## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Connections give agents controlled access to external services.
> - Experimental channels already map conversations to tasks and durable
work queues.
> - Email needs inbox ownership, recipient envelopes, delivery records,
and explicit sends.
> - This pull request adds AgentMail to that infrastructure and keeps
the provider key in the server vault.
> - Agents can receive and send email from local or sandbox execution
while the board follows each conversation in its task.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Agents need dedicated email addresses. Incoming email should become
assigned work. Internal task comments and progress must never become
outgoing email by accident.
**Proposed solution**
Add experimental AgentMail connections, an inbox assignment wizard,
durable email intake and publication, task email cards, and
authenticated API, CLI, and native runtime actions. Agents use Paperclip
credentials to request sends. Paperclip owns the provider key and
enforces access and task authority.
**Alternatives considered**
A general mailbox MCP connector does not provide durable task binding or
publication boundaries. A separate mailbox application duplicates task
collaboration. The board instead directs the agent through the normal
task conversation.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing experimental connections and task
infrastructure. Product scope and interaction design were reviewed with
the maintainer. Related connection authority work: #11831 and #11818.
The duplicate search found no competing task-based AgentMail
integration.
## What Changed
- Add AgentMail catalog data, shared contracts, company-scoped email
records, and an additive migration.
- Add vaulted setup, inbox assignment, access grants, trust guidance,
and provider-side allowlist guidance.
- Support WebSocket and signed-webhook intake through a shared durable
pipeline, deduplication, catch-up, and task wakeups.
- Queue explicit new conversations and replies with immutable send
intents, idempotency, delivery state, and uncertain-send resolution.
- Show inbound and outbound email cards in normal task conversations.
Keep internal messages internal.
- Add task-scoped CLI actions and the sandbox callback routes required
for Daytona execution.
- Provide a dedicated AgentMail skill automatically only to agents with
active authorized inbox assignments. Keep email instructions out of the
universal Paperclip skill.
- Advertise connector-owned `agentmail_inboxes`,
`agentmail_read_thread`, `agentmail_send`, and `agentmail_delivery`
tools only in eligible native sessions. Recheck live authority on
execution.
- Isolate Codex CLI connector skills by agent and skill revision.
Deliver the assigned skill in the run prompt for adapters that use
shared skill directories, including resumed turns. Keep automatic skills
out of manual persistent sync. Show them as read-only and document the
pattern in the connector playbook.
- Fix AgentMail health checks that entered local-stdio validation and
optional missing Codex credential cleanup in sandboxes.
- Add API, pipeline, authorization, sandbox, browser, and Storybook
coverage.
## Verification
- Live AgentMail testing covered WebSocket intake, signed webhooks,
restart catch-up, and a full receive → task → Daytona Codex CLI →
explicit reply → Delivered round trip. The reply was verified in the
other inbox. The normal task composer also initiated an outgoing email
child task.
- The connector-skill change was verified in the browser: AgentMail
appears once as an automatic, read-only skill with its assigned address.
Disabling experimental chat connections removes it; re-enabling restores
it. A regression test covers assignment data arriving after library
data.
- Connector regression coverage passed 178 runtime utility, email
integration, skill-route, and heartbeat tests. All 17 Codex execution
tests passed, including per-agent skill isolation, model identity,
revision changes, removal, and prompt delivery without shared skill
files.
- After rebasing onto master, all 44 focused email, heartbeat, and
native-authority tests passed. All 313 native-session executor tests
passed. The UI regression suite passed all 3 tests. These test sets
overlap earlier focused runs.
- Full workspace typecheck and build passed after the rebase. Token
gates passed. Earlier focused Playwright task/setup coverage and the
Storybook build also passed.
- Native connector tool execution uses deterministic integration tests.
Live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter; the new
shared-home prompt fallback has deterministic coverage.
- The full repository suite is run by CI. The earlier unsharded local
full-suite attempt was stopped after the equivalent CI suites passed and
is not reported as a completed local run. Greptile reviewed
`7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb` at 5/5 with no unresolved
threads. All server, workspace, serialized server, and browser suites
passed in CI. The build job hit a five-second timeout in a runner
transport test; both variants and the full 80-test file passed locally
with unchanged timeouts. The build passed on retry on the same commit
without code or timeout changes. All required CI gates, including the
final `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` summaries, are green on
`7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb`.
## Risks
- Email from external senders can start normal agent work. Setup
recommends a low-trust agent and AgentMail sender controls. Sender
addresses never grant board membership.
- Provider timeouts can leave uncertain sends. Retries retain their
idempotency key; expired windows require reconciliation or operator
resolution.
- Connector skills and native tools are assignment-dependent and require
current access. Revocation denies retained calls; assignment changes
select a new runtime context.
- Activation remains behind the experimental-channel setting. The native
runner path has deterministic coverage; live Daytona qualification used
the Codex CLI adapter.
- Schema changes are additive. Inbox ownership is unique across
companies. Disconnect preserves provider inboxes and task history.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
and browser testing. The exact deployment model ID and context-window
size were 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.
> - Task chat shows commentary and runner activity as work proceeds.
> - The expanded activity list uses multiple text lines and an indented
rail.
> - The folded view can repeat reasoning and the current tool in
separate places.
> - This pull request shows one rolling activity between commentary
messages.
> - Users can open a group to follow its full history and inspect each
item.
> - The benefit is a compact feed with aligned icons and stable row
height.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The runner activity groups in task chat, during live work and in saved
history.
**Current behavior**
Activity is spread across a group summary, a reasoning ticker, and a
current-tool row. Expanded rows have different alignment and can span
several lines.
**Proposed behavior**
Keep one latest activity per commentary group. Roll new activities
upward. Keep each expanded history row on one line. Use neutral failure
text without an X icon. Keep the full details available by opening an
individual row.
**Additional context**
Refs: #13246. That open PR covers related folded activity, steering
timestamps, and status alignment. This change implements the separately
reviewed activity-group design, including animated replacement,
single-line expanded history, and neutral failures. It does not change
steering timestamps or status pills.
## What Changed
- Add a shared runner activity group with persistent expansion and
reduced-motion support.
- Use the group in the production runner turn and remove duplicate
narration and current-tool rows.
- Preserve commentary, plan cards, request receipts, and final-response
placement.
- Keep tool output, reasoning, research sources, file previews, and
failure details accessible.
- Render the production turn in desktop and mobile animated Storybook
fixtures.
- Add tests for animation identity, failure visibility, expansion
persistence, and timeline order.
- Validate resource link schemes and omit disclosure controls for items
with no details.
## Verification
- Focused activity, runner turn, protocol detail, and task-thread tests
pass: 161 tests.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes.
- Browser checks confirm a 32-pixel compact row, centered icons, and
one-line expanded rows.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The final UI build also
passes.
- Two real native Codex runs completed in an isolated local instance.
Each run created the expected file, performed separate delayed tool
calls, reported a deliberate missing-file failure, recovered, and
finished the task.
- Browser verification confirmed that the open three-row activity group
remained expanded after the second run moved into saved history. Saved
error output remained accessible without red styling or an X.
- The complete UI suite passes: 581 files and 5,979 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` passes for the final
production fixtures.
- Greptile rates the latest commit 5/5, with zero new comments and no
unresolved review threads. The security scan passes.
- All repository test shards pass in CI. The duplicate local `pnpm
test:run` was stopped after CI completed the full test coverage. The CI
build failed twice because the worker ran out of disk space compiling
the Rust runner tests (`No space left on device`, error 28). The build
and its aggregate verify gate remain blocked by CI capacity. GitHub
squash auto-merge is enabled and will wait for required checks to pass.
## Risks
- This changes presentation and disclosure behavior. Users open a group
to see earlier activity.
- Animation uses stable item IDs. A provider that replaces IDs can
trigger another transition.
- No API, database, or runner protocol contracts change.
> Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`. This improves an existing task-chat surface.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, code execution,
and browser testing. The runtime does not expose a more specific model
version or context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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 helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - The task thread shows user, agent, and control-plane messages.
> - Workspace-ready comments keep agent attribution for audit and
authorization.
> - These comments also have an explicit system-notice presentation.
> - The client used attribution before the presentation contract.
> - As a result, workspace-ready comments appeared as agent bubbles.
> - This pull request gives the system-notice presentation priority.
> - The benefit is a compact workspace notice with expandable details.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The task thread showed a workspace-ready control-plane comment as a
normal agent message. The comment kept agent attribution for audit and
authorization, so the client did not use its system-notice presentation.
**Expected behavior**
The task thread must show a comment with the `system_notice`
presentation as a compact system notice. The user must be able to expand
the notice to inspect its details.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task with a workspace that becomes ready.
2. Wait for the control plane to add the workspace-ready comment.
3. Observe that the task thread shows the comment as an agent bubble
instead of a system notice.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `8eaa5caa0`.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev (`pnpm dev`).
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core UI bug.
## What Changed
- Give the `system_notice` presentation priority when the task-chat
adapter selects the message kind.
- Pass the notice presentation data to the task-chat model.
- Improve the compact and expanded workspace notice details.
- Add component tests, adapter tests, and Storybook cases for workspace
notices.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts
ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatSystemNotice.test.tsx` passes 15
tests.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- `pnpm test:run` passes 5,670 tests and reports four pre-existing
workspace-runtime failures. The same four failures reproduce when the
two unrelated server test files run alone. They do not use the changed
task-chat files.
## Risks
- Risk is low. Normal agent messages still use the agent presentation.
- A comment with an explicit system-notice presentation now uses the
compact notice renderer.
- Regression tests cover both 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 GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) through Codex. The agent used reasoning,
repository tools, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the
context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents ask structured questions in task threads and the composer.
> - The shared form shows one question at a time.
> - A single choice already completes an answer, but the form requires
another click on Next.
> - This pull request moves to the next question when the user selects
one option.
> - Multi-select and custom answers keep their Next step. The last page
keeps explicit submission.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The paged question form in the task composer and task interaction cards.
**Subsystem affected**
ui/ — React board UI.
**Current behavior**
The user clicks a single choice, then clicks Next to reach the next
question.
**Proposed behavior**
A single choice shows its checked state for 160 ms, then opens the next
question with an 80 ms fade. Reduced-motion mode skips the animation.
Multi-select stays on the current page until Next. Other stays open for
typing. The last question waits for Submit answers.
**Reason and benefit**
Remove an extra click from each single-choice question while preserving
explicit submission.
**Breaking changes**
Single-choice selection now changes the page. Answer payloads and APIs
do not change. The user can return to earlier answers with the previous
arrow.
**Additional context**
Related work: #12640 introduced the task workspace. No duplicate
auto-advance change was found.
## What Changed
- Confirm a single-choice answer with a brief radio animation and row
highlight, then fade into the next page and focus the new question.
- Use motion tokens for the 160 ms confirmation and 80 ms page fade.
Honor reduced motion and cancel pending advances when the user changes
direction or closes the form.
- Lightly highlight every selected row with a foreground tint that
remains visible against the composer in both themes, for single-select
and multi-select answers.
- Preserve multi-select, custom answers, back navigation, and final
submission.
- Ignore repeated number-key events and selection during an upload or
submission.
- Update composer and card tests. Add interactive and verified composer
stories to the existing interaction Storybook group.
- Document the Storybook scenario in the developer guide.
## Verification
- Focused composer, card, and motion-catalog tests: 121 passed,
including animation timing and cancellation.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed.
- `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. Browser interaction story: passed with
the selection animation enabled.
- Selected-row refinement: 121 focused tests, token gates, and Storybook
build passed. Browser inspection confirmed row highlighting for
single-select and multiple selected checkboxes, plus light-theme
contrast.
- Manual browser check: select SQLite, select two features, click Next,
select Now, then submit. The summary contains every answer.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed.
- `pnpm build`: passed.
- All 31 remote checks passed on the latest commit (`04a3f3983`),
including typecheck, general and serialized tests, production
build/native-runner verification, canary validation, and browser tests.
Two optional Storybook deployment/visual jobs were skipped. Greptile
reviewed the same commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. The
selected-row highlight refinement is included in that verification.
- Animation refinement: UI typecheck, UI build, token gates, and 121
focused tests passed.
- The broader UI run had 5,940 passing tests and three failures in
unchanged Inbox/IssuesList tests. Both affected suites passed in
isolation (73/73), including all three previously failing cases.
- The broad local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after reproducing the
native-runner failure below and after the full remote suite passed. It
is not a clean local full-suite result.
- Local runner limitation:
`server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-resume.test.ts` has
one reproducible failure in unchanged code. The damaged-epoch recovery
test expects `run.attach requires a settled Codex provider session`; the
runner instead reports `semantic tool input content digest does not
match its transmitted input` at line 1019. After building the missing
fake provider with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner
build:rust`, the isolated suite has 36 passing tests and this one
failure. No server or runner files changed in this PR.
## Risks
- Selecting a single choice changes the visible question after a brief
checked-state confirmation. Back navigation preserves the choice so it
can be edited.
- The final page still requires Submit answers. Selecting Other still
requires text and explicit progress.
- No database, server, API, or dependency changes.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, code editing, terminal tools,
and browser verification. Exact serving revision and context window size
are 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
- [ ] 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 task transcript shows a running agent's progress.
> - The active-run query stops polling when the live-run list has data.
> - The transcript still preferred that initial snapshot, so an old
execution-confirmation state could remain after work resumed.
> - This pull request uses the refreshed snapshot for the same run and
keeps active status text at Working.
> - Operators can see current activity without connection-state jargon.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The task transcript said Reconnecting while the runner continued sending
messages and calling tools. The stale projection could also hide the
Thinking tail or stop the status spinner and timer.
**Expected behavior**
The selected run uses its current live snapshot. Active transcripts say
Working and show current activity. Completed and failed runs say Worked
and Stopped.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a running task before its execution confirmation arrives.
2. Let the active-run query stop polling when the live-run list returns
the run.
3. Let the list refresh to working while the cached active-run snapshot
still says reconnecting.
4. Inspect the transcript status and activity tail.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Base commit: 52811c6ce.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source. The report concerns the new runner. The fix also
covers legacy transcript status text.
Searched open issues and open/closed pull requests for runner
reconnection work. No duplicate fix found.
## What Changed
- Refresh the selected active run from the polled list by matching the
task execution-run ID. Reject cached predecessors after run replacement.
- Use Working in native and legacy transcripts and active agent cards.
- Keep the active spinner, timer, and Thinking tail independent of
diagnostic execution phases. Terminal status takes precedence.
- Add stale-snapshot, timer, and terminal-state regressions. Update the
recovery story and documentation.
## Verification
- Focused Vitest suite: 148 tests passed across the run resolver, live
pill, runner turn, and task thread.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed.
- Browser: inspected the recovery Storybook with a reconnecting
projection. It renders Working and Thinking.
- `pnpm build`: passed.
- `pnpm build-storybook`: passed.
- Full local `pnpm test:run` reported failures in unchanged server
tests; stopped the remaining general-server run after the equivalent CI
shards passed. The file-resource suite passes on rerun (35/35). Building
`build:runner-binaries` fixed a missing fake-provider binary; the
native-session-resume suite still has one continuity-reason assertion
mismatch (36/37 pass).
