more horizontal room.
> - This pull request adds a persisted collapsed rail, hover/focus peek,
keyboard toggle, and a secondary sidebar takeover model for settings and
plugin `routeSidebar` surfaces.
> - The benefit is a denser board shell that keeps the app rail
available without replacing it when a route needs its own navigation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Paperclip issue: PAP-10638 Create collapsible sidebar branch.
Related GitHub PR found during duplicate search: #3838
(`feat/collapsible-sidebar`) covers a similar sidebar area but is a
different head branch and implementation. This PR intentionally packages
the work from `PAP-10638-collapsable-sidebar` into one reviewable
branch.
Problem description:
The board shell needs a first-class collapsed sidebar mode. Contextual
surfaces such as company settings and plugin route sidebars should not
replace the global app sidebar; they should collapse the app sidebar to
a rail and render their contextual navigation beside it.
## What Changed
- Added desktop collapsed/sidebar-peek state to `SidebarContext`,
including persisted user pins, route collapse requests, and forced
collapse for secondary-sidebar routes.
- Replaced the old resizable sidebar pane with `SidebarShell`, which
supports a fixed 64px rail, persisted expanded width, keyboard/pointer
resizing, and hover/focus peek overlay behavior.
- Updated `Sidebar`, sidebar nav items, project/agent sections, badges,
and account/company menu presentation for expanded, collapsed, and
peeking states.
- Added `RequestCollapsedSidebar` and `SecondarySidebar` so routes and
plugin `routeSidebar` slots can request contextual sidebar layouts
without replacing the primary app sidebar.
- Wired company settings and plugin route sidebars into the
secondary-pane takeover model.
- Added focused Vitest coverage for sidebar state precedence, shell
sizing, nav item rail rendering, keyboard shortcuts, layout takeover
behavior, and route collapse requests.
- Updated plugin authoring docs/spec references for route sidebar
behavior.
## Verification
Targeted local verification passed:
```sh
NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/context/SidebarContext.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarShell.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/components/RequestCollapsedSidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarNavItem.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/KeyboardShortcutsCheatsheet.test.tsx ui/src/hooks/useKeyboardShortcuts.test.tsx
```
Result: 10 test files passed, 88 tests passed.
Additional follow-up verification passed after review fixes:
```sh
NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/context/SidebarContext.test.tsx && pnpm --filter /ui typecheck
```
Result: 2 test files passed, 28 tests passed, and UI typecheck passed.
Latest PR-head remote checks: Paperclip PR workflow, Snyk, Socket, and
Greptile are green; commitperclip `review` is cancelled in its
security-gate step after filing a non-blocking neutral `security-review`
check.
Notes:
- A direct run without `NODE_ENV=test` loads React's production build in
this workspace, where `act` is unavailable; the command above matches
the repo stable runner's test environment.
- I did not run Playwright/browser e2e or full workspace build/typecheck
in this PR-creation heartbeat.
- QA screenshots are attached in
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7824#issuecomment-4661968387
for expanded, collapsed rail, hover peek, and settings secondary-sidebar
states.
## Risks
- Medium UI layout risk: this changes the board shell and primary
sidebar composition across many routes.
- Local storage migration risk is low: new collapsed state uses a new
key and existing width storage remains scoped to the sidebar width.
- Plugin route risk: plugin `routeSidebar` slots now render as secondary
panes on desktop, so plugin authors should confirm their route sidebar
content fits a 240px contextual pane.
- Mobile risk appears low because mobile keeps the drawer model and
gates collapsed/peek behavior to desktop.
> 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 local shell/git/GitHub
CLI tool use. Exact service-side model identifier and context window
were 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 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The execution control plane uses issue comments, assignments,
monitors, blockers, and interactions to decide when agent-owned work
should wake and run.
> - Top-level issue comments are actionable issue-thread feedback for
the assignee, but document-scoped comments are review context unless
they are converted into an explicit routing primitive.
> - Document annotation comments were still wired into the same
`issue_commented` wake path as top-level issue comments.
> - That made document activity capable of waking an assignee and
looking like an execution path even when no issue-level handoff
happened.
> - This pull request narrows the wake boundary so document annotation
activity stays document-scoped while normal issue comments continue
waking the assignee.
> - The benefit is fewer spurious wakeups and clearer non-terminal issue
liveness semantics.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Internal Paperclip work: [PAP-10613](/PAP/issues/PAP-10613),
[PAP-10640](/PAP/issues/PAP-10640)
Problem description:
- Document annotation thread creation and annotation comments were
treated as assignee wake sources.
- Document-scoped activity should remain visible as document/review
context, but should not by itself act as a queued issue wake, monitor,
approval, interaction response, blocker, or terminal disposition.
- Top-level issue comments should still wake the assignee on
agent-assigned, non-terminal issues.
