## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task page is the main place where people guide and review agent
work.
> - Native runner events already project into the existing task chat on
the lower stack.
> - The larger task workspace must support those events without breaking
direct adapters.
> - Legacy questions, final replies, empty transcripts, and classic
controls must keep their behavior.
> - This pull request completes the provider-neutral task workspace
experience.
> - The benefit is one coherent task surface for native and direct
execution paths.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12639.
Refs #12617.
Refs #12352.
**Subsystem affected**
Task chat, task detail, side panels, interaction forms, and transcript
presentation.
**Problem or motivation**
The task page does not provide one complete workspace for live activity,
plans, questions, queued guidance, files, and documents. Earlier native
UI work also exposed compatibility risks in legacy question and reply
paths.
**Proposed solution**
Add the task workspace components and provider-neutral protocol
presentation. Keep runner-only controls behind runtime facts. Preserve
all direct-adapter composer, transcript, interaction, and finalization
behavior.
**Alternatives considered**
A separate runner page would duplicate task behavior. Replacing legacy
transcript logic would create unnecessary adapter regressions.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the unified task experience and the Cloud and Sandbox
agents milestone.
## Stack
- Base PR: #12639.
- Lower PR: #12638.
- This PR contains only its 119-file UI delta against
`runner/remote-wss-transport`.
- The next stack PR adds administrator and observability controls.
## What Changed
- Added a reusable task workspace side panel for files and documents.
- Added provider-neutral cards for tools, plans, questions, protocol
activity, and progress.
- Added queued guidance and richer composer state.
- Added compact and expanded interaction presentation.
- Added live activity, thinking, usage, recovery, and final reply
presentation.
- Added document annotations and task deep links.
- Added bounded question validation and response handling.
- Preserved native runner event projection from master.
- Preserved legacy channel-less replies and explicit final reply
precedence.
- Preserved direct-adapter and classic-interface controls.
- Did not change server execution selection, Rust code, migrations,
workflows, or `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- GitHub Actions will run UI tests, repository tests, typecheck, build,
browser tests, security, and policy gates.
- Tests cover active, settled, empty-transcript, interaction,
queued-message, plan, question, file, document, and classic-interface
states.
- Compatibility tests cover direct adapters and native runner projection
together.
- Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses
GitHub Actions for this series.
- `git diff --check runner/remote-wss-transport...HEAD` passes.
- The delta contains 119 UI-only files.
## Risks
- This is a large task-page change.
- Most files are new focused components and tests.
- Shared transcript code keeps the lower native projection and legacy
direct-adapter fallbacks.
- Runner-only controls use adapter and runtime facts.
- No execution path or rollout flag changes in this PR.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode,
repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents.
## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] 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 risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue detail view is the main place where people read work and
guide agents.
> - The chat-style task view needs clear messages, controls, properties,
and document feedback.
> - Dense metadata and disconnected controls make active work harder to
scan.
> - This pull request refines the existing chat-style task workflow
across desktop and mobile layouts.
> - The benefit is a clearer issue thread with faster access to the
controls that guide work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The change improves the chat-style issue detail view that was introduced
in [#10606](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10606) and
expanded in
[#10707](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10707).
**Current behavior**
The issue thread spreads task controls across the page. Agent-turn
metadata competes with the message content. Document annotation comments
use inline placement that limits the document reading area. The mobile
composer can overlap the bottom navigation.
**Proposed behavior**
The issue view keeps the thread focused on message content. It moves
supporting controls into the properties area, adds searchable
assignment, restores the sub-task tree, docks document comments in a
side gutter, and keeps the mobile composer clear of navigation.
**Reason and benefit**
People can scan active work faster and find task controls without
leaving the issue. The layout also gives documents and mobile
conversations more usable space.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change updates presentation and interaction behavior in the
existing issue UI.
## What Changed
- Refined task-chat message spacing, metadata, agent bubbles, and
composer alignment.
- Added searchable assignment and restored sub-task navigation in the
properties pane.
- Moved document annotation comments into a right-side gutter.