- Ran the remaining local test groups separately: both workspace groups
passed. All serialized suites passed except `pipelines-routes.test.ts`,
which still reports a socket hang-up on rerun (18/19 pass). The initial
access-route timeout passed on rerun. No server or runner source files
differ from the base.
- CI: all test shards, browser E2E, typecheck, runner verification, and
build passed on `22069462f30bdfcfb58f295da901a71ae5a47776`; the
aggregate verification gate passed (31 checks passed, 2 optional
Storybook checks skipped). Greptile is 5/5 with all review threads
resolved.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes UI snapshot selection and presentation. It does
not change server recovery, leases, retry authority, or permissions.
- The live snapshot must match the task execution-run ID. Missing
matches use the cached active run only when its ID also matches.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). The exact deployment identifier and context-window
size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository
inspection, code execution, and browser 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 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 (focused/UI and workspace
tests; full-suite limitations documented 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
- [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.
> - Task execution controls let board users pause a task or its subtree.
> - The composer still accepted messages while a pause hold was active.
> - A paused task must require an explicit resume before the user can
send another message.
> - This pull request replaces the composer with an amber pause card and
checks board comment writes on the server.
> - The user keeps their draft and resumes through the existing task
controls.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13104. Refs #13119.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The task composer and existing task/subtree pause controls.
**Current behavior**
A paused task can still receive a board message. The pause notice sits
outside the composer, which leaves the send action available.
**Proposed behavior**
Show an amber takeover in both task chat and the classic composer.
Preserve the draft. Require the user to resume the task or the ancestor
subtree before sending. Reject board comment writes through either
supported write route while the pause hold is active.
**Breaking changes**
Board comment writes to a paused task now return HTTP 409. Agent run
reports remain supported during a pause. There is no schema migration.
## What Changed
- Add a shared amber composer takeover with task, subtree, saved draft,
pending, and error states.
- Use effective ancestor pause state in both composer interfaces.
Refresh it after pause events, task updates, and rejected sends.
- Preserve draft text and attachments. Hide editor, send, queued edit,
and pending question controls while paused.
- Check active pause holds before board comment writes can mutate tasks,
store comments, or wake agents.
- Connect the approved Storybook examples to the production component
and update the design and behavior docs.
- Add browser coverage for both composers, draft persistence, resume,
inherited holds, and rejected writes. Update ACP continuation coverage
for the explicit resume requirement.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Passed: `pnpm build`.
- Passed: `pnpm build-storybook`.
- Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check`.
- Passed: focused UI tests (398 tests) and server route tests (127
tests).
- Passed: `pnpm exec playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/paused-composer.spec.ts
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` (5 tests).
- Passed: manual browser walkthrough in a disposable local instance.
Pause with a draft, refresh while paused, resume, send, and reopen. The
draft returned, and one message persisted. The amber card and resume
dialog were readable with no clipping.
- Full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass: the general-server stage
recorded 9,072 passing tests, 6 database setup failures from macOS
shared-memory exhaustion, and 4 failed tests. This stopped the script
before its later groups. Latest-head CI runs those groups independently.
- Local follow-up: the Git file-resource load test passed on rerun (4
tests); native finalization migration passed after clearing the
abandoned browser-test database allocation. Building the native debug
fixtures fixed the missing fake provider. The remaining native-session
recovery assertion also reproduces on untouched base commit `87b3e5fc6`
(36 pass, 1 fail on both base and PR). It expects a settled-session
error but receives a semantic-input-digest error.
- The final UI build, UI typecheck, token gates, both thread suites (182
tests), and all five browser tests passed after the queued-action review
fix. All 31 latest-head CI checks passed, including all server,
workspace, browser, build, release, and security gates. Two optional
Storybook jobs were skipped by workflow policy. Greptile reviewed
`32d8fb5f5` at 5/5 with no open findings.
- Review the Paused Composer and Tasks / Execution Controls stories.
Pause a task with a draft, verify the amber card, resume, and verify the
draft can be sent once.
## Risks
- Clients that used board comments to continue paused work must resume
first. The response is an explicit HTTP 409.
- Pause state can change while a page is open. Live updates refresh the
composer, and the server rejects stale sends before their side effects.
- Resume keeps the existing dialog and optional agent wake behavior.
Agent reports from interrupted runs remain allowed.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with design, implementation, code
execution, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and
context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning
and tool calls.
## 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 the relevant tests locally and they pass; the full
local-suite limits are documented 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
- [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 lets operators manage agent work through tasks.
> - Task chat keeps responses and run history together.
> - A live update rendered every historical bubble and hidden tool row
again.
> - New image callbacks also forced unchanged markdown to parse again.
> - Long conversations saturated the browser main thread.
> - This change reuses unchanged history and mounts folded tools on
first inspection.
> - Operators can read and reply while work continues.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Chat-style tasks with substantial scrollback became almost unusable. A
deterministic browser reproduction with 200 long responses and 4,000
tools consumed 97.8% of the main thread during live updates. It
delivered only 8 updates during the sample.
**Expected behavior**
The task should remain responsive during streaming. Historical markdown
and unopened run details should not repeat expensive render work.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Install dependencies with `pnpm install`.
2. Run `pnpm exec playwright test --config
tests/perf/task-chat/playwright.config.ts`.
3. Compare the attached performance JSON. The new test fails against the
original rendering code.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced at `a05b828bc`. The branch is rebased on current master.
**Deployment mode**
Local Chromium and Vite with deterministic fixtures. No database or
agent credentials are required.
Related work: #10463 reduces the issue-page bundle. This change
addresses repeated rendering after the page loads. No duplicate
scrollback fix was found.
## What Changed
- Keep the bubble image callback stable so unchanged markdown can skip
parsing.
- Memoize the settled history separately from the header and streaming
tail. Keep the brief renderer and default attachment array stable.
- Mount folded tool history on first expansion. Keep it mounted
afterward to preserve child state and closing motion. Runtime request
receipts remain visible.
- Add deterministic rendering tests to the normal Vitest suite and an
opt-in Chromium regression fixture.
- Document the reproduction, commands, scope, and local measurements.
## Verification
- Browser reproduction: 97.8% main-thread utilization before; 11.6%
after for tail-only updates; 31.5% after when projection recreates
history objects. Both fixed cases delivered 32 updates.
- Browser checks pass for scroll-position retention, typing, return to
latest, tool inspection, and retained expansion state.
- Focused component suite: 155 tests passed. Post-rebase
thread/performance rerun: 101 tests passed.
- Recursive typecheck, build, Storybook build, and token gates passed.
UI typecheck passed after the final edits.
- Local UI/CLI lane: 5,910 tests passed; ten files hit worker-start
timeouts, then all ten passed with two workers (20 tests).
Shared/adapter lane: 3,128 tests passed.
- Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and is **not green**: its
server lane recorded 10,517 passes and 11 failures plus fixture/setup
errors. Queue (31 tests), Cursor/Git-load (9 tests), and missing-binary
failures cleared on isolated reruns / building the runner test binaries.
Two native suites still cannot initialize embedded PostgreSQL on this
host.
- The remaining native-session recovery assertion was reproduced in a
clean worktree at base `a20ecce40` (1 failed, 67 passed across the
native/queue suites). It expects a settled-session error but receives a
semantic-tool-input digest error. No server or runner files changed in
this PR.
- All substantive CI jobs have passed, including build, typecheck, all
server/workspace test shards, all three e2e shards, and the canary dry
run. The unchanged Slack ordering test exhausted its one-second wait on
the first run; its shard passed on rerun. Final aggregate verification
passed: **31 passing checks**, no failures or pending checks; two
optional Storybook deployment/visual checks were skipped. Greptile is
**5/5**, with no unresolved review threads.
- The supplemental local serialized route run was stopped after CI
passed all five serialized shards; it had reported no failures.
- The browser fixture uses the real chat rendering components with a
plain textarea. It does not test the full composer or server transport.
Timing results are local samples; deterministic render-count tests
provide normal CI coverage.
## Risks
- Closed tool content becomes available to DOM search only after first
expansion. Visible run summaries and runtime request receipts remain
available immediately.
- Opened run history remains mounted to preserve child state. The first
full markdown render still scales with conversation size.
- Memo dependencies must stay current when adding render inputs. Tests
check content edits and replacement gallery callbacks.
- No API, database, or permission changes.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Exact serving variant and context-window size are
not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and browser testing. No sub-agents 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — targeted/UI/workspace
checks pass; the full local server suite has the baseline/host failures
documented 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
- [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.
> - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools.
> - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized
source.
> - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or
expose private data.
> - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data
contracts.
> - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable
control plane.
> - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery
in Paperclip.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs.
Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite
#13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below
the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML
galleries.
## What Changed
- Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat
connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental
chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its
normal setup path.
- Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind
each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks,
runs, permissions, and audit records.
- Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task
controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts.
Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel.
- Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials,
runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep
private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs,
credentials, or tool arguments.
- Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board
Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup
credentials in Paperclip secret storage.
- Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost
acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion
contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot
launch a provider.
- Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order.
Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the
selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo
unrelated access changes.
- Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain
with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority
without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable.
- Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout,
runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated
chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued
comments are adopted after Stop.
- Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run.
Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop,
agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a
false cancellation receipt.
- Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact
failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source
suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the
admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion
path.
- Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction,
simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact
durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation
through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the
accompanying deferred-wake merge.
## Verification
Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating
master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are
resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by
CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion
before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing
test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile
review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594)
is **5/5**, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable
findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341)
passes **all 24 jobs**, including Build and both required aggregates.
Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the
remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no
human approval is present. Normal **squash auto-merge is enabled** as of
September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified;
no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below
remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor.
- Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36
agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real
process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing
benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser
cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full
repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and
both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed
attempts remain recorded below.
- Latest test-only qualification: 141/141
route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with
plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite
passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A
controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching
ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome,
test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of
the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858)
passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser
aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the
skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail.
Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are
retained.
- Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all
995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is
observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves
its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL
execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts
remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes
remain frozen. The preceding [CI
attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777)
passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other
test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional
skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate
remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass.
- Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop
tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real
PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary
tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP
browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries,
stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained;
its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context
or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory
typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a
standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it,
and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics.
- The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed
[all 24 CI
jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958)
and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review
prevented its normal merge before master advanced again.
- Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue
and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module
tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update
tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP
browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries
in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear.
- The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI
jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820),
including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the
original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture
pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and
required this reconciliation.
- Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter
tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI,
server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks
pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear.
- Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against
exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected
recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop
controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier
prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already
terminal run.
- Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats
both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual
local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips
or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree,
retained input, and no error toast.
- Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They
prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer
or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort
passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop
controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local
process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or
retries, on a fresh database.
- The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport
tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11.
Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local
serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked
helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency
evidence.
- Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings
regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending
state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests
do not prove live provider behavior.
- Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification
log](afe19299d0/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md).
The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds.
Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion,
deadline, or CI gate was weakened.
Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest
run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec
playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh
disposable databases. See the [browser
runbook](afe19299d0/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md)
for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps.
## Risks
- This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live
evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission
layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open.
- Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require
operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient
visibility.
- Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible.
Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and
quarantine during future changes.
- Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications
remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox.
- The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or
change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented
in the [temporary
handoff](afe19299d0/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md).
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and
review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does
not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are
included.
## 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.
> - Task controls coordinate provider execution and queued user
messages.
> - Stop could finish before an embedded ACP provider stopped its tools.
> - A later request could be held for reconciliation without a clear
task response.
> - A restored provider could also retain the stopped run's API
credential.
> - This pull request verifies provider termination and preserves safe
session continuation.
> - Operators can continue known-safe work and see why uncertain work
cannot start.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Stop could leave an embedded ACP provider running. A queued follow-up
followed by “go” could fail before it reached the provider. Task chat
could show a generic missing-response message. Even a restored session
could use the previous run's credential and fail its task update.
**Expected behavior**
Stop waits for confirmed provider termination. A later explicit wake
continues the same compatible session only when recorded actions have
known outcomes. It carries pending comments and the current run's
environment. Uncertain actions retain a visible reconciliation hold.
Composer Stop preserves the existing pause rule: conversation can
continue while paused, but task work requires Resume.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start an embedded ACP task.
2. Send a second request while the provider is running.
3. Interrupt the run, then send “go”. Also test composer Stop followed
by Resume work.
4. Check that the request is delivered once and that the provider can
complete the task through the current run's API credential.
5. Repeat with an unfinished write. Confirm that the write stops and
that further execution stays blocked with a visible reason.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Built from source on master at `3bc60dd8b` plus this branch.
**Deployment mode**
Local source build with an isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance.
Refs #11183. Refs #12552. Those changes address recovery after operator
cancellation. This change also covers embedded ACP termination, session
proof, pending-comment delivery, and task feedback.
## What Changed
- Propagate Stop into embedded ACP and wait for bounded adapter cleanup
and provider exit. Retain the actual ChildProcess object for forced
termination on all platforms; never signal a recycled numeric PID.
- Preserve interrupted checkpoints only for acknowledged, local,
persistent sessions with settled reads or no tools. Keep writes,
incomplete actions, and forced termination blocked.
- Restore the same compatible provider session with the current run's
environment. Reject fresh-session fallback for an interrupted
checkpoint.
- Adopt pending comments on the next explicit wake. Stop alone does not
dispatch them.
- Share the execution-blocker rule across dispatch, Resume, and task
detail. Show Stopped or Couldn't start with the recorded reason. Resolve
the stopped agent for the run link, including reviewer runs.
- Keep execution reconciliation holds intact when generic recovery sees
queued comments or healthy child tasks.
- Add process, service, component, and browser regression coverage. Fix
disposable database cleanup and React test settling exposed by the full
suite.
## Verification
- Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm
check:token-gates`.
- Passed all three `acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` browser journeys.
They use an actual ACP child process and require task completion through
the agent API.
- Passed 165 adapter execution, operator-stop, and child-process control
tests, 17 queued-comment route tests, and 65 tests in the two adjusted
UI suites. Earlier focused recovery, heartbeat, and task-control tests
also passed.
- Manually used the browser to queue a request, Stop, send “go” while
paused, and Resume. The same session answered once and moved the task to
Done with the current run's credential.
- Manually interrupted an unfinished write. Its file size stayed fixed
for five seconds. “Go” showed the reconciliation reason and did not
start another provider prompt.
- Separate live Claude ACP smoke checks confirmed that Stop ended a
disposable local write and that a no-tool interruption could resume the
exact provider session. The browser fixture does not call Drive or
another external app.
- Passed all 5,615 UI tests and 3,090 other workspace tests. The CLI and
general server groups pass with targeted retries: two transient server
failures passed together on retry, and two embedded-database startup
failures passed after removing abandoned shared-memory segments from
this task's completed browser fixtures. All 144 serialized server suites
completed, with 2,189 tests passing after two transient HTTP socket
failures passed on retry.
- Passed all 135 heartbeat process/recovery tests, including a
deterministic regression that failed before the recovery-sweep fix.
- Passed 18 dispatch integration tests, including stopped-reviewer
links, company boundaries, and malformed run IDs.