Related PR search performed:
- Found related prior document annotation work: #6733.
- Found related prior issue-comment wake work and revert context: #7678,
#7765.
- No existing PR for `PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`.
## What Changed
- Removed the document annotation comment assignee wake helper from
issue routes.
- Kept document annotation reference sync and activity logging intact.
- Documented the distinction between top-level issue comments and
document-scoped comments in `doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Added route tests proving document/document annotation activity does
not wake the assignee.
- Added route coverage proving top-level board issue comments still wake
the assignee.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts` — 2
files passed, 9 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git status -sb` — clean branch tracking
`origin/PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`.
## Risks
- Low to moderate behavior change: document annotation comments no
longer wake the issue assignee automatically.
- Operators who want document feedback to route work must use an
explicit primitive such as assignment, issue-thread comment, agent
mention, issue-thread interaction, approval, blocker, or delegated
follow-up.
- No database migration or public API shape change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with shell/tool use enabled.
Exact hosted runtime model identifier beyond GPT-5 was not exposed in
this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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.
> - The affected subsystem is the heartbeat execution path that turns
issue assignment into adapter-backed work in a selected workspace.
> - PAP-10409 and sibling follow-ups failed before useful adapter output
because project/workspace identity became incoherent.
> - A project-workspace-linked child issue could keep
`projectWorkspaceId` / execution workspace state while losing
`projectId`, then a git-sensitive local adapter could fall through
toward an invalid fallback cwd.
> - Paperclip needs to treat coherent workspace identity as part of the
live-path contract, not only as post-failure cleanup.
> - This pull request documents that rule, repairs issue inheritance,
and blocks git-sensitive adapter launch before it can run from the wrong
cwd.
> - The benefit is a bounded recovery path: affected issues are repaired
explicitly, future malformed workspaces fail fast with a clear recovery
action, and the UI surfaces that reason.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7646
Bug report fields:
- Summary: adapter-backed follow-up issues can fail before doing work
when issue creation/inheritance preserves workspace ids but drops
project identity.
- Affected issues: internal Paperclip issues PAP-10408 through
PAP-10412, especially PAP-10409.
- Steps to reproduce: create a project-scoped parent/follow-up tree
where a child issue keeps `projectWorkspaceId` or an inherited execution
workspace but has `projectId: null`, then launch a git-sensitive local
adapter such as `codex_local`.
- Expected behavior: Paperclip derives or preserves coherent project
identity during issue creation, and heartbeat refuses malformed
git-sensitive workspace launches with one clear recovery action.
- Actual behavior before this PR: the run could reach adapter bootstrap
with an incoherent workspace context and fail with git errors such as
`fatal: not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /srv)`.
- Root cause: child/follow-up issue inheritance preserved workspace
execution context without coherent project context. That let heartbeat
workspace resolution/adapter launch reach a fallback cwd instead of
refusing the malformed workspace state up front.
## What Changed
- Documented the adapter workspace-coherence live-path precondition in
`doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Updated issue creation/inheritance so workspace-inheriting issues
preserve or derive project identity, while existing mismatch validation
still rejects incoherent project/workspace combinations.
- Added a heartbeat preflight guard for git-sensitive local adapters
that validates effective cwd, persisted workspace identity, project
workspace identity, and required git metadata before launch.
- Added `workspace_validation` recovery actions for this failure class
and ensured the source issue gets a visible, idempotent recovery
comment.
- Surfaced workspace-validation recovery state in issue rows, blocked
notices, and recovery action cards, including the manual-repair wake
policy label.
- Added focused regression coverage for issue inheritance, all heartbeat
workspace-validation guard branches, recovery display helpers, and UI
recovery components.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- Result: 1 test file passed, 68 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`
- Result: 1 test file passed, 12 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`
- Result: 2 test files passed, 18 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Result: passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/recovery-display.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 200 tests passed before the final
guard-branch additions; the changed server file was re-run above.
- UI coverage: `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`
contains rendered scenarios for the generic recovery chip,
workspace-validation recovery chip, blocked notice indicator, recovery
action card, and issue-row chip.
- Screenshot capture attempt: Storybook started successfully on
`http://127.0.0.1:6016/`, but screenshots could not be captured in this
runner because `agent-browser` launched an unusable Chrome binary and
Playwright Chromium failed on missing system library `libatk-1.0.so.0`;
the runner is non-root and lacks passwordless sudo for installing
browser dependencies.
- Hosted CI on final commit `969594e7` is green, including `verify`,
`Build`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, `General tests (server)`,
workspace suites, serialized server suites, `Canary Dry Run`, and `e2e`.
- Roadmap checked: no duplicate roadmap item; this is a tightly scoped
reliability fix for existing heartbeat/workspace behavior.
