## 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>
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>
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task page is the main place where people guide and review agent
work.
> - Native runner events already project into the existing task chat on
the lower stack.
> - The larger task workspace must support those events without breaking
direct adapters.
> - Legacy questions, final replies, empty transcripts, and classic
controls must keep their behavior.
> - This pull request completes the provider-neutral task workspace
experience.
> - The benefit is one coherent task surface for native and direct
execution paths.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12639.
Refs #12617.
Refs #12352.
**Subsystem affected**
Task chat, task detail, side panels, interaction forms, and transcript
presentation.
**Problem or motivation**
The task page does not provide one complete workspace for live activity,
plans, questions, queued guidance, files, and documents. Earlier native
UI work also exposed compatibility risks in legacy question and reply
paths.
**Proposed solution**
Add the task workspace components and provider-neutral protocol
presentation. Keep runner-only controls behind runtime facts. Preserve
all direct-adapter composer, transcript, interaction, and finalization
behavior.
**Alternatives considered**
A separate runner page would duplicate task behavior. Replacing legacy
transcript logic would create unnecessary adapter regressions.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the unified task experience and the Cloud and Sandbox
agents milestone.
## Stack
- Base PR: #12639.
- Lower PR: #12638.
- This PR contains only its 119-file UI delta against
`runner/remote-wss-transport`.
- The next stack PR adds administrator and observability controls.
## What Changed
- Added a reusable task workspace side panel for files and documents.
- Added provider-neutral cards for tools, plans, questions, protocol
activity, and progress.
- Added queued guidance and richer composer state.
- Added compact and expanded interaction presentation.
- Added live activity, thinking, usage, recovery, and final reply
presentation.
- Added document annotations and task deep links.
- Added bounded question validation and response handling.
- Preserved native runner event projection from master.
- Preserved legacy channel-less replies and explicit final reply
precedence.
- Preserved direct-adapter and classic-interface controls.
- Did not change server execution selection, Rust code, migrations,
workflows, or `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- GitHub Actions will run UI tests, repository tests, typecheck, build,
browser tests, security, and policy gates.
- Tests cover active, settled, empty-transcript, interaction,
queued-message, plan, question, file, document, and classic-interface
states.
- Compatibility tests cover direct adapters and native runner projection
together.
- Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses
GitHub Actions for this series.
- `git diff --check runner/remote-wss-transport...HEAD` passes.
- The delta contains 119 UI-only files.
## Risks
- This is a large task-page change.
- Most files are new focused components and tests.
- Shared transcript code keeps the lower native projection and legacy
direct-adapter fallbacks.
- Runner-only controls use adapter and runtime facts.
- No execution path or rollout flag changes in this PR.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode,
repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with Fixes: / Closes /
Refs OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The 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 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
> - 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
> - 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators talk to their agents on the issue detail page. An
experimental "Chat-Style Tasks" view (#10606) makes that page read as a
conversation instead of a ticket form.
> - The first release of that view shipped with a plain-text composer,
no visible narration while an agent works, and a desktop-only layout.
> - Users write formatted replies, paste screenshots, and follow long
agent runs from their phones. The experimental view should support all
of that before it can graduate.
> - This pull request is the next iteration of the same experiment: a
rich-text composer with attachments, live-turn narration on the status
line, cleaner settled-turn history, and a mobile layout.
> - The benefit is a chat view that feels alive while the agent works
and stays readable after it finishes, on desktop and mobile, still fully
behind the existing opt-in flag.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #49 (chat with agents is a much-wanted feature).
Refs #10606 (the merged first release of the experimental chat-style
task view; this PR iterates on it).
Related PRs found in the dedup search:
- #8228 — open PR that polishes the classic issue chat composer. It
targets the flag-off legacy path; this PR only changes the flag-on
experimental view.
- #10466 — merged blockquote-recovery fix in the shared MarkdownEditor.
This PR now reuses that editor inside the chat composer.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The experimental "Chat-Style Tasks" view on the issue detail page
(Settings → Experimental, `enableTaskChatRedesign`, default off).
**Subsystem affected**
UI (issue detail page, chat-style task view).
**Current behavior**
With the experiment enabled, the composer is a plain textarea with no
formatting, no attachment preview, and no mention support. While an
agent runs, the status line shows only a static label, and the agent's
narration text is hidden. Finished runs render one settled row per turn,
so a run with many short turns produces a long list of near-duplicate
"Worked" rows, and turns without a comment append at the bottom out of
order. On mobile, the desktop bounded-height thread makes the page
scroll poorly.