- Greptile is 5/5 on `7dd170d83`, with zero unresolved review threads.
The security scan and all required CI gates pass for the same commit.
## Risks
- Safe continuation depends on complete tool reporting and a restorable
local provider session. Unknown outcomes remain blocked and require
reconciliation.
- Provider cleanup can take time. A timeout does not grant replay
permission.
- The change adds optional adapter context fields and an optional issue
projection. It does not change the database schema or require a
migration.
- Test cleanup truncates company data only in a disposable test
database.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex with repository tools, code execution,
and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose a more specific
model deployment ID or context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip shows agent work in task feeds.
> - Native tools and provider notices appear in that feed.
> - A routine completion call adds no useful action for the user.
> - A provider notice needs readable text to explain its warning.
> - This change hides the completion call and displays the notice
summary.
> - Saved run events remain available for inspection.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The feed showed paperclip_finish as a normal tool call. Provider notices
showed
a generic name or a large key-value table instead of a clear warning
message.
**Expected behavior**
Hide the routine completion call from the task feed. Show a warning
icon,
a short severity heading, and the full notice summary across the row.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a native Codex task that calls paperclip_finish.
2. Inspect its tool activity in the task feed.
3. Inspect a run with a repository-trust provider notice.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on the implementation checkout. Replayed onto master at
6abeb6733.
The search found no duplicate PR for this display change.
**Deployment mode**
Local source checkout with native task feeds.
## What Changed
- Hide paperclip_finish calls and results in task-feed adapters.
- Preserve the raw events for run-log inspection.
- Carry provider-notice text into the transcript.
- Render notices with an icon, severity heading, and full-width summary.
- Cover the display and transcript mapping with regression tests.
## Verification
- The affected UI tests and the token gates passed on the implementation
checkout.
- Browser inspection confirmed the warning text is readable and
completion calls are hidden.
- Repository typecheck and build passed. Repository test groups passed
after resource retests.
- On this PR branch, 123 focused UI tests and the token gates passed.
All GitHub checks passed; Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads.
## Risks
- The task feed hides one known internal tool. Raw run events remain
unchanged.
- Long warning text must wrap within the available width.
- No provider warning classification, accounting, or recovery behavior
changes here.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 (`gpt-6-astra`). Used for reasoning, code edits,
tool use,
and test execution. The exact context-window limit is not exposed in
this
session. Real-provider acceptance used Codex CLI 0.153.4 with
`gpt-5.6-sol`.
## 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
#` 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 task composer is where operators direct running agents.
> - Operators need to stop work without leaving the conversation.
> - Existing pause controls already hold task trees and interrupt both
runner types.
> - This pull request connects the composer to those controls and
removes repeated feedback.
> - Operators can pause work quickly and still queue messages while
agents run.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Task pause, resume, and cancellation in the task page and composer.
**Current behavior**
The empty composer cannot stop a running task. Task controls require
extra confirmation and reason text. Pause can show several notifications
for the task already on screen.
**Proposed behavior**
Show Stop while this task runs and the composer is empty. Text or
attachments switch it to Send. Stop and the menu use the same manual
pause hold. Parent pauses include descendants. Keep task cancellation in
the menu with a compact confirmation. Show one quiet pause row and gray
cancelled-run details.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can interrupt execution with one click. Drafts and queued
messages keep their existing behavior. The UI waits for actual
termination, including native cancellation acknowledgment.
**Breaking changes**
No endpoint, schema, or task-status change. Pause no longer asks for
confirmation or a reason. Resume now honors the existing wake-agents
option. Task notifications are suppressed for the task and subtree
currently in view.
Related UI work: #8228 changes navigation and composer shortcuts. This
PR covers execution controls. No duplicate Stop-button PR was found. The
change improves existing controls and does not duplicate a roadmap
milestone.
## What Changed
- Add Stop, pending feedback, duplicate-click protection, and inline
errors to the composer.
- Share the pause mutation across the composer, active-run controls, and
menu.
- Poll affected runs after a pause request. Require native cancellation
acknowledgment.
- Remove pause confirmation and shared reason fields. Reduce cancel
confirmation to its task count and actions.
- Honor wake-agents for executable tasks only. Preserve the pause when
recovery review is needed; show partial wake failures inline.
- Preserve explicit legacy reconciliation decisions while their
continuation waits for dispatch.
- Suppress notifications for visible task trees. Use quiet pause and
cancellation feedback.
- Add interactive stories using production controls and native/legacy
end-to-end tests.
## Verification
- User reviewed the running feature and revised Storybooks in the
browser.
- Rebased focused checks passed: 295 original targeted tests, 161
updated route/page/notification/status tests, and 26 recovery
integration tests.
- Both isolated runner journeys pass on the final revision (1.7
minutes). Coverage includes queueing, parent and child interruption,
persisted holds, no automatic continuation, reconciled resume,
cancellation, terminal exclusions, and no Stop toast.
- Native coverage uses real runnerd with a deterministic provider
fixture. Legacy coverage checks actual process termination. Live
hosted-provider execution was not tested.
- Repository typecheck and build, Storybook build, and token gates
passed after rebase. The final server typecheck/build also passed.
- The broad local run completed its general-server stage with 7,219
passing tests, 48 skipped, and two failures from cached pre-fix source
and a stale native provider fixture. Both failed tests pass in fresh
final-head reruns after rebuilding the fixture; the script did not
continue to its later local stages. CI runs all test groups on the final
revision.
- Final revision: all 31 applicable CI checks passed; Storybook visual
regression was skipped by its workflow conditions. Greptile: 5/5, zero
unresolved comments.
- Review `Tasks / Execution Controls` in Storybook. Type and clear a
draft, stop a run, expand cancellation details, and test the menu on
desktop and mobile.
## Risks
- Stop pauses descendants for a parent task. This is the existing pause
contract.
- A held task can remain active if interruption fails. The UI shows an
error instead of claiming termination.
- Resume can start multiple assignees when wake-agents is selected.
Backlog, blocked, and terminal tasks stay excluded. Existing execution
reconciliation remains mandatory where required; Resume never invents
action-outcome evidence.
- Notification suppression uses the visible task and cached subtree.
Notifications for unrelated work remain enabled.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact runtime snapshot and
context-window limit are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning,
tool calls, code execution, and browser inspection.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Coordinate initial conversation reveal, preserve message identity and reading anchors during live updates, and bound transcript reads with recoverable retries. Cover desktop/mobile navigation and rich task loading with actual-route browser tests.
Verified all Linux CI gates, 5,575 local UI tests, eight layout browser scenarios, and recorded native Codex walkthroughs. Greptile: 5/5; all review findings resolved.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Make task recovery durable and preserve the latest user request across native and legacy continuations. Keep routine recovery quiet and prevent replay when action outcomes are uncertain.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Onboarding ends by handing a new user to their first agent on a
seeded first task
> - Today the wizard asks for a mission up front, the UI composes what
the agent is told, and the agent starts running before the user says
anything
> - New users get a cold, ticket-shaped start, and nobody can edit the
agent's brief or persona without a code change
> - This pull request makes the first task a short chat: a four-step
wizard, a chief-of-staff persona, a greeting plus a two-option opening
card, server-owned markdown texts, and no run until the user answers
> - It also gives question cards one consistent action row (Cancel /
Skip / Next), makes agent hires idempotent within a run, and turns the
Paperclip Runner flag on by default for self-hosted instances
> - The benefit is a first run the user steers, with texts a board
operator can edit as markdown
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The feature request
fields follow.
Related PRs and issues:
- Refs #11043 — an earlier draft of the first-task onboarding
experience. This PR supersedes it.
- Refs #11280 — a report about the onboarding first-task route test.
This PR extends that test file.
### Subsystem affected
Onboarding wizard, the seeded first task and its texts, task-chat
question cards, agent hiring, and the instance experimental settings.
### Problem or motivation
The onboarding wizard collects a mission through two extra steps and a
questionnaire. The UI then composes the first agent's instructions and
the first task description from those answers. The first task wakes the
agent at once, so the agent runs and posts before the user types a word.
Board operators cannot change the greeting, the brief, or the persona
without editing TypeScript. Question cards in chat behave differently
per adapter, and a single-select pick submits on click. A misread hire
response could create a duplicate agent that the creating agent cannot
remove.
### Proposed solution
Reduce the wizard to four steps and stop the UI from authoring agent
texts. Move the greeting, the brief, the chief-of-staff persona, and the
opening question into markdown and JSON files that the server loads at
runtime. Seed the persona onto the first agent through an explicit hire
marker. Do not wake the first task until the user answers the opening
card or types. Give every question card the same Cancel / Skip / Next
actions. Add an experimental toggle that switches the single-task
proposal between one confirmation card and a plan document with a
checkbox card. Make agent hires idempotent within a run.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep the mission questionnaire and feed it into the brief. Rejected:
the agent asks better questions in chat, and the wizard gets shorter.
- Keep the first task open-ended with a plain composer. Rejected: a
two-option card gives the user a clear first move.
- Derive the plan-document behaviour from the user's intent only.
Rejected in favour of an explicit experimental toggle so operators can
choose.
- Key the "pick does not submit" behaviour off the presence of a submit
label. Rejected: several adapters set a submit label on single-select
cards, and their cards would change behaviour.
### Roadmap alignment
`ROADMAP.md` lists no planned core work on onboarding or the first task.
This change refines the existing flow and does not duplicate planned
work.
## What Changed
- Wizard: four steps (Name your organization, Create your first agent,
Connect a model, Review). The front door and both mission steps are
removed with their state and saved-progress keys. The UI no longer
composes the first agent's instructions or the first task description.
- Server-owned texts: the greeting, the brief with two proposal
variants, the chief-of-staff persona, the opening question, and a README
live in `server/src/onboarding-assets/first-task/` and load at runtime.
The create route stores the assembled brief and ignores any client
description.
- Persona seed: an `onboardingFirstAgent` marker on the hire lets the
server seed the chief-of-staff persona over the first agent's entry
file. Board-authored hires only. The persona tells the agent the hire
response shape and to list agents before it acts on an unclear result.
- No auto-run: the first task does not queue an assignment wake. The
stranded-assignment reconciler leaves it idle until a user comment or an
answered card exists.
- Opening card: the server seeds an `ask_user_questions` card right
after the greeting with two options: "Interview me and propose a plan
and an agent team to execute it." and "I have a task in mind" with free
text. Answering wakes the agent.
- Experimental toggle `enableFirstTaskPlanProposal` (default off): the
single-task proposal is one confirmation card, or a plan document plus a
checkbox card when on.
- Question cards: every `ask_user_questions` card renders Cancel, Skip,
and Next (the submit label on the last question). Skip hides on required
questions. Picking an option no longer advances or submits by itself.
- Wizard guards: the dashboard's agentless offer ignores a cached empty
agent list while a refetch is in flight. The hire step adopts an agent
that already carries the typed name instead of hiring "Name 2".
- Agent hires are idempotent within a run: a retry of the identical
request under the same run id returns the existing agent with `200` and
`idempotent: true`. The fingerprint covers the whole validated request,
so a corrected payload is a new hire. Lookup, create, and activity
record run under one lock per company and run, so overlapping retries
cannot both create.
- The Paperclip Runner experimental flag defaults to on for self-hosted
instances. Cloud keeps its declared default: a managed instance whose
tenant row and managed overlay omit the flag resolves it to off.
- Question cards: a send that finds an earlier required answer missing
returns to that question with a message instead of failing silently.
- The two onboarding e2e specs follow the new wizard: the front door and
growth intake shots are gone, and the planning-mode spec dismisses the
opening card before it reads the composer.
- Docs: `docs/board-operator/editing-first-task-texts.md` explains how
to edit the texts and the toggle.
## Verification
Commands, run from the repo root:
```
pnpm -r --filter './packages/*' --filter '!@paperclipai/paperclip-runner' build
pnpm --filter ./packages/shared typecheck
pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck
pnpm --filter ./server exec tsc --noEmit
pnpm check:token-gates
pnpm --filter ./ui exec vitest run OnboardingWizard onboarding QuestionForm InteractionCard ProtocolCard TaskChatComposer Dashboard feature
PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false pnpm --filter ./server exec vitest run onboarding-first-task heartbeat-process-recovery agent-hire-idempotency instance-settings agent-skills-routes issue-onboarding onboarding-greeting --testTimeout=90000
```
Results on this branch:
- Typecheck is clean for shared, ui, and server.
- Token gates: 4 of 4 clean.
- UI: 344 tests pass across 23 files.
- Server: all suites pass. The first test in `agent-skills-routes` has
its own 10 s cap and needs about 15 s on my laptop for the app cold
start. It passes with a longer cap. This PR does not change that cap.
Manual steps on a dev instance:
1. Open `/onboarding`. Confirm four steps: Name your organization,
Create your first agent, Connect a model, Review.
2. Finish the wizard. Confirm the first task shows the chief-of-staff
greeting and the opening card with two options. Confirm no run starts.
3. Pick "Interview me…". Confirm no run starts. Press Continue. Confirm
a run starts and an interview card of 3–4 questions arrives.
4. On a fresh organization, pick "I have a task in mind", type a task,
and press Continue. Confirm a proposal arrives as one confirmation card.
5. Turn on Settings → Experimental → "First task: propose with a plan
document" and repeat step 4. Confirm a plan document and a checkbox card
arrive.
6. Visit the dashboard after the hire. Confirm the wizard does not
reopen and one agent exists.
7. Open any question card. Confirm Cancel returns the plain composer
with the card still pending, Skip advances an optional question, and
Next moves to the next question.
Design reference with flow diagrams, chat mock-ups, and live captures:
https://pages.paperclip.ing/first-task-flow/proposed/
## Risks
- `pnpm dev` now builds the runner daemon because the Paperclip Runner
flag is on by default. Developers without a Rust toolchain must set
`PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_BINARY` or turn the flag off. Self-hosted instances
that never set the flag now let qualified agents use the runner.
- The wizard drops the mission steps and their saved-progress keys. A
user who is mid-wizard on an older build restarts at step 1 after an
upgrade. Existing organizations are not touched.
- The first task no longer runs on its own. A user who neither answers
the card nor types sees no agent activity. This is intended.
- The persona seed applies only to hires that carry the marker from the
wizard. API hires are unchanged.
- Hire idempotency is scoped to one run id and to the exact request.
Retries across runs, or with a changed payload, still create a second
agent. The lock is per server process, which matches how an instance
serves its API.
- Single-select question cards no longer submit on pick. Users of
adapters that relied on that behaviour now press Next.
- No database migrations.
> 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
- Claude (Anthropic) through Claude Code. `claude-fable-5-1` with
extended thinking, tool use, and code execution wrote most commits.
`claude-opus-4-8` wrote the toggle, texts, wizard, and idempotency
commits, as the `Co-Authored-By` trailers show.
## 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>
Bring governed connection reviews into task history and composer approvals. Share resolution with Connections, add scoped remembered permissions, and resume agents through durable outcome receipts.
Keep cards compact, collapse raw results, isolate untrusted provider output, bound continuation payloads, and reconcile missed live events. Add Storybook coverage, browser journeys, and service regression tests.
Verification: all PR CI gates passed, Greptile 5/5, security scans passed, five connection-review browser journeys passed, and real native Codex approval/continuation was verified against the local MCP fixture.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent adapters select a provider, a model, and a runtime.