- Duplicate PR search checked: no open PR matched `workspace coherence
adapter cwd`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: heartbeat launch is stricter for git-sensitive local
adapters and can now block malformed workspace states before adapter
execution.
- Mitigation: the guard is limited to local git-sensitive adapters and
records a source-scoped recovery action with structured evidence instead
of retrying indefinitely.
- Compatibility: valid project/workspace execution paths continue
normally; explicit project/workspace mismatches remain rejected.
> 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 `codex_local` coding agent with terminal/tool
use. Work was produced through Paperclip issue execution with focused
local test runs.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip 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>
Fixes#7551
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable
company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch.
> - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that
can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company.
> - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package
contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI
workflows, and the board UI.
> - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped
company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent
creation, and preserved catalog provenance.
> - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into
one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`.
> - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI,
package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync.
## What Changed
- Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional
team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests,
and migration notes.
- Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and
services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams.
- Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source
policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager
reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection.
- Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior,
including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden
agent-run installs.
- Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures,
and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary
navigation.
- Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed
generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai
typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and
`public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`.
- Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`,
generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts.
## Risks
- Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared
contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code.
- Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must
keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks
strict.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy;
CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh.
- The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so
future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure.
> 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`.
>
> ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and
plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed
on the Paperclip task branch for review.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session;
exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and
local test/typecheck tooling.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted
- [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 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, with the CLI
acting as a scriptable operator and agent interface to that control
plane.
> - The REST API surface has grown across companies, agents, issues,
routines, plugins, auth, workspaces, secrets, and operational inspection
commands.
> - The CLI had drifted from that API surface: some commands were
missing, some command shapes differed from docs/reference material, and
several edge cases only failed during end-to-end local-source testing.
> - The local development runbook requires these tests to be disposable
and isolated from a real `~/.paperclip`, `~/.codex`, or `~/.claude`
installation.
> - This pull request adds broad CLI/API parity coverage, fixes the
actionable bugs found during that pass, and records the reproducible
test log under `doc/logs`.
> - The benefit is a more complete, scriptable CLI surface with
regression coverage for the command families exercised by the parity
run.
## What Changed
- Added or expanded CLI command coverage for access/auth, companies,
agents, projects, goals, issues and subresources, routines, plugins,
workspaces, activity/run/cost/dashboard inspection, assets, skills,
secrets, tokens, prompt/wake flows, and local setup helpers.
- Fixed CLI/API parity bugs found during the run, including context
profile patching, issue interaction optional payloads, malformed
tree-hold errors, environment duplicate handling, configure
invalid-section exit codes, worktree pnpm invocation, token agent ID
resolution, plugin tool worker lookup, and routine webhook secret
cleanup.
- Added missing CLI wrappers and route coverage for health/access,
invite resolution URL forwarding, join status normalization, secret
lifecycle commands, LLM docs routes, available-skill isolation, positive
board-claim coverage, and interactive `connect` prompt-flow tests.
- Added a schema-backed `/api/openapi.json` route sufficient for CLI
parity and `paperclipai openapi --json` smoke coverage.
- Added `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` with the
detailed living test/bug log and renamed the log directory from
`doc/bugs` to `doc/logs`.
- Added `doc/plans/2026-05-23-cli-api-parity.md` and the OpenAPI parity
reference used during the pass.
OpenAPI note: this PR intentionally does not try to subsume
`feature/openapi-spec`. The OpenAPI implementation here is schema-backed
and better than the earlier route-inventory stub, but
`feature/openapi-spec` is the fuller/better OpenAPI branch because it
includes exact mounted-route coverage tests and additional current route
coverage. That branch should stay as its own PR and can supersede this
OpenAPI route implementation.
## Verification
Targeted automated checks run:
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/board-claim.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/connect.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/agent-lifecycle.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --dir cli typecheck`
- `pnpm --dir server typecheck`
Manual/local E2E verification:
- Ran the full disposable local-source CLI/API parity pass with isolated
`PAPERCLIP_HOME`, `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT`,
`PAPERCLIP_AUTH_STORE`, `CODEX_HOME`, and `CLAUDE_HOME` under
`tmp/cli-api-parity`.
- Verified `DATABASE_URL` and `DATABASE_MIGRATION_URL` stayed unset for
the scratch server.
- Verified live health and schema-backed OpenAPI responses on
non-default port `3197`.
- Revoked created board/agent tokens and cleaned up temporary plugins,
secrets, non-default environments, and project workspaces.
- See `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` for the full
command-by-command reproduction log.
Not run:
- Full `pnpm test`, `pnpm test:run`, or `pnpm build` were not run after
the entire branch because the branch is broad and the parity pass used
focused test/typecheck verification plus live isolated CLI reruns.