**Proposed behavior**
The composer uses the shared MarkdownEditor: markdown formatting,
mentions, image paste with thumbnail previews, and non-image attachment
chips. Sending posts on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter. While an agent runs, the status
line rotates playful status words and surfaces the agent's own narration
as short interstitial updates: each update holds for a minimum dwell, is
replaced only when superseded, and slides through a one-line viewport
with tokenized motion. Back-to-back settled turns coalesce into one
"Worked" row with summed durations and re-derived tool counts, and
comment-less settled turns insert chronologically at their run's start
time. On mobile, the thread renders in the document flow with window
auto-follow and a sticky safe-area composer; the desktop layout is
unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
The chat view is only convincing if it feels like a conversation with a
working agent. Rich text and screenshots are table stakes for chat
input. Live narration gives moment-to-moment feedback without opening
transcripts. Coalesced history keeps long-running tasks readable. Mobile
support lets operators follow runs away from their desks.
**Breaking changes**
None. Every change is gated behind the existing `enableTaskChatRedesign`
flag, which is off by default. The flag-off page is unchanged.
## What Changed
- `TaskChatComposer` swaps its textarea for the shared `MarkdownEditor`:
markdown formatting, mentions, image paste with object-URL thumbnail
previews (revoked on clear and unmount), and posting on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter.
- Non-image attachments render as chips on a new shared
`ui/attachment.tsx` primitive (adds the `@base-ui/react` dependency it
builds on).
- New `status-whimsy.ts`: deterministic rotation of playful status words
on the live status line.
- Live interstitial narration: the transcript adapter tags agent
self-talk, and the live status line shows it as ephemeral one-line
updates with a ~4s minimum dwell, hold-until-superseded replacement, and
a slide transition driven by new `--motion-line-scroll` tokens
(cataloged in `motion-tokens.ts`, which a test keeps 1:1 with
`index.css`). Hover affordance applies only to the status line, with no
leading icon.
- Settled-turn history: `coalesceSettledTurns` merges back-to-back
settled agent turns into one "Worked" row (summed per-run durations,
tool counts re-derived from the merged turn); `assembleThreadItems`
inserts comment-less settled turns chronologically at run start instead
of appending them at the bottom; settled turns render tool rows only
(the separate thinking block component is removed).
- The "Worked" summary attaches to the reply timestamp row, and thread
timestamps are always visible.
- Mobile layout: the thread renders with `scroll={false}` in the page
scroll, a new `useWindowAutoFollow` hook keeps the window pinned to new
content, the composer is sticky with safe-area padding, and the editor
uses 16px text so iOS does not zoom on focus. The desktop bounded chain
is untouched.
- New `TaskChatDescriptionBubble` renders the issue description as the
first chat bubble, and `McpIcon` gives MCP tools a distinct icon.
- `IssueDetail.test.tsx` stubs `TaskChatThread`: the composer's
`@mdxeditor` dependency cannot load under jsdom's CSSOM, and the suite
exercises the flag-off path.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN.
- `node scripts/check-task-chat-motion.mjs` — OK (30 files scanned,
seams present).
- `cd ui && npx tsc -b` — clean.
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` — 3,482 of 3,483 tests pass locally. The
one failure is the `IssueProperties.test.tsx` monitor-row
time-formatting test, which is timezone-sensitive: it fails identically
on unmodified `origin/master` in a non-UTC timezone and passes with
`TZ=UTC`. It is not related to this change.
- Manual: enable "Chat-Style Tasks" in Settings → Experimental and open
an issue with an assigned agent. Comment to start a run: the status line
rotates status words and shows the agent's narration as short held
updates. After the run, consecutive turns fold into one "Worked" row
under the reply timestamp. Paste an image into the composer to see a
thumbnail chip; attach a non-image file to see a file chip; send with
Cmd+Enter. Open the same issue in a narrow viewport to see the
document-flow layout with the sticky composer.
- Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated: per
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`, "Per-change snapshot verification
demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)".
## Risks
- The composer now loads the shared MarkdownEditor inside the chat view.
The editor is already used across the app (issue descriptions,
comments), so its behavior is well exercised; composer-specific handling
(paste, attachments, submit keys) is covered by new tests.
- The transcript adapter changes how live narration and settled turns
are derived from run logs. Malformed or legacy logs degrade to generic
rows rather than crashing, and the adapter suites cover the merge and
ordering rules.
- Object URLs for paste previews are revoked on send-clear and unmount
to avoid leaks; jsdom environments without `URL.createObjectURL` are
guarded.
- All changes are behind the default-off `enableTaskChatRedesign` flag.
Overall risk with the flag off is low.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5),
extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file editing, shell, test
execution) via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators spend most of their time on the issue detail page. They
talk to the assigned agent there through comments.
> - The current page reads as a ticket form. The thread sits below
properties, the composer sits mid-page, and live agent activity renders
as dense transcript logs.
> - Talking to an agent is a conversation. A chat-first layout matches
that mental model better than a ticket form.
> - A layout change this large must not disrupt current users. It needs
a safe opt-in path and full parity with the existing thread features.