> - Runner conversion rejected existing Claude agents. The model list
mixed providers.
> - The native Claude runner rejected custom models and could not launch
on macOS.
> - This pull request fixes conversion, model selection, and verified
macOS execution.
> - It also groups configuration fields consistently across adapters and
opens artifact images in the task gallery.
> - Operators can change an agent configuration and run the selected
model on their Mac.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Converting an existing Claude agent to Paperclip Runner failed with a
Codex-only restriction. ACPX Claude showed unrelated models and required
`claude-sonnet-5`. Its native runtime rejected macOS. Configuration
mixed common model settings with process controls. Artifact cards
labeled “Open gallery” navigated to attachment URLs instead of opening
the task gallery.
**Expected behavior**
Conversion keeps agent identity and compatible settings. ACPX Claude
uses the normal Claude catalog and accepts typed model IDs. Codex uses
the native runner. The verified Claude runtime can launch on macOS ARM64
and x64. Common configuration sections place the same fields together
across adapters. Artifact images open in the shared task gallery with
navigation and downloads.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the configuration of an existing Claude agent.
2. Convert it to Paperclip Runner.
3. Select ACPX Claude and a different catalog model or a typed model ID.
4. Save the agent and run a disposable task on macOS.
5. Inspect configuration and advanced run-policy controls across
adapters.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The bugs were reproduced on `165ca56a22adb60e5fda56045442d9c8498116a8`.
This branch was rebased onto `7ed122911`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source. Local test-drive instance on macOS ARM64 with an
isolated database.
Related work: #11798 addresses unsupported ACP session options in the
existing adapter path. #13048 addresses working-folder preservation.
This change fixes native runner configuration and launch behavior.
## What Changed
- Remove the Codex-only conversion restriction. Preserve agent identity,
instructions, directories, credentials, and compatible model settings.
Reset incompatible sessions while retaining history.
- Show ACPX Claude and native Codex as distinct provider choices. Remove
ACPX Codex from advertised configuration. Normalize legacy
configurations before fresh runs without rewriting historical run
descriptors.
- Select model catalogs and cache entries by provider. Support refresh
and typed model IDs. Pass exact Claude IDs through session creation,
model changes, and recovery.
- Add verified macOS ARM64 and x64 Claude SDK snapshots. Bound
executable allocation and total snapshot size. Preserve package checks,
dependency isolation, process ownership, cancellation, and Linux
descriptor loading.
- Probe local runtime readiness. Report remote platform checks as
incomplete until the remote runner verifies its runtime.
- Surface actual model rejection and allow correction and retry.
- Repair missing ACPX goal-capability helpers exposed by the post-rebase
live test. Persist and restore the optional capability without breaking
session startup.
- Put Agent identity first and intentionally remove the Capabilities
editor, as requested. This is removal of UI editing, not relocation:
preserve existing capability metadata and API compatibility without
adding another editor. Use the themed select for configurable permission
modes, with normal text instead of monospace.
- Put model and provider under Adapter. Give environment variables their
own section. Fold command and arguments under Configuration. Fold
lifecycle, timeout, and interrupt grace under Advanced Run Policy. Hide
single-option permission controls.
- Open image and video artifact cards in the existing task gallery,
including cards in the artifacts panel. Chat attachment images use the
same gallery. Preserve standalone media previews and download links.
## Verification
- Rebased focused UI/API/database suites: 293 tests passed.
- Rebased native runtime and ACPX suites: 242 passed, 7 skipped.
- Repository typecheck, build, and token gates passed for the runner
changes. Gallery follow-up UI typecheck, build, and token gates also
passed.
- Follow-up UI suites passed (86 tests), packaging checks passed (14
tests), and the final focused runtime suites passed (126 passed, 7
skipped).
- Linux container isolation and lifecycle fixtures passed before rebase
(57 passed, 2 skipped). Rust ACPX provider-session tests passed after
rebase (8 tests).
- Browser tests completed actual Claude and native Codex tasks on macOS
ARM64. They covered conversion, catalog refresh, a non-default catalog
model, a typed `haiku` ID, save/reload, cancel, follow-up session
continuity, invalid-model errors, and recovery.
- Final-revision live tests completed a typed Claude task, a follow-up
with the same provider session, and a native Codex task on macOS ARM64.
- Browser tests confirmed the moved interrupt-grace field saves and
survives reload. Cross-adapter tests cover Claude, Codex, Gemini,
process, gateway, and schema forms.
- Full local run: 7,080 passed, 30 skipped, and two timeouts. Both
timeout suites passed on isolated rerun (84 tests); the failures were
the plugin login-worker exit diagnostic and the runner real-server
vertical slice.
- Final follow-up checks: 50 registry tests and 45 snapshot/installation
tests passed (6 platform-specific skips). Oversized executable rejection
is covered before allocation or reading; unsupported-platform tests
invoke the real installation probe.
- Runner head `ddb5101c483a297f74875ab96b3c66035b002d50`: all CI gates
green, including full runner verification, repository build, typecheck,
general/serialized server suites, browser tests, and canary dry run. [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34286178670).
- Greptile: 5/5 on that runner head. All four review threads resolved.
Superagent, Socket, and Snyk checks green.
- After snapshot hardening, another real Claude task completed on this
Mac using the rebuilt runtime.
- Gallery follow-up: 148 focused tests passed, covering artifact
selection, shared attachment collections, deduplication, image/video
cards, standalone previews, downloads, and closing. Live browser
verification completed on the settings follow-up: artifact selection,
6-image pagination with wrapping, download action, and closing all
stayed on the same task URL. All checks passed on gallery head
`96136da58ff195bf6ca00b281eb3022ad12d7bd8`: [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34287987536).
Greptile returned 5/5 on that exact head with no unresolved threads.
- Final settings polish: 96 focused tests, UI typecheck/build, and token
gates passed. A real browser walkthrough verified readable permission
options, identity placement, Capabilities removal, and permission
save/reload. Original test-agent permission mode restored. All 31 checks
passed on final head `e46540d6bf32bfb0566dca16b2f4a75ba437618c`: [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34292797886).
Greptile returned 5/5 with no unresolved threads.
## Risks
- Capabilities intentionally has no editable UI field after this change.
Existing values remain readable and API-compatible; removing the field
does not erase stored metadata.
- macOS launch now copies verified package files into private snapshots.
The implementation must retain isolation and clean up snapshots on exit.
- Runtime provider or model changes reset the current session.
Historical runs remain available.
- The macOS x64 SDK executable digest was verified, but a live Intel Mac
run was not available. Linux verification used container fixtures, not a
real Claude task.
- Remote environment tests report a warning when only the platform has
been checked. They do not claim package readiness from the server host.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact served model identifier and
context-window limit are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning,
repository inspection, code execution, Rust and TypeScript tests, and
browser automation.
## 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 (focused suites and both
timeout suites on rerun; full-run counts 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
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents use connections to reach external services.
> - A fresh native task can have no service tools installed.
> - The agent needs a way to discover services and ask the responsible
person for access.
> - This pull request brings the existing connection-intent flow into
native task execution.
> - The person can connect from the task, and the agent can continue
with updated tools.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Native runner tool authority, connection intents, task interactions, and
shared connection setup.
**Problem or motivation**
A task that needs an unconnected service cannot finish its work. Leaving
the task to configure access also loses context. A resolved request must
survive a restart and resume the correct agent once.
**Proposed solution**
Expose connection discovery and access requests as server-owned native
tools. Render a durable task card and use the shared setup dialog.
Persist outcome delivery and start a fresh provider session after access
is ready.
**Alternatives considered**
Sending the person to the Connections page adds navigation and does not
solve continuation. Polling for authorization consumes runs and can
create duplicate requests.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing connection-intent runtime and setup
experience. It reuses the shared access model and the native runner.
Related: #12345, #12347. The service-slug fix in #12906 is related but
separate. Companion evaluation PR:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/21.
## What Changed
- Expose `connections_search` and `connection_request` with server-bound
company, task, agent, and responsible user. Preserve the legacy entry
points.
- Discover catalog services and authorized custom connections. Check
installation, identity, health, and executable permissions before
reporting ready.
- Keep pending cards through ordinary messages. Reuse requests and
retire stale ownership. Put Connect at the right of Not now.
- Reuse the shared setup flow in a task dialog. Keep access additive and
default to the requesting agent. Recover from cancelled or blocked OAuth
windows with a new-tab fallback.
- Persist outcome delivery with an idempotent wake key. Resume in a
fresh session and recheck ownership before dispatch.
- Add native browser fixtures, offline Storybook states, server
contracts, and evaluation fixtures. Update guidance and documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm build`: passed after replaying the change on current master.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook`: passed.
- New continuation-policy regression cases: 16 passed.
- Docker-backed PostgreSQL regressions passed for requester-only OAuth
access, assignment-only expiry, terminal expiry, and credential-free
setup metadata.
- Shared setup and task-card UI tests: 121 passed, including configured
MCP reconnect URL recovery and preserving user edits across refetch.
- Storybook browser checks: all 119 passed on the latest reconnect fix.
- `pnpm test:run`: 4,734 tests passed in the first server group, but
embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and resulting cleanup errors
prevented a complete local pass. All Linux CI lanes passed on the latest
reviewed commit. One external-object route test returned an unexplained
500 on the first run; it passed twice locally and the failed shard
passed on retry without code changes.
- Earlier feature-checkout evidence: three deterministic native browser
journeys passed, including restart delivery and an actual fixture tool
result. Legacy scripted coverage also passed. All 59 added stories were
inspected in light and dark themes.
- Live Notion testing recorded successful provider reads. The manual
test used a local-trusted instance. It does not prove
authenticated/cloud deployment or every provider journey.
- Native browser rerun reached the embedded PostgreSQL startup limit
before bootstrap, so the latest checkout’s full native browser journey
remains unverified. Both OAuth page/task regression cases passed against
isolated Docker-backed PostgreSQL 17. They verify no premature task
access, requester-only completion, additive retries, and reconnect
preservation.
- Applied both new migrations twice to isolated PostgreSQL 17. Foreign
keys remained intact, duplicate active delivery keys were rejected, and
failed delivery records did not block retries.
Reviewer path: start a fresh test drive, enable the native runner, use
an agent that can perform work directly, and ask it to summarize a
Notion page. Connect from the card, then verify the resumed provider
call and source-linked answer. The default test-drive CEO is instructed
to delegate, so it can introduce an unrelated hiring step.
## Risks
- Two additive migrations create durable deliveries and a partial unique
wake index. They are idempotent. The wake index can require a
maintenance window on large tables because migrations run in a
transaction.
- OAuth and continuation cross asynchronous boundaries. Tests cover
ownership changes, retries, additive access, and restart delivery; live
provider behavior still varies.
- The latest requester-scope fix has not yet been exercised through live
OAuth. GitHub, API-key, authenticated-user, and all recovery journeys
are not claimed as verified.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6-based Codex assisted with implementation, tests, and review
using tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact
model version, context window, or reasoning setting. Live evaluation
used `gpt-5.6-luna`; manual native testing used `gpt-5.6-sol`.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used and disclosed unavailable runtime
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this extends existing
connection work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature 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
ticket id
- [ ] I have run all required tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented risks
- [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.
> - Task interactions let an operator approve completion or ask an agent
to continue.
> - The server stores the continue choice as a rejected completion
request so it can resume the same task.
> - The task feed ignored the configured action label and showed the
generic text `Declined request`.
> - The generic text made a successful three-turn continuation look like
a failed request.
> - This pull request keeps the server state and shows the action that
the operator selected.
> - The benefit is an accurate task feed for legacy Codex and Runner
Codex.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A rejected confirmation always appeared as `Declined request`. The feed
did not use a custom rejection action such as `Continue work`.
**Expected behavior**
The resolved receipt and success toast must show the selected custom
action. Confirmations without a custom action must keep the current
fallback text.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a completion confirmation with `rejectLabel` set to `Continue
work`.
2. Select `Continue work` and enter a continuation note.
3. Open the completed task feed.
4. Observe that the old UI says `Declined request` instead of the
selected action.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`539c9212f4b98e37643f5a8e3b603f1b5845b5d7`
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions Runner E2E with warm Daytona sandboxes.
## What Changed
- Show `Selected “Continue work”` when a rejected confirmation has that
custom action label.
- Use the same action-aware text in the success toast.
- Keep `Declined request` as the fallback for confirmations without a
custom rejection label.
- Make the legacy warm-turn prompt ask if the task is ready to complete.
- Require both warm Daytona matrix cells to show two continuation
receipts and no generic decline receipt.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatInteractionCard.test.tsx`
- `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`
- `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- Paid `daytona-warm-continuity` campaign: both three-turn cells passed
on attempt 1 ([workflow
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34052047946));
the downloaded evidence aggregates locally as 2/2. The trusted report
job did not publish because default branch `pnpm-lock.yaml` was
transiently behind its manifest.
- `pnpm typecheck` reached an unrelated `plugin-workspace-diff`
dependency type error after the current master manifest and lockfile
resolved different versions. The focused UI and runner checks pass.
## Risks
- Low risk. The database state and continuation behavior do not change.
- A custom rejection label now appears in resolved receipts and success
toasts.
- The paid warm Daytona suite has a stricter browser assertion.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in
this PR with the bug template fields
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal task
identifier
- [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated the relevant E2E fixture and assertions
- [x] I have considered and documented the risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue detail page shows a live agent run and accepts follow-up
instructions.
> - A follow-up must stay in a stable queue until the user sends,
reorders, or removes it.
> - Native runners can receive a steering event in the active run.
> - Legacy runners must interrupt the active run and start a follow-up
run.
> - The current UI moved comments between the queue and the transcript
and could show duplicate text or ambiguous chronology.
> - This pull request makes the queue projection durable, keeps each
message in one clear place, and labels when queued input was actually
steered or delivered.
> - The benefit is predictable steering with stable ordering, no
duplicate messages, and visible causal timing.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11374.
Refs #12591.
**What happened?**
During an active run, a new follow-up could first appear as a transcript
bubble and then move into the steering queue. After a steer or remove
action, it could appear again. Progress text could also repeat the final
response text. Once consumed, a queued bubble displayed only its
original submission time even though it moved to its later causal slot,
and a native run split by steering looked like two unrelated runs.
**Expected behavior**
An active-run follow-up must appear in the queue immediately. A native
steer must move it once into the active run. A legacy interrupt must
move it once into the follow-up run. A removed item must stay removed.
Progress text that is identical to the final response must appear once.
Consumed follow-ups must show both queue and steer/delivery times, and
post-steer native segments must identify themselves as continuations of
the same run.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a long-running task.
2. Send two or more follow-up messages while the agent is active.
3. Reorder the messages and remove one message.
4. Send the first queued message as steering.
5. Observe the queue and transcript during and after both runs.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem reproduced on commit `da1e40302`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with the embedded database.
## What Changed
- Project queued comments into the steering well for native and legacy
live runners.
- Send native steering to the active run and use interrupt-and-follow-up
for legacy runners.
- Keep optimistic queue order stable across refreshes and roll back
failed actions.
- Remove discarded comments from the transcript cache and keep them
removed when the queue becomes empty.