## Risks
- This is a broad PR and touches many CLI command modules, so review
surface is high. The changes are grouped around one theme, but a split
may be easier if maintainers prefer narrower PRs.
- The OpenAPI route in this PR is not the final/best OpenAPI
implementation. `feature/openapi-spec` has stronger exact-route coverage
and should remain the source for the dedicated OpenAPI PR.
- The living log is intentionally detailed and large. It is useful for
reproducibility but adds documentation weight.
- No UI changes are intended; screenshots are not applicable.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Codex desktop. Exact served
model/context-window identifier was not exposed in the local app. Work
used shell/Git/GitHub CLI tooling, local source inspection, targeted
test execution, and live isolated Paperclip CLI/API smoke testing.
## 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: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so
planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core
control-plane loop.
> - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into
execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse
isolated workspaces.
> - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision
could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke
the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition.
> - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first:
accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable
claim state, and retry-safe child creation.
> - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed
visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a
dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to
reconstruct child creation from raw activity.
> - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive,
hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces
decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and
easier to inspect.
## What Changed
- Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to
`doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint,
durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior.
- Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend,
including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue
routes for creating and listing decomposition state.
- Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays
scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically
re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee.
- Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent
same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial
child recreation under the same fingerprint.
- Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting
API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision
status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the
UI.
- Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still
renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"accepted plan decomposition"
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts`
- Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution
workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let
Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page
and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted
revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links.
- Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a
plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked
in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope.
## Risks
- This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update;
reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match
the intended decomposition table.
- The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so
regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle
retries if the claim state machine is wrong.
- The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers
should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting
existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section
automatically.
- `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize`
accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can
interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does
not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature
itself.
> Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening
change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap
feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent;
exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context),
with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing
capabilities.
<img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05
48 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28"
/>
## 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 through
company-scoped control-plane workflows.
> - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed,
reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup.
> - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills,
optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills
have clear provenance.
> - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and
managing company skills.
> - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog,
company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI.
> - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills
are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog
listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills.
- Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled
and optional skill content plus validation/build tests.
- Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI,
server, and UI contracts.
- Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog
operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance.
- Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains
explicit across local adapters.
- Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed
company skills.
- Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills
Paperclip skill reference.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no
`pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included
in the final PR diff.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts
packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`.
- Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default
branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`.
- Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four
provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database
from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump
contains a duplicate-column foreign key
(`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The
default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the
focused run above.
- Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and
no migration-file changes relative to `master`.
## Risks
- Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server
APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI.
- Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention
because they affect reusable company setup and portability.
- No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no
migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff.
- No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be
handled by the repository lockfile workflow.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the
`codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool
access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata 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 run targeted tests locally and documented the local
workspace-runtime seed failure above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally
omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and
reviewer inspection
- [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.
> - Fresh self-hosted deployments need an operator path before any
invite exists.
> - Umbrel installs are private LAN deployments, so a one-time browser
claim is appropriate only when the deployment is private and unclaimed.
> - Public deployments and installs with active invites must keep the
existing invite-only model so admin creation is not exposed broadly.
> - GitHub PR #2927 established the useful direction, but it needed to
be adapted onto current `master` rather than merged as-is.
> - This pull request adds that adapted private-only claim flow across
server, UI, docs, and regression coverage.
> - The benefit is that a fresh private Umbrel-style install can be
claimed from the browser without weakening public deployment access.
## What Changed
- Added a first-admin claim service and access route support for
one-time admin claim eligibility on private unclaimed deployments.
- Updated the bootstrap/access UI so eligible private installs show a
setup claim path, while public and invited deployments keep invite-first
behavior.
- Added a bootstrap-pending setup UX lab covering claim, invite, public,
and signed-in access states.
- Updated deployment and local development docs for authenticated
private/public behavior and the Umbrel-style claim path.
- Added server and UI regression tests for private claim, public
no-claim, active invite fallback, existing board/no-access flows, and
health exposure reporting.
- Stabilized PR handoff verification by serializing the aggregate server
Vitest workspace run, forcing `NODE_ENV=test`, and relaxing the
heartbeat batching test around legitimate recovery follow-up runs.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts`
- `pnpm test:run`
- QA validation: PAP-10115 passed browser validation with screenshots
for private fresh install claim, active invite versus claim conflict,
public invite-only/claim-absent behavior, existing invite fallback, and
normal board/no-access flows.
- GitHub closeout: issue #2579 and PR #2927 were updated with the
accepted direction: adapt the implementation, do not direct-merge #2927
as-is.
## Risks
- The claim endpoint must remain private-only and one-time; a regression
here could expose admin creation on public deployments.
- Existing invite behavior must remain intact for public deployments and
installs that already have an active invite.
