## 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
> - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane,
and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that
plan
> - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published
the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question),
the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that
used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared
> - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA,
is stuck — the feature silently fails
> - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan
confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it
teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it
restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty
state so the pane never goes silently blank
> - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in
the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
<!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug
template. -->
**Bug report**
- **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan
confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document
rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously
pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared.
- **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document
appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane
explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes
CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls.
- **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the
chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation
without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab —
the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing.
- **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server.
Related PR (not a duplicate): #9609 "Pin pending confirmations by
composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this
PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees
behind it.
## What Changed
- **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan
document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its
*latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane
cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse).
- **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles
now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document,
re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation
targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment
or via `ask_user_questions`.
- **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned
to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the
plan scrolls.
- **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is
in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty
state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing.
- **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the
plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a
floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN
- `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages)
- UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx
src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed
- Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed
- Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows
the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation
CTAs stay pinned at the bottom.
Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted
to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally
not added.
## Risks
Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on
plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or
nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being
created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on
creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document
first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are
additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task
experimental flag.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended
thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, test execution).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived
content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single
task thread.
> - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for
content artifacts and their supporting metadata.
> - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history,
issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend
on Cases.
> - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views,
reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases
without making them the default workflow.
> - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating
Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature.
> - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the
`enableCases` flag.
> - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work,
references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads
without polluting the core issue model.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature.
Feature request fields:
### Problem
Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and
campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact
hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on.
### Proposed solution
Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to
issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and
writable by agent workflows through documented conventions.
### Alternatives considered
Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents
only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators
a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution
history.
### Roadmap alignment
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned
core roadmap item.
## What Changed
- Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and
experimental `enableCases` instance setting.
- Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue
links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments,
and idempotent agent-oriented upserts.
- Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so
inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than
leaking existence.
- Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot
overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot.
- Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request
before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters
and no-project filtering.
- Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue
linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI
registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible
lookup regressions.
- Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes,
list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children,
attachments, and issue-page case rail.
- Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href
generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company
route.
- Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or
update Cases.
- Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to
`0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence.
## Verification
- Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`.
- Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing
PR branch.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first
update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff
--check` before commit.
- Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no
`.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the
Greptile 100-file limit.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests
before review-fix commits.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side
Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the
timestamp and lookup fixes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx
src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` —
passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file /
12 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the
list-filter fix.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes.
- Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build,
typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review,
Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook
visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral.
- Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads.
## Risks
- Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain
object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI.
- The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default
operator exposure while the model is exercised.
- Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect
remains for externally entered URLs.
- Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server
before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second
pass for ancestor/context rows.
- Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses
guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where
relevant for safer replay.
> 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 in the Paperclip local coding environment was used
for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation,
push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell
execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter.
Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers
recorded in git history.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this
is not a duplicate
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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
> - 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 pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving
through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift
notices, and linked work.
> - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface,
not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments.
> - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes,
CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation
controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the
primitive reviewable end to end.
> - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline
workflow primitive stack.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator
experience and server contract together against `master`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature
request is described inline.
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company
workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request
review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation,
and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified
pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues,
routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate.
### Proposed solution
Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and
migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes,
aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the
React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail,
review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over
fields, and retry/recovery flows.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because
operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated
workflow patterns.
- Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch
because the operator experience is the main way to validate the
primitive.
- Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same
primitives are useful across future company processes.
## What Changed
- Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts,
server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke
support.
- Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment,
blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and
permission recovery behavior.
- Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item
detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets,
automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets,
liveness banners, and source automation metadata.
- Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared
`DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent
with the pipeline document surfaces.
- Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current
pipeline branch.
## Verification
Current branch refresh:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31
passed
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19
passed
- `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed
- Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`:
sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline
routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental
settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle.
- GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket,
Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review
- Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
Confidence Score 5/5
- GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads
Previously recorded during branch development:
- Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests
- Shared validator tests
- UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests
- Pipeline tutorial smoke path
## Risks
- High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database,
shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI.
- Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention
because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master`
syncs.
- GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting
normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status
checks are green.
- Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing
requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming
rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references.
> 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, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification
commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip
agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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>
scotttong
Dotta
Dotta