- Kept the mobile composer above the auto-hiding bottom navigation.
- Added and updated focused component tests for the changed
interactions.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `TZ=UTC pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/InlineEntitySelector.test.tsx
src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- The token gates report 3/3 clean.
- The focused test run passes 124 tests in 5 files.
- Visual snapshot baselines were not updated. This follows the
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification
demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)."
## Risks
- The changes affect several related issue-detail layouts. A browser
review should cover desktop and mobile widths before merge.
- The monitor-row test formats time in the host timezone. The
verification command sets `TZ=UTC` to match CI.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The context-window size is not exposed in
this environment. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and GitHub tools.
## 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: 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
> - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets,
agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind
> - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at
~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending
on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two
toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no
visual regression coverage
> - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a
hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration
> - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer
in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed
by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate
retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs
> - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface:
retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked
by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed
visually without committing hundreds of PNGs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens",
"visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in
spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of
the same problem class this PR addresses systematically).
**Problem (feature-request form):** UI visual values are hardcoded per
call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage;
consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file
edits.
**Proposed solution (this PR):** a single token layer + enforcement gate
+ externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle
on top of that foundation.
## What Changed
- **Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during
development):** committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-*.mjs`) moved
~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named
tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`.
- **Visual regression suite:** `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255
stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`,
plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes.
- **External visual baselines:** committed PNG snapshots were removed.
`tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable
archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs`
handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload`
flows.
- **Opt-in visual CI artifacts:** added a `Storybook Visual` workflow
that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`,
downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright
report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate
baseline objects.
- **Token gate:** `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero
arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/**`
and `ui/src/pages/**`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate
opt-outs.
- **Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed):** new base theme
values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type
cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` +
Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps.
- **One status-color vocabulary:** charts, quota/budget bar fills,
RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical
`--status-*` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces
that used dark-tuned text classes.
- **One switch:** `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form,
second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified.
- **Docs:** `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds
audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline
review/update workflows.
- Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical
contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames
(`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`).
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system
run
- `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green
during the design-system run
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` —
pass after external-baseline rework
- `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext
--moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types
node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts
tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after
external-baseline rework
- `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline
rework
- `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '*.png' -print | wc -l` —
`0`
- `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally
fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline
archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json`
## Risks
- **Large but shallow:** the PR still touches many UI files due to
mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot
churn has been removed from the branch.
- **Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in
clean clones:** the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata.
A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then
update `baseline-manifest.json`.
- **Rendering platform variance:** the external baseline should be
captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs
verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count
mismatch.
- **Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing:** add the `storybook-visual`
label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable
Playwright report/test-result artifacts.
- **Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope:** Tailwind palette
classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component
consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with
extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical
phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline
rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository,
terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via
deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional
visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets.
## 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 targeted local verification and documented the
intentional baseline-publication failure above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green *(pending new CI run after this
rework)*
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
*(pending review)*
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and
OpenAI Codex
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.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 issue and routine editor surfaces share document annotation
behavior for commentable text.
> - The annotation layer currently observes document selections inside
its container and converts those selections into pending comment
anchors.
> - Routine editor fields can live inside that same annotated document
container while still needing normal native text selection behavior.
> - When a user selects text inside an editable routine field, the
annotation layer should leave that selection alone instead of preparing
a comment.
> - This pull request teaches the annotation layer to ignore selections
touching editable controls and covers that case with focused component
tests.
> - The benefit is that routine editing remains editable text UX, while
document annotation selection continues to work for normal read-only
document text.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Inline bug report follows.
### Pre-submission checklist
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am on current `master` for this PR branch.
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in
an agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration.
### What happened?
Selecting text inside an editable routine field could be interpreted as
a document annotation selection. That meant the annotation layer could
prepare a pending comment anchor or show annotation affordances while
the user was just selecting text to edit routine content.