- The stable Vitest harness now serializes the aggregate server
workspace group; this is slower, but it avoids DB-backed suite
collisions under root workspace mode.
> 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`.
>
> ROADMAP.md checked: this is a scoped deployment bootstrap/access fix
and does not duplicate a listed roadmap project.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` for product
engineering, implementation, and verification, with tool-enabled local
code execution. Paperclip QA browser validation was performed in
PAP-10115 by the assigned QA agent; exact adapter model metadata for
that QA run is not exposed in this PR context.
## 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
> - The README is the first impression for developers and operators
landing on the repo, so it has to reflect the current brand voice and
visual identity
> - The existing README leads with an outdated hero ("Open-source
orchestration for zero-human companies"), keeps a board-centric tagline
that no longer matches the positioning, advertises a removed COMING SOON
teaser, and still uses an old header image and an unnecessary footer
image
> - Out-of-date positioning at the top of the README undercuts the rest
of the doc and the brand guidelines refresh at
https://paperclip.ing/brand
> - This pull request swaps the README header image for the new brand
banner, updates the hero copy and tagline, and trims stale callouts so
the README matches the new brand guidelines
> - The benefit is a README that leads with the current positioning
("Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.") and
current visual identity, with no stale teasers or extraneous footer
image
## What Changed
- Added new brand banner at \`doc/assets/banner.jpg\` and pointed the
README header \`<img>\` at it (alt text updated to the new tagline)
- Replaced the \`## What is Paperclip?\` + \`# Open-source orchestration
for zero-human companies\` heading pair with a single H1: \`# Paperclip
is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.\`
- Tightened the opening paragraphs ("Open-source orchestration for teams
of AI agents.", trimmed dashboard sentence, "Under the hood:" line,
period on the OpenClaw/Paperclip tagline)
- Removed the \`COMING SOON: Clipmart\` callout
- Softened the Governance copy by dropping "You're the board." in both
the Features grid and the Systems table
- Fixed typo: "solo-entreprenuer" → "solo entrepreneur"
- Removed the README footer image block entirely
- Updated the closing subline: "Built for people who want to run
companies, not babysit agents." → "Built for people who want to get work
done, not babysit agents."
- Left existing assets untouched on disk: \`doc/assets/header.png\` and
\`doc/assets/footer.jpg\` are unchanged from master (only the README
references changed)
## Verification
- \`git diff master..HEAD --stat\` → only \`README.md\` (10+/18-) and
the new \`doc/assets/banner.jpg\`
- Rendered the README locally and confirmed:
- The header banner shows the new brand image
- The H1 reads "Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for
work."
- No COMING SOON Clipmart callout
- No footer image; closing subline reads "Built for people who want to
get work done, not babysit agents."
- No code paths changed; no test suite applies
## Risks
- Low risk. Docs-only change. \`cli/README.md\` still references the
on-master URL for \`doc/assets/header.png\`, which is intentionally left
in place so that link does not break.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id \`claude-opus-4-7\` ("Opus 4.7"), running
under Claude Code via the Paperclip claude_local adapter.
## 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 (n/a — docs-only)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — docs-only)
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (n/a — README-only; rendered review described in
Verification)
- [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
Closes PAPA-439
## 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.
> - This branch accumulated multiple already-tested control-plane,
adapter runtime, invite, workspace, plugin, and UI quality fixes on the
primary Paperclip checkout.
> - `origin/master` advanced while those commits were still local, so
the branch needed to be preserved and reconciled before review.
> - Splitting the branch commit-by-commit against the new base produced
overlapping conflicts with recently merged upstream PRs.
> - This pull request keeps the remaining branch as one standalone PR
because the final diff is 38 files after removing screenshot artifacts,
under Greptile's 100-file cap, and can be merged independently after
review.
> - The benefit is that none of the local work is lost, the branch is
now based on current `origin/master`, and reviewers can evaluate the
reconciled changes in one place.
## What Changed
- Merged the local accumulated branch with current `origin/master` and
resolved the invite-flow overlaps from the newer upstream companies
query helper.
- Preserved the local fixes for invite existing-member behavior, invite
link copy fallback, reusable workspace selection, worktree auth, static
SPA fallback, markdown wrapping, plugin slot registration, cloud
upstream UX/server polish, project sorting, and related tests.
- Removed screenshot artifacts from the PR per review request.
- Kept the PR under the requested file limit: 38 files changed, with no
`pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/pages/CompanyInvites.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InviteLanding.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/slots.test.ts
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/invite-accept-existing-member.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/static-index-html.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Confirmed `git diff --name-only origin/master...HEAD | wc -l` is `38`.
- Confirmed no PR diff entries match `pnpm-lock.yaml`,
`.github/workflows/*`, or `screenshots/*`.
## Risks
- Medium review risk because this is a bundled rescue PR rather than
several narrow feature PRs.