- Collapse only the final progress occurrence matching the durable
response, including across steered transcript segments.
- Show `Queued … · Steered …` for same-run input and `Queued … ·
Delivered …` for successor-run input at their causal positions.
- Label settled and live post-steer segments `Continued after steering`
and time them from the steer boundary.
- Add regression tests for queue display, steering, fallback interrupt,
reorder, remove, rollback, duplicate text, causal timestamps, and
live/settled continuation headers.
## Verification
- Ran the final focused steering/chronology UI suite with 233 passing
tests.
- Ran the activity-service regression suite with 5 passing tests.
- Ran the broader queue-focused UI suite with 298 passing tests before
the final chronology refinement.
- Ran `pnpm -r typecheck` successfully.
- Ran `pnpm build` successfully.
- Ran `pnpm check:token-gates` successfully.
- Tested native steering in a real browser with a 90-second baseline
wait and a three-second steering correction.
- Confirmed that the old final response did not appear before the
steered response.
- Tested three queued messages in a real browser.
- Confirmed that reorder changed delivery order and that the removed
message was never sent or shown again.
- Tested a legacy runner in a real browser.
- Confirmed that it used the interrupt fallback and showed the follow-up
once.
- Reloaded a saved mixed-steer/successor-run thread and confirmed the
causal timestamps and continuation header render in the correct
positions.
- The complete macOS suite reaches five unrelated platform assertions in
workspace-runtime tests. Two compare `/var` with `/private/var`. Three
require Linux `/proc` listener data. GitHub Actions provides the
authoritative Linux run.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is limited to issue-chat queue projection and
transcript presentation.
- The server run-history API adds only a read-only `contextIssueId`
projection; the database schema does not change.
- Optimistic actions restore the prior UI state when a request fails.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, extended reasoning, browser automation, shell
tools, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators use the main navigation, contextual navigation, and task
chat throughout the product.
> - The recent core UI refactor left uneven spacing and inconsistent
navigation styles.
> - The Apps label also did not match the Connectors product language.
> - The account area did not provide a clear direct path for feedback.
> - This pull request aligns these related core UI surfaces and
preserves their existing behavior.
> - The benefit is a more consistent interface with clearer navigation
and balanced task-chat layout.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the core sidebar, Settings navigation, Connectors catalog,
task-chat layout, and account controls.
**Subsystem affected**
`ui/` — React and Vite board UI.
**Current behavior**
The task chat had uneven edge treatment. Settings used a separate
contextual-navigation style. Apps used inconsistent product labels. The
account footer did not expose a direct feedback control.
**Proposed behavior**
The task chat keeps balanced content padding while its scrollbar sits at
the properties boundary. Settings replaces the primary sidebar with a
matching navigation surface and a Back to app link. Apps uses Connectors
and Browse labels. The account footer provides a dedicated feedback icon
with a tooltip.
**Reason and benefit**
These changes make related navigation and layout patterns predictable.
They reduce duplicate labels and improve access to feedback.
**Breaking changes**
None. Routes, APIs, and stored data do not change.
## What Changed
- Balanced the task-chat content gutter and moved its scrollbar to the
properties-panel boundary.
- Reworked Settings navigation to replace the main sidebar and use the
shared primary-sidebar style.
- Added a Back to app navigation item to Settings.
- Renamed Apps to Connectors in the main navigation and added the
`Unplug` icon.
- Renamed the Connectors contextual item to Browse.
- Added the Connectors top-level header and aligned the search field
with the connector cards.
- Added account-footer hover states and a direct feedback flag with a
Share feedback tooltip.
- Removed the duplicate Feedback item from the account popover.
- Added regression coverage for each changed UI surface.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/AppsSidebar.test.tsx
src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.test.tsx
src/components/Layout.test.tsx src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/TaskMessageScroller.test.tsx
src/pages/apps/Browse.test.tsx` — 90 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
- `env PAPERCLIP_PLAYWRIGHT_CHANNEL=chrome PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3201 pnpm
exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/apps-dark-mode-shots.spec.ts
tests/e2e/sidebar-takeover.spec.ts` — 10 tests passed.
- The full workspace typecheck and build reached the Rust runner and
stopped because `cargo` is not installed on this machine.
- The full test suite exposed unrelated server and workspace-runtime
failures and was stopped after the affected suites completed. No changed
UI test failed.
- Manually verified the changed Settings, Connectors, task-chat, and
account-menu surfaces in the running app.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects layout and navigation presentation only.
- The Settings sidebar now replaces the main sidebar by design. Users
must use Back to app to return to the application navigation.
- The task scrollbar offset depends on the existing responsive page
gutters. Regression tests cover both narrow and desktop spacing.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`, extended reasoning with tool use and code
execution. The host does not expose the context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] 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: Scott Tong <scott@scottsmbpm5max.lan>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for agents that perform work.
> - Paperclip Runner connects durable provider sessions to individual
task runs through PRP.
> - Provider continuity and per-run authority are different lifetimes.
> - The existing implementation mixed those lifetimes and lost event
metadata between provider frames, runnerd, persistence, API
sanitization, and the task thread.
> - That caused failed continuation, missing progress and Plans,
duplicate replies, hidden failures, and unsafe recovery.
> - This repair gives every heartbeat fresh authority, preserves
qualified provider-session continuity, and restores one lossless
presentation path without changing direct adapters.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A second native heartbeat could reuse tickets, leases, command receipts,
sequence state, and run identity from the first heartbeat. Provider
phase and item identity could be lost before the UI read them. Redaction
could corrupt protocol discriminators while still missing malformed
credential tails. The task thread could fold progress into the final
response, hide failures, or show more than one final answer. Native
Codex also exposed approval modes that do not yet have a durable
approval bridge.
**Expected behavior**
Each heartbeat uses a new PRP authority epoch. Codex and OpenCode
preserve exact qualified provider sessions; ACPX emits an explicit
continuity event when its qualified process-replacement policy is used.
Every accepted provider event is presented, classified as internal, or
surfaced as unsupported. The task page shows chronological progress,
reasoning summaries, activity, Plans, interactions, terminal failures,
and exactly one final reply. Direct adapters retain their existing path.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable the unified experimental Paperclip Runner setting.
2. Create a local native Codex, OpenCode, ACPX Claude, or ACPX Codex
agent.
3. Run response, Plan, structured-question/resume, restart,
cancellation, and failure scenarios.
4. Reload the task while active, waiting, failed, and settled.
5. On the old implementation, observe stale run authority, missing
classifications, incomplete output, or duplicated/folded replies.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The repair is based directly on `master` at
`87d05e194b643810d16d20612115acd01d735d43`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with the embedded database.
Related work: Refs #12616, #12646, #12666, #12685, and #12700.
## What Changed
- Rotates PRP control-plane, outbox, ticket, lease, command, receipt,
and sequence authority for each heartbeat while carrying forward only a
validated provider-session identity.
- Reads `control-plane-state.json`, validates both durable schemas and
lifecycle values, resumes coherent current runs, archives qualified
settled authority, and quarantines malformed or mismatched scoped state
without moving ambiguous live legacy state.
- Preserves Codex provider phase and stable item identities so
commentary remains progress and only `final_answer` becomes final.
- Adds raw OpenCode HTTP/SSE boundary coverage and canonical reasoning
lifecycle mapping.
- Makes ACPX normalization lossless for visible reasoning, tool
lifecycle metadata, stable bounded identities, Plan revisions,
structured requests, failures, and qualified process replacement. Only
the compatible terminal assistant message is promoted as final.
- Applies schema-aware redaction before generic JWT-shaped detection and
scans every diagnostic string leaf. Malformed raw/escaped quoted
credential tails are redacted in both server and durable Rust state.
- Restores snapshot-style chronological task presentation, expandable
tool activity, inline Plan cards, visible waiting/resume/cancel/failure
states, and exactly one final answer.
- Makes `never` the only qualified native Codex permission mode and
rejects unsupported persisted native modes with remediation. OpenCode
and ACPX policies remain intact.
- Keeps the unified experimental Runner setting as the only enablement
flag. Onboarding and direct Codex, Claude, and OpenCode stay on their
legacy execution/finalization paths.
- Adds cross-language goldens, authority/recovery/fault coverage, exact
response/count assertions, and native plus legacy acceptance scenarios.
## Verification
- Pull-request GitHub Actions run Rust formatting/tests, TypeScript
checks, server/UI tests, builds, protocol drift checks, browser E2E, and
security scans.
- A separate workflow-only validation ref is pinned directly on this PR
head and runs the 35-cell paid local matrix: three core scenarios plus
structured-question resume and restart/resume for native Codex, native
OpenCode, ACPX Claude, ACPX Codex, and direct Codex/Claude/OpenCode.
Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33682434315
- Acceptance requires exact single visible replies, monotonic sequences,
matching envelope discriminators, one semantic terminal, one run
terminal, no unresolved interaction, no duplicate mutation, no secret
leakage, provider continuity, and zero native rows for direct adapters.
- Per maintainer direction, tests are running in GitHub Actions rather
than on the slower local host. Only formatters and static diff checks
were run locally.
## Risks
- Recovery from old or partial filesystem state is sensitive. The repair
fails closed, preserves active or unverifiable authority, and
quarantines only state whose scoped ownership is safe to move.
- Provider event formats can change. Closed validators and boundary
goldens turn new or malformed events into visible diagnostics instead of
silent drops.
- Shared task presentation could affect direct adapters. Runtime-fact
gating plus the direct-adapter matrix protect the existing path.
- Managed and remote providers are not qualified here. Shared code
continues to compile and fail safely, but live qualification is
deferred.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The exact deployed snapshot and
context-window size are not exposed to this task. It used agentic
reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, Git, parallel subagents,
and GitHub Actions.
## 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
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass (intentionally deferred to
GitHub Actions)
- [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
- [ ] The paid local-provider matrix is 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 control plane for AI-agent companies.
> - Agent outputs must remain visible after a run and easy to inspect
from a task.
> - The thread and artifact inventory need one consistent rich-card
vocabulary.
> - Run uploads also need durable artifact registration and
producing-run context.
> - Reviewers need deterministic examples for each rich-card kind and
state.
> - This pull request adds the shared presentation, registration,
inventory, and Storybook review coverage.
> - The benefit is a complete output path that reviewers can inspect
without seeded data.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This change improves work-product presentation in task threads and the
task Artifacts tab.
**Subsystem affected**
The change affects shared work-product contracts, the runner diff path,
server attachment and work-product services, GitHub metadata refresh,
the React board UI, and Storybook.
**Current behavior**
The thread used generic cards. Some files uploaded by a run existed only
as message attachments. The Artifacts tab showed a flat list without run
context or filters. Storybook showed only one resting card per kind.
**Proposed behavior**
The thread uses rich cards for supported work-product types. Each
run-produced file registers one attachment-backed artifact work product.
The Artifacts tab groups outputs by run and supports filters. Storybook
shows every kind and requested state, PR lifecycle states, stats
variants, truncation, mobile layout, and message-tail media.
**Reason and benefit**
Users can identify outputs quickly. Reviewers can inspect all card
permutations without creating task data.
**Breaking changes**
None. The metadata fields and automatic artifact registration are
additive. Existing attachments and work products keep their current
behavior.
## What Changed
- Added a shared rich work-product card with kind-specific content and a
compact inventory variant.
- Added pull-request and commit diff metadata plus bounded GitHub state
refresh.
- Added media strips and typed file chips to message-tail attachments.
- Registered each run-produced attachment as an artifact work product in
the same server transaction.
- Grouped task artifacts by run with agent and timestamp headings.
- Added type and run filters, image thumbnails, compact cards, and a
company Artifacts link.
- Added a Storybook kind-by-state matrix with stats variants for all
eight visual kinds.
- Added PR open, draft, merged, and closed examples, long-title
truncation, an exact 375-pixel viewport, and message-tail overflow
coverage.
- Closed reconciled runtime work products when the linked runtime stops
or disappears, so the card shows `Stopped` instead of `Unhealthy`.
### Screenshots
Before: one resting card per kind.
After: the kind and state matrix.
After: message-tail media at 375 pixels.
[Open the Storybook evidence
viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/).
The earlier artifact inventory comparison remains available in the
[artifact inventory
viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-artifacts-inventory-proof-20260902/).
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed.
- `pnpm build-storybook` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/work-product-runtime-reconciliation.test.ts` passed
with 5 tests.
- Chromium visual checks passed at desktop and 375-pixel widths.
- All 30 latest-head GitHub checks passed. One unrelated annotation test
was flaky and passed on its single retry.
- Greptile passed at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads.
## Risks
- Low risk. The Storybook change adds review fixtures only. The runtime
fix changes read-time reconciliation without database writes.
- The matrix is intentionally large so every permutation stays visible
in one review surface.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This work does not duplicate planned core
work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 and GPT-5.6-sol across this pull request.
Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. The context-window
size is not exposed.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My public branch name describes the change and contains no
internal task id
- [x] I have run tests locally and the changed-path tests 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
- [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 task view shows a running agent and lets an operator guide that
agent.
> - The merged runner stack lost parts of the accepted task experience.
> - Native event errors could hide current reasoning from the operator.
> - Queued message steering had no server route on `master`.
> - This pull request restores the task-runtime behavior and keeps the
runner experimental gate.
> - The benefit is a visible and steerable native run with durable
fallback behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The task view could stop showing current runner reasoning. The steering
action also failed because the server route was absent. Runner
instruction files were not declared as supported.
**Expected behavior**
The task view must show current provider activity. It must use the live
log when durable native events are empty or unavailable. The operator
must be able to steer a queued message into the active native turn.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable the Paperclip Runner experimental setting.
2. Start a native runner task.
3. Open the task view while the run emits reasoning.
4. Queue a message and select the steering action.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The regression reproduces on `24a674f8858060e77ea1beb50689d26473e91431`.
**Additional context**
Related closed work: Refs #12592.
## What Changed
- Restored the queued-comment steering route for active native sessions.
- Added durable and queue-bound steering acknowledgements for safe
retries.
- Restored runner instruction bundle support.
- Added live-log fallback when native events are empty or unavailable.
- Restored the compact live reasoning ticker in the task view.
- Added a visible temporary-unavailable state when both activity sources
fail.
- Kept the unified Paperclip Runner experimental gate unchanged.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build`
- Seven focused test files passed with 140 tests.
- The final steering regression file passed with 12 tests.
- The broad local test run reached unrelated workspace, port, and shared
database failures. The changed-area tests remained green.
## Risks
- The steering route changes queue and run records in one transaction.
Tests cover stale targets, unavailable sessions, lost responses, and
wrong-queue acknowledgements.
- Native events remain the primary transcript source. The live log is
used only when event data is absent or its poll fails.
- The experimental gate still hides and rejects the runner when the
setting is off.
> 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, with tool use, code execution, and subagent review.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — no
documentation change is required for this regression repair
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The 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 supervise AI agents
and their work.
> - The task page is the established place to read run progress and
answer agent questions.
> - Native runner events use PRP envelopes instead of the direct-adapter
transcript format.
> - The task page needs a narrow projection for those events without
changing legacy adapter behavior.
> - Unknown event versions and fields must stay hidden until the UI
supports them.
> - This pull request adds a runtime-gated native turn projection and
preserves the classic path.