### Expected behavior
Editable controls should keep native text selection behavior. Selecting
text inside `input`, `textarea`, `select`, or contenteditable routine
editor regions should not build a document annotation anchor or show the
document annotation toolbar.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Render document annotation behavior around a document/editor
container that also contains an editable routine text region.
2. Select text inside the editable region.
3. Observe that the document annotation layer treats the selection as
commentable text instead of ignoring it.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproduced and fixed against `master` at `5356b7d73`, with PR head
`4f53f83f1`.
### Deployment mode
Local dev / component test environment.
### Installation method
Built from source.
### Agent adapter(s) involved
Not adapter-specific; core UI behavior.
### Database mode
Not database-related.
### Access context
Board / human operator UI behavior.
### Relevant logs or output
No runtime logs. Regression coverage is in
`ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx`.
### Relevant config
Not applicable.
### Additional context
Root cause: `DocumentAnnotationLayer` filtered selections by container
membership, but did not exclude editable controls or all valid
contenteditable hosts before building a pending annotation anchor.
### Privacy checklist
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and redacted where
necessary.
## What Changed
- Added an editable-selection guard in `DocumentAnnotationLayer` that
ignores selections touching `input`, `textarea`, `select`, or
contenteditable elements.
- Covered both `contenteditable="true"` and bare/empty `contenteditable`
hosts so routine editor selections do not build annotation anchors.
- Added focused regression tests proving editable selections do not call
the annotation anchor helpers or show the annotation toolbar.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx`
- `git diff --check`
- GitHub PR checks are green for head `4f53f83f1`, including policy,
review, typecheck/release registry, build, general tests, serialized
suites, e2e, canary dry run, security checks, and Greptile.
## Risks
Low risk. The change only narrows annotation capture when a selection
touches an editable element inside the annotation container. Normal
read-only document annotation selections still use the existing
anchor-building path.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell, Git, Vitest, and
GitHub connector/CLI tool use. The exact hosted runtime model identifier
is 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 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
> - This change touches several already-shipped subsystems —
document-comment annotations, the selected-agent Conference Room chat
surface, routine description annotations, workspace-operation tracking,
and the board polling/inbox UI
> - A batch of incremental fixes and two small backend additions had
accumulated on a local mainline and were deployed to a live instance,
but never landed upstream — so each `origin/master` sync kept
re-diverging
> - Leaving them un-upstreamed means the same delta has to be re-merged
on every sync and risks being lost or silently reverted
> - This pull request rebases that delta cleanly on top of current
`origin/master` (preserving recent upstream work such as reusable
sandbox leases and the relation-list collapse controls) and brings it up
for review
> - The benefit is that mainline and the deployed instance converge, and
these fixes/additions get normal review + CI + Greptile coverage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No single GitHub issue tracks this; it is a bundle of bug fixes and two
small feature additions. Following the issue-template fields:
**Bug fixes (what was wrong → what this does):**
- Document comments rendered out of document order, didn't live-update
across clients, swallowed save failures, and lost the markdown text
selection on re-render. Now: doc-order sort, live updates, surfaced
save-failure state, stable selection across re-renders.
- The board polling hot path returned oversized payloads on every poll.
Now: an opt-in `summary` projection trims the heartbeat-run list
payload.
- Assorted UI fixes: sidebar nav peek/streamlining edge cases, markdown
file-viewer re-mount/line-height issues on iOS Safari, inbox badge/skill
deep-link tab selection, and `⌘.` work-mode cycling on iOS.
**Feature additions:**
- `workspace_operations.issue_id` — associate a workspace operation with
the issue that triggered it (new migration `0106`, schema, service,
shared type).
- Routine **description annotations** — comment threads on a routine's
description document, mirroring issue document annotations (new
migration `0107`, `routine_documents` schema, routes/service,
editable-sections UI).
- Selected-agent **Conference Room chat** surface wiring and live
issue-thread updates.
**Related PR:** #8229 (`feat(control-plane): add annotation and
workspace controls`, draft) covers overlapping
annotation/workspace-control territory — flagging it so a reviewer can
reconcile the two rather than double-merging.
## What Changed
- `feat(workspace)`: `workspace_operations.issue_id` migration +
schema/service/type; issue workspace property controls reconciled with
upstream's evolved "Service" row.