- Invite flow and company cache behavior overlapped with newer upstream
changes; the merge resolution intentionally keeps the shared
`companiesListQueryOptions` helper while preserving local
existing-member invite behavior.
- Visual review evidence is no longer attached in-repo because
screenshots were removed from this PR per review request.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with repository tool access,
terminal execution, and git/GitHub CLI operations.
## 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 screenshots were intentionally removed from this PR per review
request
- [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>
Co-authored-by: CodexCoder <codexcoder@paperclip.local>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Agent creation can happen through local runtimes, managed runtimes,
and external agents that onboard through invites.
> - The old OpenClaw-oriented invite UX lived under company
settings/invites and made a gateway-specific path look like a company
access setting.
> - That hid the broader bring-your-own-agent flow and forced operators
to leave the add-agent modal when adding an external agent.
> - This pull request moves external agent invite generation into the
add-agent modal and makes the copy agent-oriented instead of
OpenClaw-only.
> - The benefit is a clearer agent-first onboarding path while company
invites stay focused on human access.
## What Changed
- Added an external-agent invite branch to the add-agent modal,
including a dedicated prompt result view with Back navigation.
- Added a shared agent onboarding prompt builder and focused modal
coverage for prompt replacement/back navigation.
- Removed the agent invite prompt UI from Company Settings and Company
Invites, leaving Company Invites focused on human access links and
invite history.
- Updated the hidden OpenClaw Gateway runtime hint to direct operators
to the add-agent invite flow instead of presenting it as a blocked
runtime card.
- Updated invite/onboarding docs, storybook coverage, and server-side
onboarding copy toward generic agent language while preserving existing
gateway compatibility.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `FAKE_BIN="$(mktemp -d)/bin"; mkdir -p "$FAKE_BIN"; printf
'#!/bin/sh\nexit 1\n' > "$FAKE_BIN/tailscale"; chmod +x
"$FAKE_BIN/tailscale"; PATH="$FAKE_BIN:$PATH" pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm test:run` without the fake `tailscale` shim was also attempted;
it failed only in two pre-existing CLI tailnet fallback tests because
this host has a real Tailscale address (`100.125.202.3`) where those
tests expect no Tailscale.
- Focused confirmation for that host-env issue: `FAKE_BIN=...
PATH="$FAKE_BIN:$PATH" pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai
cli/src/__tests__/network-bind.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts`
- Manual UI verification: served UI locally in light mode, opened
add-agent modal, generated external agent prompt, verified the generated
prompt replaces the form and Back returns to the form.
### Screenshots
## Risks
- Existing OpenClaw gateway compatibility remains, but operators now
discover external agent onboarding from the add-agent modal instead of
company settings.
- Agent invites still appear in the invite history table, so that page
may show agent-scoped invite rows even though it no longer creates agent
onboarding prompts.
- Low migration risk: no schema 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 in Codex desktop; tool-enabled
repository, shell, browser, and GitHub workflow. Context window size 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
- [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 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 orchestrates AI agents that need scoped, auditable access
to secrets
> - Hosted and external deployments need provider vault configuration
without exposing secret values in Paperclip metadata
> - AWS Secrets Manager vault setup previously required too much manual
operator knowledge
> - Provider vault discovery and removal belong together as an
independent secrets-management improvement
> - This pull request adds AWS provider vault discovery/prefill plus
vault removal flows
> - The benefit is a safer operator path for configuring external secret
storage before higher-level cloud workflows depend on it
## What Changed
- Added shared validators/types for AWS provider vault discovery
payloads and safe provider metadata.
- Implemented AWS provider vault discovery preview on the server.
- Added provider vault removal service/route behavior.
- Added Secrets page UI for discovery prefill, removal messaging, and
related rendering coverage.
- Added Storybook provider-vault fixtures and captured screenshots for
the new UX states.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/secret.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`
- Result: 4 files passed, 1 embedded Postgres-backed file skipped on
this host because local Postgres init was unavailable.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Storybook screenshot capture against `Product/Secrets` on
`http://127.0.0.1:60381/iframe.html?id=product-secrets--secrets-inventory&viewMode=story&globals=theme:dark`
## Screenshots
Provider vaults tab after this change:
AWS discovery candidate flow:
Provider vault removal confirmation:
## Risks
- Secret provider metadata handling must remain non-sensitive;
validators reject credential-bearing Vault URLs and sensitive AWS
discovery keys.
- AWS discovery depends on deployment credentials being configured
correctly outside Paperclip-managed company secrets.
> 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 with local shell/git/tool use.
Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the
local Paperclip adapter 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 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
<!--
Required. Trace your reasoning from the top of the project down to this
specific change. Start with what Paperclip is, then narrow through the
subsystem, the problem, and why this PR exists. Use blockquote style.