> - The benefit is one task thread for native Codex runs while direct
adapters keep their current UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`ui/` task chat and transcript projection.
**Problem or motivation**
The server can record native runner events, replies, usage, and
structured interactions, but the existing task page cannot safely render
those records. Reusing the native path for direct adapters would also
risk the legacy question and finalization behavior.
**Proposed solution**
Project supported PRP v1 events into the existing transcript model only
when runtime facts identify a native `paperclip_runner` run. Use an
exact event and payload allowlist. Keep direct adapters on the existing
transcript, composer, interaction, and finalization path.
**Alternatives considered**
A separate runner page was rejected because it would split task history.
A universal transcript replacement was rejected because the experimental
runner must not alter legacy adapters.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change supports activity attribution and recoverable runs. It does
not replace the current task page.
## What Changed
- Project supported native PRP v1 assistant, reasoning, tool, activity,
usage, interaction, and result events.
- Render a native runner turn only when both runtime mode and adapter
type match.
- Recognize the canonical `assistant_message` item kind and preserve
final-reply precedence.
- Fail closed for unsupported PRP versions, event types, payload
schemas, and identity fields.
- Keep explicit running and pending provider activities open until a
real terminal state arrives.
- Include channel and lifecycle identity in memoization so
progress-to-final transitions rerender.
- Add focused native, empty-transcript, interaction, final, memoization,
and direct-adapter regressions.
## Verification
- GitHub Actions is the authoritative test environment for this stack.
- This top PR receives the full stack-aware CI suite.
- Greptile will review this exact nine-file delta after the branch is
pushed.
## Risks
- The main risk is changing direct-adapter task behavior. The render
gate requires both native runtime mode and the `paperclip_runner`
adapter.
- The next risk is exposing future provider payloads. Version, event,
schema, and field allowlists fail closed.
- There are no database, lockfile, workflow, build-system, or server
changes in this PR.
## Stack
1. [Runner package, SDK, and developer
tools](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12608)
2. [Codex production server
integration](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12616)
3. This PR: provider-neutral task-thread UI
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, extended reasoning, repository tools, and
parallel review 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/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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 experimental Paperclip Runner can execute a guarded Codex run
and persist provider-neutral events.
> - The task page still reads direct-adapter transcripts and cannot
present those native events.
> - Structured runner questions must also use the existing task
interaction experience.
> - Runtime selection must use the persisted run mode, not an adapter
name or a current feature flag.
> - This pull request projects native events and questions into the
existing task thread.
> - Direct adapters keep their existing transcript, composer,
interaction, and finalization paths.
> - The benefit is a complete native Codex task thread without a
behavior change for existing adapters.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12202. This pull request replaces that stale implementation on
current `master`.
**What happened?**
The server persists native runner events and structured input requests.
The task page only consumes direct-adapter transcripts. A native run
therefore cannot present a complete transcript, usage, or question flow
through the normal task experience.
**Expected behavior**
Native runs project persisted provider-neutral events into the existing
task thread. Native structured questions use the existing interaction
card. Direct adapters retain their current behavior.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable the experimental runner.
2. Start a native Codex run that emits progress, usage, a structured
question, and a final reply.
3. Open the task page.
4. Observe that the direct-adapter transcript path cannot project the
native event records.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `67f9867bc`.
## What Changed
- Add the canonical structured-question validator and shared contract
exports.
- Materialize native input requests as existing task interactions.
- Validate native answers and deliver them through the durable
question-response receipt.
- Resume the original PRP request with an idempotent `request.resolve`
command.
- Project native messages, tool activity, cumulative usage, and final
replies into the existing transcript model.
- Propagate persisted `runtimeMode` to the task page and select native
handling only for `runtimeMode: "native"`.
- Expire pending interactions through the shared issue service on every
terminal transition, including decisions, stalled reviews, tree control,
and pipeline retry cleanup.
- Queue native run cancellation while a transaction is open and execute
it only after the owning transaction commits.
- Keep nonterminal and non-runner issue paths on their existing service
call shapes and behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed, including the
Rust runner release build and protocol/catalog drift gates.
- Focused native-thread and lifecycle suites — 18 files and 481 tests
passed during review.
- `issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 19/19 passed after the final
transactional-queue expectation update.
- `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — 87/87 passed in the
final isolated compatibility rerun.
- GitHub Actions — policy, build, canary, typecheck/release registry, 5
serialized server shards, 8 general-test shards, 3 browser shards, and
both aggregate gates passed on `7793f3193`.
- Security — Snyk, Socket Project Report, Socket PR Alerts, and
Superagent passed.
- Greptile — 5/5 on `7793f3193`; all actionable review threads resolved.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- Diff against `master`: 44 files.
## Compatibility Boundary
- Native transcript polling only runs when the persisted run reports
`runtimeMode: "native"`.
- Missing or legacy runtime modes continue through
`useLiveRunTranscripts`.
- Legacy questions keep the existing optional free-text choice.
- Native closed select sets can suppress that legacy fallback.
- Terminal cleanup uses the same issue service for native and legacy
interactions; only a bound native question schedules a native run
cancellation.
- Native cancellation happens after transaction commit, so failed or
rolled-back writes do not cancel a still-valid run.
- The durable delivery service checks the original native request before
it considers a continuation run.
- This pull request adds no migration, dependency, workflow, manifest,
or lockfile change.
## Risks
The main risk is routing a direct-adapter task through native handling
or changing terminal issue behavior. The implementation selects the
native path only from persisted runtime facts, retains the existing
nonterminal call shape, and schedules native cancellation only for a
validated bound native question after commit. Focused and
repository-wide tests cover both paths. Native requests remain bound to
the company, issue, run, and agent; answers are validated, durable, and
idempotent across reconnects.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact
deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I addressed 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 composer and the New Task dialog show a work-mode chip (how
the agent will run a task)
> - The default mode was labeled "Agent mode", and the New Task dialog
chip abbreviated every mode to one word ("Auto", "Plan", "Ask")
> - "Agent mode" is confusing because every mode runs an agent, and the
abbreviated chip hid what the label means
> - This pull request renames the mode to "Auto mode" and makes every
mode chip show the full label
> - The benefit is a clearer, consistent mode name in every place the
user selects a work mode
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Description follows the
enhancement template:
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The work-mode selector chips in the task composer and in the New Task
dialog.
**Subsystem affected**
UI (`ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.ts`,
`ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.tsx`).
**Current behavior**
The default work mode is labeled "Agent mode". The New Task dialog chip
shows a shortened label ("Auto", "Plan", "Ask") from a separate
`shortLabel` field.
**Proposed behavior**
The default work mode is labeled "Auto mode". Every chip shows the full
label ("Auto mode", "Plan mode", "Ask mode"). The `shortLabel` field is
removed so no surface can fall back to the short form.
**Reason and benefit**
"Agent mode" does not describe the behavior — all modes use an agent.
"Auto mode" states what the mode does. One label field keeps every
surface consistent.
**Breaking changes**
None. This is a display-string change only. No API, storage, or mode-key
changes.
## What Changed
- Renamed the `standard` work-mode label from "Agent mode" to "Auto
mode" in `ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.ts`, the single source for all mode
chips.
- Changed the New Task dialog mode chip to render the full `label`
instead of `shortLabel`.
- Deleted the `shortLabel` field from `WorkModeMeta` so nothing can
silently regress to the short form.
- Updated unit tests and fixtures to pin the full labels.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui test --
src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx`. All tests pass. The
tests assert the labels are exactly "Auto mode", "Plan mode", and "Ask
mode".
- Manual: start the dev server, open the board, press `c` to open the
New Task dialog, and press Cmd+Period to cycle modes. The chip reads
"Auto mode", "Plan mode", then "Ask mode". The composer chip on an open
task shows the same labels.
## Risks
- Low risk. Display strings only. The chip is a few pixels wider in the
New Task dialog; no layout overflow was observed in any of the three
modes.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended
thinking with tool use, run inside a Claude Code agent 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
- [ ] 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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task detail view uses a chat-style thread: agent turns, activity
phases, and a message composer.
> - A colleague's UX review found three defects: the composer draft
stayed visible after send, disclosure carets in turns and status pills
were misaligned, and the composer was not horizontally aligned with the
thread column.
> - These defects make the chat surface feel unpolished and cause
confusion about whether a message was sent.
> - This pull request fixes all three defects with small, targeted UI
changes and adds regression tests for each.
> - The benefit is a chat surface that behaves and aligns like users
expect from a messaging UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this. Description of the underlying
problems:
**What happened?**
Three UI defects in the chat-style task view:
1. After a user pressed send, the composer kept the draft text until the
server round-trip finished. Fast typers could see stale text and doubt
the message was sent.
2. The disclosure carets on collapsed agent turns and the caret inside
the status pill did not share one alignment axis. They rendered at
different x-offsets and sizes.
3. The composer container had different horizontal padding than the
thread column above it, so the input box did not line up with the
message bubbles.
**Expected behavior**
The composer clears the instant a send starts. All disclosure carets sit
on one vertical axis with one size. The composer's left and right edges
align with the thread column.
**Steps to reproduce**
Open any task in the chat-style task view. Type a message and press
Enter — watch the composer text. Collapse and expand agent turns —
compare caret positions. Compare the composer's horizontal edges with
the message bubbles above it.
## What Changed
- `TaskChatComposer.tsx`: clear the draft synchronously when a send
starts instead of after the request resolves; restore the draft if the
send fails.
- `TaskChatTurn.tsx` and `TaskChatStatusPill.tsx`: use one shared caret
alignment (size, x-offset) for turn disclosure and status pill carets,
with supporting utility styles in `ui/src/index.css`.
- `TaskChatThread.tsx`: align the composer container with the thread
column padding.
- Added or updated unit tests in `TaskChatComposer.test.tsx`,
`TaskChatTurn.test.tsx`, `TaskChatActivityPhase.test.tsx`, and
`TaskChatThread.test.tsx`.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatActivityPhase.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatTurn.test.tsx
src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx` in `ui/` — 4 files, 64 tests,
all pass.
- Manual: open a task in the chat view, send a message, and confirm the
composer clears immediately. Collapse/expand turns and confirm the
carets align. Compare composer edges with the thread column; the
alignment fixes were also pixel-verified with screenshots during local
review.
## Risks
- Low risk. All changes are render-layer only; no server or data
changes.
- The composer now clears optimistically. If a send fails, the draft is
restored, so no user text is lost.
- Caret alignment uses shared CSS utilities; visual regressions would
show in the existing component tests and in any screenshot diff.
## Model Used
- Implementation: OpenAI Codex CLI coding agent (Codex model family,
agentic tool use) via Paperclip's Codex adapter.
- Review, verification, rebase, and PR preparation: Anthropic Claude,
model id `claude-fable-5` (extended thinking, tool use), via Claude
Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely.
> - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name
without an internal secret identifier.
> - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not
create an issue-thread approval path.
> - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the
binding was created.
> - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with
safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards.
> - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a
clear failure without exposing secret material.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related prerequisite: #11482.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database
proposal schema, and issue-thread UI.
**Problem or motivation**
An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name.
The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The
existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only
appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance
without executing the binding.
**Proposed solution**
Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config
paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the
checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under
the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after
card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card.
Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention
resolver.
**Alternatives considered**
A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry,
authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment
would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An
agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change
uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload
instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent
access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited
resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate
issue or pull request.
## What Changed
- Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved
user-secret ownership checks.
- Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database
migration.
- Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned
`secretProposal` metadata.
- Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees.
- Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock
before execution.
- Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment
when no binding was created.
- Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection,
withdrawal, and expiry in both directions.
- Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes.
- Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed,
rejected, withdrawn, and expired states.
- Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical
justification, expiry, and safe failure code.
- Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the
stitched server result.
- Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests.
- Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API
and agent behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build-storybook`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142
passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI
AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential
variables unset.
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses
idempotent guards.
- The accept route performs a governed write after it records card
acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as
rejected.
- Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use
proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct
approval against card rejection.
- The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent
bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints.
- The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include
secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers.
- The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover
immediate cache replacement and every terminal state.
> This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub
duplicate search returned no other open related work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its
context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools 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>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server authenticates each agent request in `actorMiddleware`
before it attributes chat comments
> - When an agent bearer token failed verification, the middleware
called `next()` with no error and the request continued without an agent
actor
> - The request then fell back to the local user actor, so the server
stored agent replies as user comments
> - The task chat UI renders user comments in blue bubbles, so agent
messages appeared as blue user bubbles
> - This pull request rejects invalid agent credentials with 401 instead
of a silent downgrade
> - The benefit is that agent messages keep agent attribution, and
broken credentials fail loudly with a clear retry message
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A user cancelled an onboarding question card. The agent posted a
follow-up reply. The reply appeared in a blue bubble, which the UI
reserves for human messages. The agent run held an expired local agent
JWT. The auth middleware could not verify the token, called `next()`
without an actor, and the request fell back to the local user identity.
The server stored the agent comment as a user comment.
**Expected behavior**
Agent messages always render as agent bubbles. A request with invalid
agent credentials must fail with 401 so the adapter can refresh
credentials and retry. It must not post content under a human identity.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a local Paperclip instance.
2. Give an agent run an expired or malformed agent JWT.
3. Let the agent post an issue comment through the API bridge.
4. Before this change: the comment is stored with the local user
identity and renders as a blue bubble. After this change: the request
fails with 401 and a message that tells the caller to obtain fresh
credentials.
## What Changed
- `server/src/middleware/auth.ts`: a bearer token that fails
verification now produces a 401 `unauthorized` error instead of a silent
fall-through to the anonymous/local-user actor.
- The 401 message states the cause: expired token, unverifiable token,
empty bearer token, missing agent record, agent record in another
company, terminated agent, or agent pending approval.
- The API-key path now also rejects an agent record whose company does
not match the key.
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target.ts`: the bridge proxy now
writes a `comment id: <id>` marker to the run log for each posted issue
comment, so misattributed comments can be traced to a run.
- `ui/src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts`: a regression
test asserts that a recovered `local-board` comment with a derived agent
author renders as an agent bubble, not a user bubble.
- `server/src/__tests__/agent-auth-middleware.test.ts` and
`packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts`: new tests
cover each rejection path and the log marker.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/agent-auth-middleware.test.ts` in
`server/` — 14 tests pass.
- Run `pnpm vitest run execution-target-sandbox` at the repo root — 44
tests pass.
- Run `pnpm vitest run
src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts` in `ui/` — 4 tests
pass.
- Manual check: post an issue comment with an expired agent JWT; the API
returns 401 with a retry message and no comment is stored.
## Risks
- Behavioral shift: requests that previously continued as anonymous or
local-user actors after a failed agent-token verification now receive
401. Any caller that relied on the silent downgrade must refresh its
credentials. This is the intended fix, and the adapters already handle
401 with a credential refresh.
- No schema or migration changes. Low risk otherwise.
> 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
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, via Claude Code with
extended thinking and tool use (agent harness with shell, file, and git
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
- [x] 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three tests yielded a fixed number of macrotasks before asserting - five in one
case, one in another - which is ample on an idle machine and not when the suite
runs many workers in parallel. The container was still empty, or the state had
not landed, and the assertion failed on behaviour that works. `vi.waitFor`
retries against a time budget instead, so a loaded worker gets more turns
rather than a failure.