- `feat(routines)`: routine description annotations —
`routine_documents` schema, migration `0107`, routes/service,
`editable-sections` UI.
- `fix(document-comments)`: doc-order sort, live updates, save-failure
surfacing, stable markdown selection (+ storybook story, rerender test).
- `feat(chat)`: selected-agent Conference Room chat surface and live
issue-thread updates (`LiveUpdatesProvider`, `issue-chat-messages`,
interactions service).
- `perf(board)`: opt-in `summary` projection for the board
polling/heartbeat-run list payload, plus assorted sidebar / file-viewer
/ inbox / IssueProperties UI fixes.
Organized into 5 logical commits. Migrations are numbered incrementally
after upstream's latest (`0105`) — `0106` then `0107`, no journal
collision.
## Verification
- Built by 3-way merging the deployed delta onto current
`origin/master`; the only merge conflict (`IssueProperties.test.tsx`,
two adjacent test blocks) was resolved in favor of upstream's evolved
"green service link above the workspace row" layout, which matches the
merged component's rendered output.
- Confirmed recent upstream work is preserved post-merge: reusable
sandbox lease teardown (`#8513`), the IssueProperties relation-list
collapse controls, and the sidebar streamlined-nav default.
- Confirmed the net diff vs `origin/master` is exactly the intended
feature delta (65 files) and that overlapping server files (`issues.ts`,
`agents.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`) only add feature code without disturbing
upstream logic.
- This delta is already running on a live deployed instance.
- Full typecheck/test suite + Greptile to run in CI (see checklist).
## Risks
- Two new migrations (`0106`, `0107`). Both are additive (new table /
new nullable column) and ordered after upstream's `0105`; no data
backfill, low risk. If another migration-bearing PR merges first,
renumber before merge.
- Largest blast radius is in the merged overlapping UI/service files;
covered by the existing test suites for those files plus CI.
- Overlaps thematically with draft PR #8229 — reviewers should reconcile
rather than merge both blindly.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use
(git, shell). Agentic coding 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through issues, documents,
runs, and durable company-scoped state.
> - Issue documents are where agents and operators capture plans,
handoffs, and work products.
> - Before this change, document collaboration could only happen through
whole-document edits and detached issue comments.
> - Inline document annotations need stable anchors, revision-aware
persistence, and UI affordances that do not break existing document
editing.
> - This pull request adds company-scoped document annotation threads,
comments, anchor snapshots, API routes, and board UI.
> - The benefit is that operators and agents can discuss specific
document passages without losing context as documents evolve.
## What Changed
- Added document annotation tables, schema exports, shared types,
validators, anchor hashing, and text-anchor helpers.
- Added server-side document annotation services and issue routes for
listing, creating, commenting, resolving, and reopening annotation
threads.
- Included annotation summaries in relevant issue document reads and
backup/recovery document workspace behavior.
- Added React UI for inline document highlights, comment panels, mobile
sheet behavior, deep-link focus, and resolved/open filtering.
- Added annotation design artifacts, Storybook coverage, screenshots,
and a screenshot helper script.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and
renumbered the annotation migration from `0085_old_swarm` to
`0091_old_swarm`; the SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments
that previously applied the old migration number can safely apply the
new one.
- Adjusted the new annotation UI tests to use a local async flush helper
because this workspace's React 19.2.4 export does not expose
`React.act`.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/document-anchors.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.test.ts
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-selection.test.ts`
- Confirmed `git diff --check` passes.
- Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` files are
included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this adds new persisted annotation tables and routes
across db/shared/server/ui.
- Migration risk is reduced by moving the branch migration to
`0091_old_swarm` after upstream `0090_resource_memberships` and keeping
the SQL idempotent for old `0085_old_swarm` adopters.
- UI risk is mostly around text range anchoring and panel positioning
across long documents, folded content, and mobile layouts; the PR
includes focused unit coverage and design screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-using software engineering
mode. Context window size is not exposed in this Paperclip 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>
Dotta
scotttong