Aim for 5-8 steps. See CONTRIBUTING.md for full examples.
-->
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is how optional capabilities extend the control
plane without adding hidden core behavior.
> - Plugin authors need accurate guidance for the current managed
capabilities model.
> - The existing docs under-described managed skills and the
routine-first pattern for durable plugin automation.
> - Content-oriented plugins such as LLM Wiki should model recurring
work with visible managed agents, projects, routines, and skills.
> - This pull request aligns the authoring guide, local development
guide, and longer plugin spec with that model.
> - The benefit is clearer plugin guidance that preserves Paperclip
visibility, budgets, pause controls, and audit trails.
## What Changed
<!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. -->
- Documented plugin-managed skills alongside managed agents, projects,
and routines.
- Added guidance for content-oriented plugins to use managed projects,
agents, skills, and routines instead of private daemon-like state.
- Updated the manifest/spec examples and capability lists for current
plugin-managed surfaces.
- Clarified when to use managed routines instead of plugin runtime jobs
for board-visible recurring work.
- Added a short local plugin development note pointing authors toward
routine-first automation.
- Addressed Greptile docs feedback by marking top-level `launchers` as
legacy and removing a redundant `slug` from the managed skill example.
## Verification
<!--
How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual
steps, or both. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots.
-->
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this is docs alignment for the completed plugin
system milestone and does not add roadmap-level core feature work.
- Greptile Review: success on the latest head; `3 files reviewed, 0
comments added` after follow-up fixes.
- GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head, including Build,
Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server suites,
e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`.
## Risks
<!--
What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes,
behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor.
-->
- Low risk: documentation-only changes.
- Main risk is documentation drift if the plugin API changes again
before these docs are reviewed.
> 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
<!--
Required. Specify which AI model was used to produce or assist with
this change. Be as descriptive as possible - include:
• Provider and model name (e.g., Claude, GPT, Gemini, Codex)
• Exact model ID or version (e.g., claude-opus-4-6,
gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09)
• Context window size if relevant (e.g., 1M context)
• Reasoning/thinking mode if applicable (e.g., extended thinking,
chain-of-thought)
• Any other relevant capability details (e.g., tool use, code execution)
If no AI model was used, write "None — human-authored".
-->
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell and GitHub connector tool
use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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 for autonomous AI companies, so agent
work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls.
> - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane
reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions,
watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing,
plugin launchers, and small UI polish.
> - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current
`origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow
churn.
> - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the
recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and
splitting would create avoidable conflicts.
> - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest
`origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and
adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification.
> - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and
merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile
limit.
## What Changed
- Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a
dedicated worktree.
- Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry
handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores.
- Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo`
when retrying source-scoped recovery.
- Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex
cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits
from the branch.
- Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit
string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility.
- Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`
changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `npm run install` in
`node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the
local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx`
- First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files
failed before sqlite3 native binding was built.
- After rebuilding sqlite3:
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts`
passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host
guard.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
## Risks
- Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics,
server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces.
- Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI
should provide the stronger database-backed signal.
- UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot
was captured in this PR creation pass.
- This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge
this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than
merging duplicate implementations together.
> 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 local repository
and GitHub workflow, 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
- [ ] 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.
> - 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 is a control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies, and
the board UI needs to keep operator visibility clear as company work
scales.
> - The involved subsystem is the Issues page board mode, specifically
the Kanban rendering path for issue status columns.
> - The current board keeps the classic Kanban model, but high-volume
columns can become tall, slow, and hard to scan when hundreds of issues
are loaded.
> - We explored alternatives and chose the conservative Scaled Kanban
direction: preserve status lanes and drag/drop, but bound visible cards
and collapse low-signal lanes.
> - This pull request adds UI-only density controls and high-volume
defaults rather than introducing schema or API changes.
> - The benefit is a board that remains usable with large issue
inventories while keeping active workflow lanes visible.
## What Changed
- Added scaled Kanban behavior with compact cards, collapsed cold-lane
rails, per-column visible-card limits, and per-column "show more" reveal
controls.
- Added persisted board density preferences to the Issues page view
state, scoped through the existing company-specific localStorage path.
- Added board toolbar controls for compact cards, collapsed cold lanes,
cards-per-column page size (`10`, `25`, `50`), and density reset.
- Added a design spec and implementation plan under `doc/plans/`.
- Added focused Vitest coverage for `KanbanBoard` and `IssuesList`
high-volume board behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
ui/src/components/KanbanBoard.test.tsx` — pass, 35 tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — pass.
- `pnpm build` — pass before the upstream merge; not rerun after
docs/assets cleanup.
- `curl -fsS http://127.0.0.1:3100/api/health` — pass against restarted
local dev server after applying pending migration
`0078_white_darwin.sql`.