`DocumentAnnotationPopover` is a different race and is fixed differently. The
popover element is in the DOM as soon as React commits, while the effect that
registers the document-level keydown and pointerdown listeners runs afterwards.
A test dispatching in that gap loses the event outright, and a lost event
cannot be recovered by retrying an assertion - so the render is wrapped in
`act` to flush passive effects, and the waits only cover the smaller race that
remains.
Refs #11484.
Verified stable over six consecutive runs of the three files, and the full ui
suite passes. Other instances of the same class remain: the full suite still
shows an occasional failure in a different unrelated test on each run.
`App.cases-routing.test.tsx:104-108` is the clearest one - the identical
fixed-turn loop this PR replaced in its sibling `App.activity-routing.test.tsx`,
three turns instead of five - and takes the same one-line fix.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The task view shows operators why work cannot continue
> - The redesigned task thread now shows direct and ultimate blockers
> - But it does not show the ordered task queue while a blocker chain
has live work
> - This pull request adds a compact ordered live-work queue to the
redesigned thread
> - The benefit is that operators can see completed, running, and queued
dependencies without opening the larger legacy notice
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The redesigned task thread blocker summary is improved. The merged
predecessor is #11456.
**Current behavior**
The redesigned task thread shows compact direct and ultimate blocker
links. It does not show the ordered queue when the blocker tree has live
work. The legacy task view shows this queue in a larger notice.
**Proposed behavior**
Show a compact blue live-work queue at both ends of the redesigned task
thread. Order completed tasks first, then running tasks, then queued
tasks. Show a live terminal leaf as `Now running`. Return to the amber
blocker links when no live dependency remains.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can see the active dependency order without leaving the
redesigned task view. The compact presentation preserves the new
thread's low-chrome layout.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change only adds UI for blocker data that the task view
already receives.
## What Changed
- Shared the live blocker ordering helper between the legacy notice and
the redesigned task thread.
- Added compact ordered dependency links at the top and bottom of the
redesigned thread.
- Added a separate `Now running` link for a live terminal blocker leaf.
- Preserved the compact amber blocker rows when live work is not
present.
- Added component tests and a Storybook state for the new presentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook`
- Captured and reviewed the new Storybook state in a headless browser.
## Risks
- Low risk. The queue appears only for blocked tasks whose blocker
attention state is `covered` and whose dependency set contains live
work.
- The API does not provide an explicit queue position. The UI preserves
the existing legacy ordering rule: completed, running, queued, then
numeric task identifier.
> 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. The runtime does not expose the exact snapshot or
context-window size. Reasoning, code execution, repository tools, and
browser automation 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
- [ ] 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.
> - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision
record.
> - Resolver routes used different authorization rules.
> - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with
normal issue access.
> - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction.
> - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy
evaluator.
> - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and
company isolation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes: #8087
Refs: #7403
Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change
keeps human-only review as an explicit policy.
**What happened?**
Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still
required board access.
This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see
the same problem without board identity.
**Expected behavior**
Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract.
The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It
must also apply all normal governance controls.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent.
2. Resolve it with another authorized agent.
3. Observe the board-only denial.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem exists on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with `pnpm dev`.
## What Changed
- Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind.
- Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task
watchdog scope.
- Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit.
- Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction
data.
- Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board
UI.
- Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression
fixtures.
- Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior.
- Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior
runs.
## Product Rules
- An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the
next action.
- `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond.
- `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator.
- `human_only` requires an authorized person.
- A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the
audience.
- These controls cannot widen the audience.
- A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent.
- A task watchdog does not receive board authority.
- An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue
action limit.
- Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions.
- The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts`
- The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice.
- The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing
provenance.
- The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks.
- The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments.
## Risks
- New interaction writes use `anyone` by default.
- Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need
stricter review.
- Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human
restrictions.
- Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery.
- Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit.
- The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind.
- Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these
rules.
> This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in
`ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID
or context window.
The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the
required labels
- [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented the risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps operators supervise agent work through tasks and
task threads.
> - The redesigned task thread shows the current work and its state.
> - A blocked task did not show the dependency that prevented progress.
> - Operators had to leave the thread to find the direct and final
blockers.
> - This pull request adds compact blocker links at the top and bottom
of the task thread.
> - The benefit is that operators can identify and open the relevant
tasks without adding a large notice to the thread.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The redesigned task thread did not show which task directly blocked the
current task or which task ultimately blocked its dependency chain.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/`, `packages/shared/`, and `ui/` task-blocker presentation.
**Current behavior**
A blocked task can open in the redesigned thread without a visible
dependency link at the top or bottom of the conversation.
**Proposed behavior**
Show one compact amber row for the direct blocker. Show a second row for
the selected final blocker when one exists. Render the rows at both ends
of the thread.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can see the reason for the blocked state and open the relevant
task from the conversation. The compact rows preserve thread density.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new blocker-attention fields are optional. Existing clients
remain compatible.
## What Changed
- Added a compact task-chat component for direct and selected final
blocker links.
- Added the blocker rows to the top and bottom of populated and empty
task threads.
- Added link-ready blocker-attention details so an intermediate selected
task stays on its correct direct chain.
- Included blocker-link changes in the thread content key so pinned
threads follow a newly added bottom row.
- Added component, scrolling, server contract, and Storybook coverage
for the new states.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` (38 tests passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
## Risks
- Low risk. The rows only render while the task status is `blocked` and
an unresolved blocker is available.
- Long titles are truncated to keep each blocker on one line. The full
task label remains available in the link title.
- Older server payloads keep the original leaf-selection behavior
because the new sampled details are optional.
> 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 run used tool-enabled reasoning and code
execution. The context-window size was not exposed to the run.
## 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 task thread lets an operator add guidance while an agent run is
active
> - A new message can wait behind that active run as a queued message
> - The classic task view lets the operator interrupt the target run
from that queued message
> - The redesigned task view did not expose the same action
> - This pull request restores the action and keeps it bound to the
exact target run
> - The benefit is that operators can apply urgent guidance without
switching task views
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The redesigned task view showed `Queued` for a queued operator message,
but it did not show the existing interrupt action.
**Expected behavior**
The queued message must show `Interrupt` next to `Queued`. The action
must stop the exact run that the message is waiting behind.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task in the redesigned task view while an agent run is active.
2. Send a new operator message so it enters the queued state.
3. Observe that the queued message has no interrupt action.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`bc0b5a1642`
**Deployment mode**
All deployment modes that use the redesigned task view.
## What Changed
- Preserve persisted queued state and the target run ID in the
redesigned thread model.
- Render a token-compliant `Interrupt` action beside the queued state.
- Reuse the existing exact-run interrupt callback and show a disabled
`Interrupting…` state during the request.
- Keep an assigned queue target immutable so an in-flight comment cannot
rebind its interrupt action to a replacement run.
- Add regression tests for persisted queued messages, replacement-run
races, and the in-progress action state.
- No documentation update was required because this restores existing
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx -t 'queued message actions|queues
messages against a queued live run and interrupts that exact
run|commentsToTaskChatItems'`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx -t 'queued
message|queues messages'`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` (52 passed)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` (all server and UI groups passed; the CLI group passed
after inherited static AWS credential variables were omitted)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
## Risks
Low risk. The change only adds an action to queued messages that have a
target run and an interrupt callback. Messages without both values keep
the current rendering.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime does not expose a more specific
deployment ID or context-window size. The model used reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task thread is where people read work and guide agents.
> - The mobile composer should use the same content width as the thread.
> - The composer kept the desktop 80% width on mobile, so its edges did
not align with the thread.
> - Long assignee-aware placeholder text could also clip inside the
mobile editor.
> - Some extracted style tokens used legacy HSL wrappers around complete
semantic colors, which made those declarations invalid.
> - This pull request makes the composer full width on mobile, preserves
the narrower desktop layout, wraps the placeholder, and repairs the
invalid color compositions.
> - The benefit is a stable mobile composer that aligns with the task
thread and keeps its intended visual styles.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related work: Refs #11263.
**What happened?**
At mobile widths, the task chat composer used the same 80% width as the
desktop composer. Its horizontal edges did not align with the full task
thread. A long assignee-aware placeholder could clip on one line. The
composer's extracted shadow also used a legacy `hsl(var(...))` wrapper
around complete semantic color values, so the browser could reject the
declaration.
**Expected behavior**
The composer must match the task thread width on mobile. It must stay
narrower on larger screens. Long placeholder text must wrap inside the
editor. Semantic color tokens must form valid shadows and gradients.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task with the chat-style thread on a mobile viewport.
2. Compare the composer edges with the task thread edges.
3. Select an assignee whose placeholder text wraps to two lines.
4. Inspect the computed composer shadow and the extracted semantic color
styles.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The change is based on `dc6fcd1ff1` from `master`.
**Deployment mode**
Local build from source. The behavior also applies to packaged web
builds.
## What Changed
- Made the task chat composer full width below the medium breakpoint and
kept the 80% desktop width.
- Matched the composer dock padding to the task thread padding.
- Allowed long composer placeholders to wrap and reserved enough mobile
editor height for two lines.
- Replaced invalid legacy HSL wrappers around full semantic colors in
extracted shadows, gradients, and approval styles.
- Added a token gate that prevents legacy `hsl(var(--token))` wrappers
from returning.
- Added focused regression tests for responsive width, padding,
placeholder wrapping, mobile height, and semantic shadow validity.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all four gates pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposerStyles.test.ts` — 37 tests
pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — passes. The build prints
existing CSS optimizer and bundle-size warnings.
## Risks
- Low risk. The width change is limited to the mobile breakpoint. The
desktop 80% layout remains in place.
- The semantic token fixes can affect shadows and gradients that were
previously invalid. The new gate prevents the invalid wrapper pattern
from returning.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The 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
- [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 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
> - The task detail page uses a chat-style thread with a right sidebar;
the sidebar has a Plan tab and an Artifacts tab (#11101 made this UI the
default)
> - The Plan tab only showed the one issue document named `plan`, and
the Artifacts tab only listed formal work products; other agent-authored
documents (for example a `synthesis` doc) and agent-attached files were
invisible in the sidebar
> - Users could see an agent mention a document in the thread but had no
way to find that document in the sidebar, which breaks trust in the task
view as the record of the work
> - This pull request surfaces every non-system issue document in the
Plan tab, composes the Artifacts tab from work products, documents, and
agent-created attachments, and gives thread images a full-screen
lightbox with download
> - The benefit is that anything an agent produces on a task is now
reachable from the sidebar, while user uploads stay with their comments
in the thread
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11101 (chat-style task UI default — this PR extends its sidebar).
**Subsystem affected**
Task detail UI (chat-style thread sidebar): Plan tab, Artifacts tab, and
thread attachment rendering in `ui/src`.
**Current behavior**
The Plan tab renders only the issue document literally named `plan`. The
Artifacts tab renders only formal work products. Agent-authored
documents with any other name, and files agents attach to comments, do
not appear anywhere in the sidebar. Thread images open as bare links.
**Proposed behavior**
The Plan tab lists every non-system issue document, with the `plan`
document first and the others rendered inline below it. The Artifacts
tab composes three sources — work products, issue documents, and
agent-created comment attachments — deduplicated against
attachment-backed work products via `metadata.attachmentId`, and shows
whenever any source is non-empty. Work-product rows without a resolvable
attachment or document fall back to links found in their metadata so
they stay clickable. Images in the thread open a shared full-screen
lightbox with a download action. Files uploaded by users stay
thread-only and are not mixed into the Artifacts tab.
**Reason and benefit**
Agents routinely produce documents that are not named `plan` and attach
files to their comments. Users reading the thread must be able to find
every one of those outputs from the sidebar. Redundant surfacing is
acceptable; an unfindable document is not.
**Breaking changes**
None. This is additive rendering; no schema or API changes.
## What Changed
- `IssuePropertiesPlansTab.tsx`: renders all non-system issue documents,
`plan` primary, others inline below via `MarkdownBody`
- `IssuePropertiesArtifactsTab.tsx`: composes work products + documents
+ agent-created attachments with dedupe; rows without an
attachment/document target fall back to `metadata` links
- `IssueProperties.tsx`: Artifacts tab visibility now derives from the
composed source set
- New `ui/src/lib/issue-artifacts.ts`: pure composition/dedupe logic,
unit-tested
- New `ui/src/components/task-chat/task-chat-attachments.ts`: splits
agent vs user comment attachments, unit-tested
- `TaskChatBubble.tsx`: thread images open the shared full-screen
lightbox with download
- `useIssueDocuments.ts`: hook now exposes the full issue-document list
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck` — passes across the workspace
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/lib/issue-artifacts.test.ts
src/components/task-chat/task-chat-attachments.test.ts
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` — 74 tests pass
- Manual: open a task whose agent created a document not named `plan`
(for example `synthesis`); confirm it appears in the Plan tab below the
plan and in the Artifacts tab; confirm an image the agent attached
appears under Artifacts; confirm a user-uploaded image stays only in the
thread and opens full screen with a download button
Snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated for this visual change,
per the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot
verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)".
## Risks
- Low risk: rendering-only change scoped to the task sidebar and thread
bubbles; composition logic is pure and unit-tested
- Dedupe relies on `metadata.attachmentId` linkage; a work product with
malformed metadata would render as a duplicate row (cosmetic only)
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking
enabled, agentic tool use via Claude Agent SDK (Claude Code harness)
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip posts system comments when automatic run recovery cannot
continue
> - These comments currently mix the main event with recovery
identifiers and routing details
> - The task chat shell also renders these comments as large raw text
blocks
> - Operators need a short explanation first and inspectable evidence on
demand
> - This pull request emits structured recovery notices and renders them
as compact humanized rows
> - The benefit is a quieter task thread that keeps the full recovery
evidence available
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related prior extraction source: #11070. This pull request replaces only
its structured recovery notice slice with a focused branch based on
current master.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Paperclip recovery escalations and the experimental task chat
system-comment renderer.
**Current behavior**
Recovery escalation comments put action identifiers, owner details, run
details, and failure codes into the visible markdown body. The task chat
shell renders the complete system comment as a large text block.
**Proposed behavior**
The server emits a short system notice with typed metadata sections. The
task chat shell classifies known recovery families and renders one
compact row. An operator can expand the row to inspect the full body and
metadata.
**Reason and benefit**
The main thread stays readable during repeated recovery activity. Typed
links and evidence remain available without exposing raw failure text in
the default view.
**Breaking changes**
The visible recovery comment body is shorter. Recovery action
deduplication now reads the structured metadata and still recognizes
legacy body markers. No API schema or database migration changes.
## What Changed
- Emit stranded recovery escalations with `system_notice` presentation
and typed recovery, owner, run, and failure-code metadata.
- Share bounded metadata row builders across recovery notice producers
and preserve legacy deduplication compatibility.
- Humanize known recovery notice families and render compact expandable
task-chat rows.
- Route system-authored comments ahead of derived agent authorship so
recovery notices do not appear as agent bubbles.
