## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task list and the chat views show a Live badge and a Working
shimmer for an issue that has an active run.
> - A finished task kept the Live badge and the Working shimmer after
the run ended and the sandbox stopped.
> - The user interface reads run liveness from the
`heartbeat_runs.status` row. The run finalizer writes the terminal
status in a step that is separate from the agent `status=done` update.
When the sandbox or the run process stops between the two steps,
`heartbeat_runs.status` stays `running` forever.
> - A run row that stays `running` makes a finished task look
perpetually Live, and the user interface has no guard for an issue that
already reached a terminal status.
> - This pull request closes the invariant "environment lease released
implies the run is terminal" on the server, and adds a user interface
guard that suppresses live state for a terminal issue.
> - The benefit is that a finished task stops showing Live and Working,
both at the source (the run row) and at the surface (the badge and the
shimmer).
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Bug description**
- A completed task kept the Live badge and the Working shimmer after its
run ended and the sandbox was torn down.
**Steps to reproduce**
- Run an agent task to completion. Let the sandbox tear down while the
run finalizer is between the `status=done` update and the terminal
run-status write.
- Open the task list or the chat view for the finished task.
**Expected behavior**
- A finished task shows no Live badge and no Working shimmer.
**Actual behavior (before this change)**
- The finished task showed the Live badge and the Working shimmer
because its `heartbeat_runs.status` row stayed `running`.
This pull request supersedes the two separate pull requests #10954
(frontend) and #10955 (backend). It carries all of their changes for the
same race.
## What Changed
Server:
- Run teardown terminalizes a still-running or still-queued run before
it releases the environment lease. It writes `succeeded` when the issue
already reached `done`, `cancelled` when the issue is `cancelled`, and
`interrupted` otherwise. It never overwrites a status that another path
already made terminal.
- The recovery stale-lock sweep terminalizes an orphaned running run to
`interrupted` after it confirms the process and the sandbox are both
gone. It requires recorded process metadata, so it never terminalizes a
live run, a queued run, or a scheduled retry.
- Each terminal transition writes a run event.
- The stale-lock sweep continues and clears the lock when the audit
write fails. It logs the failure loudly.
- New server tests cover both invariants.
User interface:
- A shared guard suppresses the Live badge and the Working shimmer when
the issue status is terminal.
- The guard keeps non-terminal `queued` and `running` issues live.
- The guard prefers the newest issue live-status snapshot.
- New user interface tests cover the guard and the snapshot preference.
## Verification
Server:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps && tsc
--noEmit` in `server/` — 0 errors.
- `pnpm --filter server test
heartbeat-run-lease-release-terminalization.test.ts
recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts` — 12 tests pass.
User interface:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — 0 errors.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/liveIssueIds.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 40 tests pass.
## Risks
- Low risk. The server change only forces a still-live run row to a
terminal status when the lease releases or when the recovery sweep
confirms the process is dead. It never overwrites an existing terminal
status, and it guards the recovery path with process metadata to avoid
terminalizing a live run.
- The user interface change is additive. The guard only suppresses live
state for a terminal issue and keeps queued and running issues live.
- No database migration. No change to any external endpoint.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, 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 (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 lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is
still productive, stalled, or ready for review.
> - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but
there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review
permissions.
> - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so
recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable
work.
> - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service
layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration
surfaces, and docs.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip`
`master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest
migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`.
> - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves
Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making
stalled work easier to route.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task:
[PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275).
## Problem or motivation
Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped
work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task
ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and
see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain
limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link
approvals, or submit approval comments.
## Proposed solution
Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation
guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and
documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under
explicit boundaries.
## Alternatives considered
Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep
stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment
harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable
scoped-review issue for stalled task trees.
## Roadmap alignment
This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task
execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not
duplicate an existing planned core item.
## What Changed
- Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators,
CRUD API, and service support.
- Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation
enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate
guidance.
- Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks,
viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting.
- Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and
implementation semantics.
- Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked
cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog
migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to
`0104_issue_watchdogs`.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with
a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind
constant.
- Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes,
scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility,
settings, and new issue dialog behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
- Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB
schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task
configuration.
- Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting
and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and
production agents.
- The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` /
duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local
migration number should not get duplicate-object failures.
- CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest
review-fix push.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact
runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool
use and local command execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add
screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the
work.
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Human operators supervise that work through issue lists, issue
detail, comments, inbox groups, markdown references, and
profile/activity surfaces
> - The branch had many small UI fixes that improve the operator loop
but do not need to ship with backend runtime migrations
> - These changes belong together as board workflow polish because they
affect scanning, navigation, issue context, comment state, and markdown
clarity
> - This pull request groups the UI-only slice so it can merge
independently from runtime/backend changes
> - The benefit is a clearer board experience with better issue context,
steadier optimistic updates, and more predictable keyboard navigation
## What Changed
- Improves issue properties, sub-issue actions, blocker chips, and issue
list/detail refresh behavior.
- Adds blocker context above the issue composer and stabilizes
queued/interrupted comment UI state.
- Improves markdown issue/GitHub link rendering and opens external
markdown links in a new tab.
- Adds inbox group keyboard navigation and fold/unfold support.
- Polishes activity/avatar/profile/settings/workspace presentation
details.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts
ui/src/lib/optimistic-issue-comments.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low to medium risk: changes are UI-focused but cover high-traffic
issue and inbox surfaces.
- This branch intentionally does not include the backend runtime changes
from the companion PR; where UI calls newer API filters, unsupported
servers should continue to fail visibly through existing API error
handling.
- Visual screenshots were not captured in this heartbeat; targeted
component/helper tests cover the changed behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent runtime, shell/git tool use
enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in
this Paperclip heartbeat environment.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Nicky Leach
Dotta