- `pnpm test:run` — previously failed in unrelated Cursor remote-sandbox
server tests:
- `server/src/__tests__/cursor-local-adapter-environment.test.ts`:
expected probe status `pass`, received `fail`.
- `server/src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts`: two remote
sandbox execution cases exited `127` instead of `0`.
Local dev server for manual UI inspection: `http://127.0.0.1:3100`.
Screenshots were captured for review and attached in the PR thread
rather than committed to source.
## Risks
- Low schema/API risk: this is UI-only and uses the existing issue data
path.
- Board users may need to notice the new density controls if they want
to override high-volume defaults.
- Collapsed cold lanes remain valid drop targets, so status moves can
happen without expanding the destination lane.
- Very large remote columns can still hit the existing 200-item
per-column query cap; this PR improves rendering, not server-side board
pagination.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, local test/build execution, and inline implementation
planning. No subagents were used.
## 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-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 the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies.
> - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without
expanding the core product surface.
> - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin
authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without
reaching into internal package paths.
> - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that
keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers
coherent.
> - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the
server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the
agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs.
> - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local
folders with a documented, repeatable happy path.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local
plugin scaffolding.
- Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution,
dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior.
- Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package
layouts.
- Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher
behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example.
- Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin
authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter
paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck
&& pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai
cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk
packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example
test`
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command
behavior, and the local development watcher.
- Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the
new docs call out that trust boundary.
- 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 coding agent, tool-enabled local shell and git
workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details were 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 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
UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs
and tests, not board UI rendering.
---------
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.
> - The plugin system needs host contracts and runtime support before
large plugins can integrate cleanly.
> - The source branch mixed the LLM Wiki package with supporting
host/runtime work, managed plugin skills, root-level storage spaces, and
a bookmarks reference plugin.
> - [PAP-9173](/PAP/issues/PAP-9173) asked for the current branch to be
split by file boundary: plugin package separately from everything else.
> - [PAP-9188](/PAP/issues/PAP-9188) clarified that LLM Wiki may have
plugin-local spaces, but Paperclip core should not reorganize top-level
local storage into spaces.
> - Follow-up review clarified that the bookmarks example should not
ship in this PR either.
> - This pull request contains the
non-`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` host/runtime work, keeps runtime
state under the selected Paperclip instance root, and no longer includes
the bookmarks example.
## What Changed
- Added/updated plugin host contracts, SDK types, worker RPC plumbing,
managed plugin skill support, and related server tests.
- Removed the bookmarks example plugin package and its
bundled-example/workspace references.
- Removed the root-level local spaces CLI/migration surface and restored
instance-root runtime defaults for config, db, logs, storage, secrets,
workspaces, projects, and adapter homes.
- Replaced shared root `space-paths` helpers with `home-paths` helpers
for core runtime storage.
- Tightened stranded recovery unique-conflict detection so concurrent
recovery scans reuse the raced recovery issue when Postgres errors are
wrapped.
- Kept `packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` out of this PR diff;
plugin-local spaces remain in the stacked plugin-only PR.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/data-dir.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/home-paths.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts
packages/shared/src/home-paths.test.ts
packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-instructions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "reuses the
raced stranded recovery issue"` skipped locally because embedded
Postgres did not initialize on this macOS temp host; the code path was
typechecked and is covered by Linux CI.
- Boundary check: no core references remain for `PAPERCLIP_SPACE_ID`,
`spaces migrate-default`, `@paperclipai/shared/space-paths`,
`registerSpacesCommands`, or the removed bookmarks example.
- Previous PR head `4f23e034` had green GitHub checks: `verify`, all
four serialized server shards, `e2e`, `Canary Dry Run`, `policy`, Snyk,
and `Greptile Review`. Current head `582f466d` is re-running checks
after the bookmarks deletion.
## Risks
- Plugin host changes touch shared runtime paths, so regressions would
most likely appear in adapter startup, plugin loading, or local dev path
defaults.
- Removing the bookmarks example also removes one demonstration of
plugin database namespaces plus local-folder persistence; remaining
plugin examples still cover bundled example discovery and plugin host
flows.
- The plugin package itself is intentionally deferred to the stacked
plugin-only PR, where LLM Wiki plugin-local spaces live.
- Existing installs that tested the transient root-level spaces CLI
should stop using it; this PR intentionally removes that unsupported
migration surface before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Codex CLI, tool use and local code execution
enabled; context window not exposed.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, except where noted above
for host-specific embedded Postgres initialization
- [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
Stacked follow-up: PR #5592 contains only
`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` and targets this branch.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta
Devin Foley
Svetlana Zolotenkova
Jannes Stubbemann
Vasu Yadav
Nicolás Rodrigues
Aron Prins
Dotta
Emad Ibrahim