- Add focused server and UI regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run
src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 32 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` — 57 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts` — 39 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'escalates an
exhausted failed successful-run handoff without using generic
continuation recovery first|escalates an exhausted successful handoff
run that still leaves no disposition'` — 2 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'blocks assigned
todo work after the one automatic dispatch recovery was already used'` —
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/lib/system-notice-humanizer.test.ts
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatSystemNotice.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts` — 15 tests passed.
- Storybook visual baselines were not updated because this chat-shell
path has no affected snapshot baseline. Focused rendering tests and
token gates cover this change.
## Risks
- Consumers that parse recovery action identifiers from comment markdown
must move to structured metadata. Server deduplication remains backward
compatible with legacy comments.
- The humanizer uses stable recovery-family phrases. Unknown notices use
a generic truncated first-sentence fallback.
- The UI changes only the experimental task chat presentation. The
stored comment body and expanded metadata remain available.
> 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, reasoning mode, repository tools, shell
execution, and GitHub integration. The runtime did not expose a
context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - People send task instructions through the board task chat.
> - A page refresh or task switch can discard an unfinished message in
the redesigned composer.
> - The existing task chat already supplies a task-specific draft key.
> - The redesigned composer must use that key without changing
attachment or send behavior.
> - This pull request restores, saves, and clears text drafts in the
redesigned composer.
> - The benefit is that users can return to unfinished task messages
without losing their text.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related prior work: #11070. This pull request extracts only the final
composer draft behavior from that larger draft.
**Subsystem affected**
ui/ — React + Vite board UI.
**Problem or motivation**
The redesigned task chat composer does not use the draft key that the
task thread already provides. A refresh, navigation, or unmount can lose
an unfinished message.
**Proposed solution**
Persist text drafts by task key in local storage. Restore a draft when
the composer mounts. Save changes after a short delay and flush pending
text during unload or unmount. Clear the draft only after a successful
send.
**Alternatives considered**
The composer could save on every keystroke. A short delay avoids
unnecessary synchronous storage writes. The feature could also stay in
the larger predecessor PR, but a focused PR is easier to review and
verify.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is a focused usability improvement for the task conversation
surface. It does not add or duplicate a roadmap capability.
## What Changed
- Added safe draft storage helpers for load, save, and clear operations.
- Connected the task-specific draft key to the redesigned task chat
composer.
- Preserved drafts across debounce windows, unmounts, page unloads,
failed sends, and React Strict Mode probes.
- Cleared drafts after successful sends without changing current
attachment safeguards.
- Added focused composer and thread integration tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx
src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Local storage can be unavailable or full. The helpers catch storage
errors and keep the composer usable.
- Only text is persisted. Attachments, work mode, and assignee
selections remain session state.
- Draft keys remain task-scoped, so text does not cross task boundaries.
> 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 model `gpt-5`. The context-window size is not exposed
in this environment. The model used agentic reasoning, tool use, code
execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task view shows a threaded conversation between the user and the
agent, with agent replies rendered as bubbles that carry a "✓ Worked · N
tools" summary line.
> - The conference-room chat already offers per-message copy and
thumbs-up / thumbs-down feedback, but the redesigned task thread dropped
these controls from the agent bubble footer.
> - Users lose a quick way to copy an agent reply or send feedback on
it, and the redesign silently ignored the feedback-vote props it was
already given.
> - This pull request prepends a copy · thumbs-up · thumbs-down cluster
to the bubble summary line and wires the existing feedback-vote props
through.
> - The benefit is a consistent feedback surface across both chat views,
with no new API.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change; the underlying issue is
described inline below following the feature template
(`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml`).
#### Problem or motivation
The redesigned task thread renders each agent reply with a "✓ Worked · N
tools · <timestamp>" summary line, but it dropped the copy and thumbs-up
/ thumbs-down controls that the conference-room chat still shows. Users
can no longer copy an agent reply or vote feedback from the task thread.
The redesign component already received `feedbackVotes` and `onVote`
props but ignored them.
#### Proposed solution
Prepend a copy · 👍 · 👎 cluster to the summary line, leading the
always-visible timestamp, reusing the shared `IssueChatFeedbackButtons`
so both chat views speak the same feedback language. Anchor the cluster
to the turn's summary row (a sibling of the expandable tool-history
fold) so it stays on the summary line whether the tool history is
collapsed or expanded.
#### Alternatives considered
Placing the cluster inside the expandable fold — rejected because
expanding the tool history then re-centered the actions to the middle of
the tall fold.
#### Roadmap alignment
UI polish to the task thread; no core-roadmap overlap.
## What Changed
- Add `TaskChatBubbleActions`: a copy · thumbs-up · thumbs-down cluster
built on the shared `IssueChatFeedbackButtons`.
- Render the cluster on the agent bubble's "✓ Worked · …" summary line,
leading the timestamp; runless agent replies get the same cluster with
the timestamp trailing. Human and system bubbles are unchanged.
- Add a `leading` slot to `TaskChatTurn` so the actions sit on the
summary row, a sibling of the tool-history fold, and stay anchored when
the fold expands.
- Wire the redesign to the `feedbackVotes` / `onVote` props it already
received.
- Add a demo binding in the `TaskChatLab` dev harness.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN.
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean across all packages.
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.test.tsx
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatTurn.test.tsx` — 31/31 pass.
- Manual: open a task thread, confirm the copy / 👍 / 👎 cluster shows on
the agent bubble summary line before the timestamp, copy works, votes
toggle, and the cluster stays on the summary line when the tool history
is expanded.
Visual change: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per the
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification
demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)".
## Risks
Low risk. UI-only change scoped to the redesigned task-chat bubble
footer. It reuses an existing shared feedback component and existing
vote props; no API, schema, or server change. Human and system bubbles
are untouched.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended
thinking enabled, tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task detail view shows the conversation as chat bubbles. The
requester's own messages sit in a solid accent-colored bubble.
> - The bubble container sets `text-white`, but the message body renders
through `MarkdownBody`. Tailwind prose tokens (`--tw-prose-body`) win
over the inherited container color.
> - `prose-invert` only lightens the prose text in dark mode. In light
mode the prose body stayed its default dark color, so the text read as
near-black on the blue bubble and was hard to read.
> - This pull request maps the human bubble's prose tokens to the
inherited text color in both themes.
> - The benefit is that the requester's chat text is readable
white-on-blue in light mode, and dark mode stays exactly as it was.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
<!-- No public GitHub issue exists; described in-PR per the bug report
template. -->
**What happened?**
In light mode, the text inside the user's own chat bubbles in the task
detail view rendered as dark (near-black) on the solid blue accent
background. This made the requester's messages hard to read.
**Expected behavior**
The text inside the user's accent-colored chat bubbles should be white
in light mode, matching the bubble's `text-white` intent. Dark mode
already rendered correctly and should not change.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a chat-style task detail view in light mode.
2. Post a message as the requester (human) so it renders in the solid
blue accent bubble.
3. Observe the body text renders dark on blue instead of white.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduces on `master` (branched from `814cb3367`).
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core UI bug).
## What Changed
- Add the existing `paperclip-markdown-on-accent` class to the
human-branch `MarkdownBody` in `TaskChatBubble.tsx`. This class (already
used by `IssueChatThread` for the same accent bubble) maps prose
body/heading tokens to `currentColor`, so the text follows the bubble's
`text-white` in both themes.
- Apply the same class to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` in
`TaskChatDescriptionBubble.tsx` (the description-as-first-bubble
surface) for consistency.
- Add unit tests covering that the human accent bubble carries the
on-accent class and the agent/neutral bubbles do not.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN.
- `pnpm --filter ./ui vitest run
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.test.tsx` → 9/9 passing.
- Manual: in light mode, the requester's chat bubble text renders white
on blue; agent/neutral bubbles unchanged; dark mode unchanged.
This is a visual change. Snapshot baselines are intentionally not
updated, per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` → "Per-change snapshot
verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)".
## Risks
Low risk. The change is scoped to the human-branch `MarkdownBody`
className on two chat-bubble components and only remaps prose color
tokens to the inherited text color. Agent and neutral bubbles are
untouched, and dark mode behavior is unchanged.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, ~200K context
window, extended thinking mode, with tool use / code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators often open self-hosted Paperclip over plain HTTP on a LAN
or private network.
> - Browser Clipboard API writes are not reliable in that insecure
context.
> - Paperclip already has one shared helper with a legacy copy fallback,
but many current copy actions bypass it.
> - This pull request routes every core UI copy action and the
first-party workspace-diff plugin through the shared helper.
> - The benefit is consistent copy behavior on HTTPS, localhost, and
plain-HTTP private deployments.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #3529.
This change supersedes the stale prior attempt in #3531. Current master
has more copy surfaces and a first-party plugin UI bridge that the prior
branch does not cover.
## What Changed
- Replaced direct Clipboard API writes and duplicate fallback
implementations across the current core UI with `copyTextToClipboard`.
- Added an HTTP-safe clipboard function to the plugin UI SDK and wired
the host bridge to the same implementation.
- Migrated the first-party workspace-diff plugin to the plugin SDK
clipboard function.
- Added unit coverage for native rejection fallback and plugin host
delegation.
- Added a source-level regression test that rejects new direct clipboard
writes outside the shared implementation.
- Documented the plugin UI clipboard function.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ...` for 14 affected suites: 164
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run tests/ui-clipboard.test.ts` in
`packages/plugins/sdk`: 1 test passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm -r typecheck`: passed for 31 workspace projects.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm test:run`: passed.
- `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build`: passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed with all gates clean.
## Risks
Low risk. Secure contexts still use the modern Clipboard API. Plain HTTP
and rejected modern writes use the existing `execCommand("copy")`
fallback. That API is deprecated, but it is the compatibility path
required for insecure contexts. The change has no schema, API, or visual
design effect.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose a context-window
size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and
GitHub CLI access were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents write to tasks they do not own. They comment, they change
fields, and the control plane now permits this by default for
standard-trust agents on any task they can read
> - This makes a task thread ambiguous. A reader sees a comment from an
agent that is not the assignee, but no surface says whose authority that
write rode
> - The same gap applies to field edits. The activity stream named the
verb, but it did not show the before value, the after value, or the
reason the write was permitted
> - The remaining refusals are also opaque. An agent that hits a wall
receives a 403 with no boundary name, no actor who can act, and no
sanctioned path. One real incident spent a full detour to find the
workaround
> - This pull request adds the three surfaces that make open cross-task
writes legible: an attribution chip, a field-level audit receipt, and an
actionable denial contract shared by the API and the UI
> - The benefit is that a reader can answer "who did this, on whose
authority, and was it allowed?" on the task itself, and a blocked writer
is told what to do next
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this work, so the enhancement is described
here.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Cross-task agent writes are permitted, but they are not explained. A
task thread can hold comments from agents that are not the assignee, and
the activity stream can hold field changes made by those agents. Neither
surface names the responsible user behind the write. When a write is
refused, the error text does not name the boundary or the way forward.
**Subsystem affected**
Issue detail UI (comment thread and activity stream), the issue write
authorization responses in the server, and the shared copy contract that
both consume.
**Current behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own looks the same as an
assignee comment.
- An `issue.updated` activity row states the verb only. It does not show
the field-level before and after values, the responsible user, or the
authorization reason.
- A refused write returns a short message such as an ownership error.
The message does not state which rule fired, who is able to perform the
action, or which alternative path is sanctioned.
**Proposed behavior**
- An agent comment on a task the agent does not own carries a chip that
reads "for {user}". The chip names the responsible user. Its tooltip
states that the author is not the assignee and cannot exceed that user's
permissions.
- Each `issue.updated` row shows a receipt: the changed fields with
before and after values, the responsible user, and the authorization
reason. This applies to board edits as well as agent edits.
- Each refusal states three things: the boundary that fired, who is able
to act, and the sanctioned path. The API error body and the in-app
notice use the same words, because both read one shared contract.
Related pull requests, found by searching this repository:
- Refs #10837 — merged. It added the default-open cross-task write rule,
the comment attribution data, and the per-run containment cap that this
pull request makes visible.
- Refs #10114 — open. It proposes a narrower authorization change in the
same area.
- Refs #7998 — open. It proposes append-only cross-assignee comments as
an alternative to opening writes.
## What Changed
- Adds `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts`. This is one copy
contract for eight ways an issue write can be refused: not visible,
responsible-user ceiling, responsible user unavailable, excluded actor
class, assignee run lock, per-run cross-task cap, missing run context,
and rejected attribution. Each entry names the boundary, who can act,
and the sanctioned path.
- Maps server authorization decisions onto that contract in
`server/src/routes/issues.ts` and
`server/src/services/cross-issue-influence-limit.ts`. The flattened
`error` string carries all three obligations, and `details.code` lets
the UI render the same words. The two cap codes keep the names they
already ship under.
- Adds `CommentAttributionChip`. It renders "for {user}" beside the
author name on agent comments where the author is not the assignee. It
renders nothing when no responsible user is recorded, so older rows stay
clean. It is wired into both `IssueChatThread` and the flagged
`TaskChatThread` redesign.
- Adds `IssueFieldChangeReceipt`. It renders the change receipt under
`issue.updated` rows in the activity stream. Ids resolve to agent and
user names where the directory is loaded. Server-truncated text is
labelled as a preview, so the receipt never implies that it shows a
whole value.
- Adds `IssueWriteDenialNotice`. It renders the shared copy in the app,
keyed off the denial events the server logs on a task.
- Adds a public `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration` page. It renders all
three surfaces and their edge cases for review without a seeded thread.
This follows the existing `ux-lab` pages.
## Verification
Automated, all green:
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/issue-write-denial.test.ts # 17 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueWriteDenialNotice.test.tsx \
src/components/IssueFieldChangeReceipt.test.tsx src/components/CommentAttributionChip.test.tsx \
src/lib/issue-change-receipt.test.ts src/lib/comment-attribution.test.ts # 46 tests
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts # 98 tests
```
`tsc --noEmit` passes for the shared, ui, and server packages.
Manual, in a browser:
1. Start the UI only: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vite`.
2. Open `/ux-lab/cross-issue-collaboration`. No session is needed,
because `ux-lab` routes are public.
3. All three surfaces were captured at 1440x900 in light mode and dark
mode, and at 390x844. The page reported no errors.
4. The chip tooltip was opened by a hover and by a keyboard focus.
Rendering the page found defects that the tests had missed. Three copy
and contrast defects were fixed, and two of them are now pinned by a
test. A design review then found three layout defects, which are also
fixed: the denial notice orphaned its label when a value wrapped, the
receipt icon wrapped onto its own line at narrow widths, and the chip
tooltip was reachable by hover only.
## Risks
Low risk, and additive.
- Every new surface renders nothing when its data is absent. Comments
without a recorded responsible user show no chip, and activity events
without a receipt show no receipt, so existing rows do not change.
- No migration is included. The data these surfaces read already ships.
- The wire values of the two per-run cap denial codes are unchanged.
Only the human-readable text changes, plus six codes that had no
`details.code` before.
- The denial copy is read by agents as well as people. If wording must
change later, one shared module is the only place to change it.
- Roadmap check: this extends the completed "Activity log & action
attribution" area rather than duplicating planned core work.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context
window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. It ran as
an agent in Claude Code and drove a real browser to capture the review
screenshots.
## 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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta
Dotta
scotttong
Tonio