> - This pull request adds a chat-style task view behind a new
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle. The flag is off by default and the
existing page is unchanged when it is off.
> - The benefit is a focused, readable conversation with the agent: live
tool activity folds into compact summaries, the composer stays at the
bottom, and properties, plan, and artifacts move into header tabs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #49 (chat with agents is a much-wanted feature).
Related PRs found in the dedup search:
- #4489 — an earlier, closed attempt to promote the conversation to the
primary surface on issue detail. This PR is a fresh, flag-gated take on
the same goal.
- #8837 — an open PR that proposes a two-column task layout. It
restructures the same page but keeps the ticket paradigm; this PR is
orthogonal because it is opt-in and chat-first.
**Subsystem affected**
UI (issue detail page).
**Problem or motivation**
The issue detail page presents agent conversations as a ticket:
properties first, thread below, composer in the middle of the page, and
raw transcript noise during live runs. Users who mainly converse with
their agents must scroll past chrome to follow the conversation, and
live activity is hard to read.
**Proposed solution**
An opt-in chat-style view of the issue detail page, gated by a new
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle in Settings → Experimental. With
the flag on, the thread fills the center pane, the composer docks to the
bottom of the viewport, Properties / Plan / Artifacts become header
tabs, live turns show a status pill with the current tool action and
elapsed time, and settled turns collapse to a "Worked · N tools" summary
that expands into per-tool rows. With the flag off, nothing changes.
**Alternatives considered**
Restyling the existing layout in place (rejected: too disruptive without
an opt-out), and a separate chat page beside the issue page (rejected:
splits the task's single source of truth). A per-request lab page
(`/task-chat-lab`, dev-only) was kept for design iteration instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
ROADMAP.md "CEO Chat" wants lighter conversations that still resolve to
real work objects. This PR keeps the core task-and-comments model — it
only changes presentation, opt-in — so it does not duplicate that
planned work.
## What Changed
- New `enableTaskChatRedesign` instance setting, exposed as a
"Chat-Style Tasks" experiment card in Settings → Experimental (shared
feature catalog, validators, server instance-settings service, and UI
settings page).
- New `ui/src/components/task-chat/` component family: chat thread with
turn grouping, agent reply bubbles, live status pill, collapsible turn
summaries with per-tool rows, plan tab with a sticky CTA action bar,
inline interaction cards, per-request mode chips, and a bottom-docked
composer.
- A shared tool taxonomy (`tool-taxonomy.ts`) maps tool names to verbs
and icons; the status pill, tool rows, and the classic transcript view
all use it.
- A transcript adapter converts stored run logs into chat turns; it
dedupes tool-call updates by `toolUseId` so tool counts match the
expanded rows, and it keeps a tool row's first real name when later
generic updates arrive.
- Composer: posts on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter, supports image paste with
object-URL thumbnail previews (revoked on clear/unmount), and uploads
through the issue attachments route.
- `IssueDetail.tsx`: with the flag on, pane tabs move to the header bar,
the header is not sticky, and the chat fills the center; with the flag
off, the previous layout renders unchanged.
- Motion tokens for the new animations live in `ui/src/index.css` with a
`motion-tokens.ts` catalog and a test that keeps the two in sync (the
catalog now also covers the shared enter/exit/swap tokens that the
decision/quicklook block declares).
- A dev-only `/task-chat-lab` page with fixtures and a tweak panel for
motion tuning.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean across the workspace.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN.
- `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` — 3,344 of 3,345 tests pass locally. The
one failure is `IssueProperties.test.tsx` monitor-row time formatting,
which is timezone-sensitive: it also fails on unmodified `origin/master`
in a non-UTC timezone and passes with `TZ=UTC`. It is not related to
this change.
- `cd server && pnpm vitest run
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — 21/21 pass (covers
the new setting).
- Manual: start the dev server, open Settings → Experimental, enable
"Chat-Style Tasks", and open any issue. The thread fills the page, the
composer docks to the bottom, and Properties / Plan / Artifacts appear
as header tabs. Assign an agent and comment to watch a live run: the
status pill shows the current tool action with elapsed time, and the
finished turn folds into a "Worked · N tools" summary. Disable the
toggle and confirm the classic page is unchanged.
- Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated: per
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`, "Per-change snapshot verification
demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)".
## Risks
- The flag-off path goes through the same `IssueDetail.tsx` file, so a
regression there would affect current users. Mitigation: the classic
markup renders through the same components as before behind explicit
flag conditionals, and the full UI suite passes.
- The transcript adapter interprets stored run-log formats, including
legacy entries without `toolUseId`. Malformed logs degrade to generic
tool rows rather than crashing.
- The new view changes no server behavior other than one additive
instance setting; it is additive and default-off. Overall risk with the
flag off is low.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5),
extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file editing, shell, test
execution) via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta
Dotta
scotttong